The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Many gamers across the world buy gaming magazines. They inform us on events, let us know which games are coming out, and most importantly give an all important verdict on current games. It's not like the industry for gaming mags is a small one. With just under 20 mags released a month in this country alone, there is certainly plenty of choice.
I read Play. Makes sense to read a PS2 magazine when I own a PS2, I'm not sure the latest copy of NGC or XGamer would keep em up to date on what's hot and what's not on PS2. I like the magazine because it's funny, appeals to my age group (20-30) and has good reviews.
It would also make sense to get the magazine every month if I want to know about all the games, so it comes as no surprise that I do indeed spend 3.99 a month to get an expert view on games. But is this view really expert..?
I read an article in Play where they looked at games released a while back, which, at the time, were very good. They then concluded that Jungle Book Groove Party (92%!), Fantavision (90%) and Smuggler's Run (86%) had far too high scores.
This got me thinking (wow): At the time they reviewed the games, their opinion was a high one, although they look back at it and confess they were a little OTT. This means that the impression they had of the game when they reviewed it was much higher than the impression they have of it now. Well, these games don't get worse, so what is it?
You'd probably say "The games are getting better" almost on instinct. But, because games are getting better, it doesn't mean these games are actually any worse than they first were. It looks a lot like that, but isn't, so what is it?
I decided to look at some of my reviews, with some interesting results:
A lot of the time when I review a game I usually have come off from a glorious session on it and want to sing it's praises on here. That's just what it is though. At the time I reviewed it, I was in a positive frame of mind about the game.
I'll look at a few examples:
Firstly, my Prisoner Of War review was a little OTT. I had just completed it, was proud of my achievements (a swift use of a cheat :-D) and wanted to say how great I though it was. However, after replaying the game trying to get the positive thoughts back in my head, they never came and I would now give the game an 8 at most.
My Project Zero review. Only 2 days old and already i think I was too over the top. It is the greatest survival horror game ever, but 10/10 is a risky mark to use. 10/10 means that a game is perfect, and even Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't perfect. This is also why i prefer percentage scores (or scores like 9.4) as they are more precise. No game has ever got 10.0 or 100%, so 10/10 must be as unlikely as those. Anyway, I would now chop PZ down to a very good 9.
Again, Tiger Woods 2002 received 10/10 from the Ashermeister. (:-D). No game is perfect, and this game is nowhere near perfect. 8/10 these days.
Once again, Metal Gear 2 and MOH received the perfect score. You surely know what I think about this by now.
Anyway, if these marks can be a little high from me, what's to stop a magazine journalist from making the same mistakes? Are most reviews scored not by quality but by the reviewers impression after he comes off the game post-review?
I read Play. Makes sense to read a PS2 magazine when I own a PS2, I'm not sure the latest copy of NGC or XGamer would keep em up to date on what's hot and what's not on PS2. I like the magazine because it's funny, appeals to my age group (20-30) and has good reviews.
It would also make sense to get the magazine every month if I want to know about all the games, so it comes as no surprise that I do indeed spend 3.99 a month to get an expert view on games. But is this view really expert..?
I read an article in Play where they looked at games released a while back, which, at the time, were very good. They then concluded that Jungle Book Groove Party (92%!), Fantavision (90%) and Smuggler's Run (86%) had far too high scores.
This got me thinking (wow): At the time they reviewed the games, their opinion was a high one, although they look back at it and confess they were a little OTT. This means that the impression they had of the game when they reviewed it was much higher than the impression they have of it now. Well, these games don't get worse, so what is it?
You'd probably say "The games are getting better" almost on instinct. But, because games are getting better, it doesn't mean these games are actually any worse than they first were. It looks a lot like that, but isn't, so what is it?
I decided to look at some of my reviews, with some interesting results:
A lot of the time when I review a game I usually have come off from a glorious session on it and want to sing it's praises on here. That's just what it is though. At the time I reviewed it, I was in a positive frame of mind about the game.
I'll look at a few examples:
Firstly, my Prisoner Of War review was a little OTT. I had just completed it, was proud of my achievements (a swift use of a cheat :-D) and wanted to say how great I though it was. However, after replaying the game trying to get the positive thoughts back in my head, they never came and I would now give the game an 8 at most.
My Project Zero review. Only 2 days old and already i think I was too over the top. It is the greatest survival horror game ever, but 10/10 is a risky mark to use. 10/10 means that a game is perfect, and even Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't perfect. This is also why i prefer percentage scores (or scores like 9.4) as they are more precise. No game has ever got 10.0 or 100%, so 10/10 must be as unlikely as those. Anyway, I would now chop PZ down to a very good 9.
Again, Tiger Woods 2002 received 10/10 from the Ashermeister. (:-D). No game is perfect, and this game is nowhere near perfect. 8/10 these days.
Once again, Metal Gear 2 and MOH received the perfect score. You surely know what I think about this by now.
Anyway, if these marks can be a little high from me, what's to stop a magazine journalist from making the same mistakes? Are most reviews scored not by quality but by the reviewers impression after he comes off the game post-review?
Magazines tell the truth as it is expressed by a particular person and his or her opinion.
If all reviews were of 'expert' quality, would we get such variations in game scores?
Here are a few games that both NGC and G-Force magazine have reviewed - see how their 'expert' scores compare:
(1st score = NGC 2nd score = G-force)
Zoocube 50.00% 82.00%
WWE Wrestlemania X8 70.00% 69.00%
Super Smash Bros: Melee 95.00% 94.00%
Super Monkey Ball 88.00% 88.00%
Luigi's Mansion 90.00% 75.00%
Jeremy McGrath Supercross World 20.00% 46.00%
Gauntlet Dark Legacy 25.00% 52.00%
Extreme G3 85.00% 50.00%
2002 Fifa World Cup 30.00% 60.00%
As you can see, in some cases, Super Monkey Ball for example, the scores are exactly the same, whereas others, 2002 Fifa World Cup as an example, the scores are completely different! They're both 'expert' opinions but by different people.
Everyone is going to have their own opinions on games, and they're bound to be different to the 'experts', but the most qualified gamer to tell you about games is yourself. Never take what magazines say with all your heart - try some of the games they say aren't so good, you may like them. After all, human's aren't sheep (sheepy excluded), we can all make our own decisions.
If all reviews were of 'expert' quality, would we get such variations in game scores?
Here are a few games that both NGC and G-Force magazine have reviewed - see how their 'expert' scores compare:
(1st score = NGC 2nd score = G-force)
Zoocube 50.00% 82.00%
WWE Wrestlemania X8 70.00% 69.00%
Super Smash Bros: Melee 95.00% 94.00%
Super Monkey Ball 88.00% 88.00%
Luigi's Mansion 90.00% 75.00%
Jeremy McGrath Supercross World 20.00% 46.00%
Gauntlet Dark Legacy 25.00% 52.00%
Extreme G3 85.00% 50.00%
2002 Fifa World Cup 30.00% 60.00%
As you can see, in some cases, Super Monkey Ball for example, the scores are exactly the same, whereas others, 2002 Fifa World Cup as an example, the scores are completely different! They're both 'expert' opinions but by different people.
Everyone is going to have their own opinions on games, and they're bound to be different to the 'experts', but the most qualified gamer to tell you about games is yourself. Never take what magazines say with all your heart - try some of the games they say aren't so good, you may like them. After all, human's aren't sheep (sheepy excluded), we can all make our own decisions.
El blokey wrote:
> Whoops, Play isn't official ;-) but it's still true.
Play is independant, yet has given some very controversial scores. They found Metal Gear quite hard - 81% :-)
> Whoops, Play isn't official ;-) but it's still true.
Play is independant, yet has given some very controversial scores. They found Metal Gear quite hard - 81% :-)
Sorry to post yet again, but - 10/10 is not perfect. It's just the best rating. We've had this argument with TimeSplitters 2. Obviously no game is 100% perfect, but if it's closer to 100 than 90, give it 10. If you see what I mean.
Whoops, Play isn't official ;-) but it's still true.
Of course reviews are the reviewers opinion!! You've pretty much answered your own question at the end there, and if you've just completed a game you really enjoyed, of course you'll give it a high score.
And I don't think you've used a good example to be truthful, as official mags will shill the launch titles no matter how good they are.
And I don't think you've used a good example to be truthful, as official mags will shill the launch titles no matter how good they are.
Many gamers across the world buy gaming magazines. They inform us on events, let us know which games are coming out, and most importantly give an all important verdict on current games. It's not like the industry for gaming mags is a small one. With just under 20 mags released a month in this country alone, there is certainly plenty of choice.
I read Play. Makes sense to read a PS2 magazine when I own a PS2, I'm not sure the latest copy of NGC or XGamer would keep em up to date on what's hot and what's not on PS2. I like the magazine because it's funny, appeals to my age group (20-30) and has good reviews.
It would also make sense to get the magazine every month if I want to know about all the games, so it comes as no surprise that I do indeed spend 3.99 a month to get an expert view on games. But is this view really expert..?
I read an article in Play where they looked at games released a while back, which, at the time, were very good. They then concluded that Jungle Book Groove Party (92%!), Fantavision (90%) and Smuggler's Run (86%) had far too high scores.
This got me thinking (wow): At the time they reviewed the games, their opinion was a high one, although they look back at it and confess they were a little OTT. This means that the impression they had of the game when they reviewed it was much higher than the impression they have of it now. Well, these games don't get worse, so what is it?
You'd probably say "The games are getting better" almost on instinct. But, because games are getting better, it doesn't mean these games are actually any worse than they first were. It looks a lot like that, but isn't, so what is it?
I decided to look at some of my reviews, with some interesting results:
A lot of the time when I review a game I usually have come off from a glorious session on it and want to sing it's praises on here. That's just what it is though. At the time I reviewed it, I was in a positive frame of mind about the game.
I'll look at a few examples:
Firstly, my Prisoner Of War review was a little OTT. I had just completed it, was proud of my achievements (a swift use of a cheat :-D) and wanted to say how great I though it was. However, after replaying the game trying to get the positive thoughts back in my head, they never came and I would now give the game an 8 at most.
My Project Zero review. Only 2 days old and already i think I was too over the top. It is the greatest survival horror game ever, but 10/10 is a risky mark to use. 10/10 means that a game is perfect, and even Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't perfect. This is also why i prefer percentage scores (or scores like 9.4) as they are more precise. No game has ever got 10.0 or 100%, so 10/10 must be as unlikely as those. Anyway, I would now chop PZ down to a very good 9.
Again, Tiger Woods 2002 received 10/10 from the Ashermeister. (:-D). No game is perfect, and this game is nowhere near perfect. 8/10 these days.
Once again, Metal Gear 2 and MOH received the perfect score. You surely know what I think about this by now.
Anyway, if these marks can be a little high from me, what's to stop a magazine journalist from making the same mistakes? Are most reviews scored not by quality but by the reviewers impression after he comes off the game post-review?
I read Play. Makes sense to read a PS2 magazine when I own a PS2, I'm not sure the latest copy of NGC or XGamer would keep em up to date on what's hot and what's not on PS2. I like the magazine because it's funny, appeals to my age group (20-30) and has good reviews.
It would also make sense to get the magazine every month if I want to know about all the games, so it comes as no surprise that I do indeed spend 3.99 a month to get an expert view on games. But is this view really expert..?
I read an article in Play where they looked at games released a while back, which, at the time, were very good. They then concluded that Jungle Book Groove Party (92%!), Fantavision (90%) and Smuggler's Run (86%) had far too high scores.
This got me thinking (wow): At the time they reviewed the games, their opinion was a high one, although they look back at it and confess they were a little OTT. This means that the impression they had of the game when they reviewed it was much higher than the impression they have of it now. Well, these games don't get worse, so what is it?
You'd probably say "The games are getting better" almost on instinct. But, because games are getting better, it doesn't mean these games are actually any worse than they first were. It looks a lot like that, but isn't, so what is it?
I decided to look at some of my reviews, with some interesting results:
A lot of the time when I review a game I usually have come off from a glorious session on it and want to sing it's praises on here. That's just what it is though. At the time I reviewed it, I was in a positive frame of mind about the game.
I'll look at a few examples:
Firstly, my Prisoner Of War review was a little OTT. I had just completed it, was proud of my achievements (a swift use of a cheat :-D) and wanted to say how great I though it was. However, after replaying the game trying to get the positive thoughts back in my head, they never came and I would now give the game an 8 at most.
My Project Zero review. Only 2 days old and already i think I was too over the top. It is the greatest survival horror game ever, but 10/10 is a risky mark to use. 10/10 means that a game is perfect, and even Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't perfect. This is also why i prefer percentage scores (or scores like 9.4) as they are more precise. No game has ever got 10.0 or 100%, so 10/10 must be as unlikely as those. Anyway, I would now chop PZ down to a very good 9.
Again, Tiger Woods 2002 received 10/10 from the Ashermeister. (:-D). No game is perfect, and this game is nowhere near perfect. 8/10 these days.
Once again, Metal Gear 2 and MOH received the perfect score. You surely know what I think about this by now.
Anyway, if these marks can be a little high from me, what's to stop a magazine journalist from making the same mistakes? Are most reviews scored not by quality but by the reviewers impression after he comes off the game post-review?