PS3 Genji Review

fo real



thats why...



OT:

you just stop adding up the categorical scores @ign...

i mean it could be gears of war with 10 in the GFX department
and 5 into gameplay mechanics and it would still get like 9.2 Score.

Right?

 

Sorry, err, dude, it wasn't even directed at you
Just general ... unfocused, at-the-crowd satire. Sorry.

Your understanding of physics is disappointing. Of course the number of reviews is finite, but each review has an indeterminate outcome until the first person looks at it. The state of the review is locked by the sampling.

 

I believe it was Heavenly Sword that made mention of real time weapon switching.[/QUOTE]

No it was Genji. Heavenly Sword seemed to be the only game to leave Sony's E3 press conference without being mocked.

 

HAHAHAHA... these arent Schroedinger(sp?) reviews!!! hahahahahaha

 

The E3 presentation was an unmitigated disaster. It's a total no-no, and should be remembered ever after by all personnell in the gaming industry, that you do not let the same person who plays the game also at the same time do the talking to the crowd.

As geeky and universally talented as game developers may think they are, it is difficult to talk like a normal person and play like a normal person simultaneously. That needs training, and you still might fail. I think Ted Price is one of the few individuals who have demonstrated they can do it.

 

*bows down to knowledge*

 

There is no such thing as a perfect score either.

A 10 score doesn't mean the game is perfect, it just means it's better than all of the other games it's competing against. Games aren't scored on how close they come to perfection.

How would you determine what "perfect graphics" were? You would have to if a 10 in graphics meant they were perfect. What about "perfect sound"? Would that mean they were clear, well recorded, the best artistic match for the graphics, or simply had the most accurate electric guitar sound?

You are right, there is no such thing as a perfect game, but then again, there is no such thing as a perfect score either.

 

Guys, a perfect score such as 10/10 to me is just like a movie getting 4 stars out of 4 stars.

 

*blank stare*
Thanks, but I'll have to decline.

 

Exactly. Games can only be scored relative to other games that have been created. A 10/10 does mean it is a perfect game, since that's impossible, it simply means it's the best of the best currently.

 

It's pretty pointless to to review scales on a scale of 1-10 (more pointless if it's 1-100) when actually only thing you need is a 3 step scale:

- A: Buy
- B: Buy it if it's in discount
- C: Don't buy it.

That's the way it pretty much goes in real life.

 

But if there are lots of 10's in that category, which one is the best one of those? They can't possibly expect us to buy them all!


Seriously though, all games above a certain point (i think it's around 9.something on IGN and Gamespot personally) should be bought or at least rented. Then who cares if one is a 9.6, one is a 9.8 and one is a bloody 9.82372^log12*2/100???

Can't we all just enjoy the bloody things?

 

The decimal scorings are pretty ridiculous. How do you determine a game is 1/100th better than another game? I think the out of 5s and out of 10s work though. I could certainly put games into perhaps 5 brackets - Fantastic, Great, Good, Okay, and don't bother playing. You could subdivide the Don't bother playing category into Nothing fun about it, Bug ridden trash, God Damned Awful experience, No savign grace and the developers should be shot for the good of humanity, etc. but what's the point?

Those would fit into score brackets 9+/10 for Fantastic, 8+ for Great, 7+ for Good, 6+ for Okay, etc. It's all terrible subjective though. ICO can be controversially ranked. It's certainly a work of art and can be scored highly for that, but also in gameplay, it's not too hot, so can be scored more lowly. Which way does the reviewer go? 10/10 for originality or 6/10 for being an experience but not going to please people who like their gaming action packed? Both are fair scores from a certain POV. That's kinda why numbers are meaningless, except when you go onto Metacritic to look up a title and see it scored 37%, and then you know not to bother with the game or the reviews (unless it's a franchise you really like)

 

I have a brilliant method of ranking game all worked out in my head. But it's going to take a considerable bit of work to get it up. So I think next I'll have to think of solving that problem by making it manageable in a more wiki-like fashion.

I'm hoping I'll get to it at some point. A new console generation could be a good point to start ...

 

Even though I don't have high expectations for this game at all, based on the review text, I have a feeling that IGN is going to end up at the low end of the review spectrum here.

That said, invisible wall corridors through open areas? What is this? 1980?

 

An OK review overall, but the first part made me wonder a bit:

When has that applied to any PREVIOUS generation? Wonky graphics are usually an easier complaint to lodge at a generation change, but gameplay always goes through the same slow evolution (with occasional inspired points of "punctuated equilibrium" ) during generations, between generations... There's certainly been no set timing.

It's fine to complain about tired gameplay mechanics and other "things developers should have learned to do better by now," but it seems they were grading it overly harsh because it was supposed to be "that much better" magically by the hardware.

Launch titles almost never are.

 

Why is there so much arguing over this? If other reviews are released and corroborate IGN's score then so be it. If other reviews are released and IGN's not even in the ballpark then start complaining and picking apart scoring systems.

 

Generally with reviews you get a better idea about the game from the actual review text than the final score (on all sites -- final scores are kind of a dumb invention and often cause more issues than they solve). The review text made it seem a bit better than the original (gameplay similar to the original with a few improvements -- more characters and battle system slightly more elaborate it seems, not much though) -- Genji 1 with some improvements was sort of what I was expecting, so it doesn't seem out of ordinary.

I do find IGN's scoring funny because of how arbitrary the final score can be -- what's the point of the separate scores if the final score doesn't follow it in any way? (look at the X360 Phantasy star scores, for example, iirc) The final score isn't just a weighted version of the separate scores, it's completely arbitrary. Regardless, the final score seems a bit low, but this isn't like a 9+ game anyways -- 7s are what I'd expect on average from review houses. Even if IGN's ratings are wonky, this game isn't really worth arguing over -- I'll still buy it, but I rather enjoyed the first... no denying it isn't going to be the best game ever though.