Personally I think the reviewers reviewing Assassin Creed as 10/100% should really be the ones called out on the score more than EGM. The game in my eyes from my playing of it is in the 6-7 range so that 4.5 to me feels much closer to where it belongs than the 10's.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ubisoft, Midway MK Team, Sony Sports ban EGM from coverage
- Thread starter iceberg187
- Start date
Personally I think the reviewers reviewing Assassin Creed as 10/100% should really be the ones called out on the score more than EGM. The game in my eyes from my playing of it is in the 6-7 range so that 4.5 to me feels much closer to where it belongs than the 10's.
Personally I think the reviewers reviewing Assassin Creed as 10/100% should really be the ones called out on the score more than EGM. The game in my eyes from my playing of it is in the 6-7 range so that 4.5 to me feels much closer to where it belongs than the 10's.
And I would have to agree with that. I know how subjective this is, but "editors choice"? 10/10? Come on!
Besides the graphics (that are gorgeous I have to agree) what does this game have that others don't? The most shallow fighting system ever perhaps? A huge world that gives you nothing to do but collect flags for no reason at all other than filling up your gamer score?
I think that for all those of you that found this game amazing, this review was meant for us that found it lacking at best.
Or is it that we can feel nice about the fact that an average game nowadays gets the low score of 7 to 8... Not much of a distinction between the finest shit this industry can produce to that rare masterpiece that comes out once every few years.
That's why I liked Edge, although they seem to be getting softer with their reviews lately...
What the? Don't we all remember the huge influence publishers have on review sites? Don't you think the reason Assassin's Creed got the score it did from EGM is because it deserved it and the reason other sites gave it a higher score is from said publisher pressure? No one wanted to like Assassin's Creed more than me I was looking forward to it ever since it was announced but what was delivered in the final product was a mediocre game at best.
I don't agree with the 4.5 Crispin gave the game, I played it, I loved it and I would give it a 7.5 because of the repetitions and a couple of glitches, that said, I read the review and he explains why he feels that score is deserved, his text explains the score, I don't have an issue with it, even if I don't agree.
Ultimately this sort of thing and pressure is horrible for the industry. Maybe it will turn out like the movie industry where only the final product gets reviewed. I don't really understand the position of this companies, they expect gamers to pay $60 for the games, we deserve to have an idea of what we are buying.
Ultimately this sort of thing and pressure is horrible for the industry. Maybe it will turn out like the movie industry where only the final product gets reviewed. I don't really understand the position of this companies, they expect gamers to pay $60 for the games, we deserve to have an idea of what we are buying.
What the? Don't we all remember the huge influence publishers have on review sites? Don't you think the reason Assassin's Creed got the score it did from EGM is because it deserved it and the reason other sites gave it a higher score is from said publisher pressure? No one wanted to like Assassin's Creed more than me I was looking forward to it ever since it was announced but what was delivered in the final product was a mediocre game at best.
Well considering the range of scores that reviews tend to hand out, mediocre is well above a 4.5.
So, why are there that many reviews sites? I mean seriously, it seems like any competent person should be able to get these reviews write. So why don't we lock some person up in a room and never let them out and just write video game reviews. It should give the same results, at least according to some people here...
Well considering the range of scores that reviews tend to hand out, mediocre is well above a 4.5.
If you score games from 1 to 10, 5 should be average. But it seems only a few media follow that logic.
If you score games from 1 to 10, 5 should be average. But it seems only a few media follow that logic.
Even though they use a number scale, most still follow the idea of the school A-F grading scale. A=90%, B=80%, C=70%(average), D=60% and F=59% and lower(failing). It's a time and true way to grade and personally it's easier to understand for most of the public. So anything scoring less than a 6 is failing. When media don't follow this scale that's when reviews are not comparable and therefore meaningless.
Tommy McClain
If you score games from 1 to 10, 5 should be average. But it seems only a few media follow that logic.
You might want to spend a bit more time in math class if you think a range of 1 to 10 leads to 5 being average. 0 to 10 it would. And who said mediocre meant average?
scooby_dooby
Legend
So, why are there that many reviews sites? I mean seriously, it seems like any competent person should be able to get these reviews write. So why don't we lock some person up in a room and never let them out and just write video game reviews. It should give the same results, at least according to some people here...
Within the same ballpark. I said it was fairly easy to guess a score, within 1pt either way.
For example, I can't think of a time I thought a game was a 7, and it averaged a 5.
Having 100's of review sources allows a more accurate average to come out, and almost always gives you a solid approximation of the quality of the title. And by quality I mean: the extent you will enjoy the game if you're a fan of that genre.
I'm actually a huge fan of the current Review system. One trip to metacritic or gamerankings almost always seperates the wheat from chaff.
I don't even know what to say to you, it's like you're completely ignorant of the massive range of reviews that exist for games from various sources even though I've noted a number of them for you. You must only look at the overall score at Metacritic and Gamerankings because if you took the time to look at the range you'd see ones from above the rest to ones below.
Subtlesnake
Regular
Well, for a game to average a 5 it would have to be fundamentally broken on some level, so that's hardly surprising. Scores below 7 are generally reserved for titles that have serious technical issues (graphics, UI, controls, player feedback, etc.), and as such are badly made products.Within the same ballpark. I said it was fairly easy to guess a score, within 1pt either way.
For example, I can't think of a time I thought a game was a 7, and it averaged a 5.
The real review range lies between 7 - 10, and that's where the disparities are found. Also, the higher up the scale you go, the more each percentage point is worth: the difference between 90 and 96 is much more than the difference between 70 and 76. So a score difference of even 10% can represent a pretty huge difference in quality. For FPS, 80% is the low-end: even shooters that are received relatively poorly by the fanbase can get around that mark. On the other hand, 90% is the absolute high-end, reserved for AAA titles.
So that 10% margin of error is actually pretty big.
I've been thinking abit
I tought I'd check up the games on other sites since Ziff Davies doesn't get them.
Is there a new MK game being previewed and reviewed now, or is this just something wich is left after last game came out?
And what games are beeing made by Sony Sports Division?
Is there a branch named that?
I tought they may have been 989 Sports studio (or something like that), wich were annihilated during PS3-launch when Sony were downsizing.
But I saw that 1up had coverage of MLB 2008: The show in December, aswell as information from Sony 10 of January, wich seems to be their next game, all the studio-survivers from that cut last year went to San Diego studio, wich also makes sports games. :-/
Is it the people who made the Formula One game they mean?
I tought I'd check up the games on other sites since Ziff Davies doesn't get them.
Is there a new MK game being previewed and reviewed now, or is this just something wich is left after last game came out?
And what games are beeing made by Sony Sports Division?
Is there a branch named that?
I tought they may have been 989 Sports studio (or something like that), wich were annihilated during PS3-launch when Sony were downsizing.
But I saw that 1up had coverage of MLB 2008: The show in December, aswell as information from Sony 10 of January, wich seems to be their next game, all the studio-survivers from that cut last year went to San Diego studio, wich also makes sports games. :-/
Is it the people who made the Formula One game they mean?
scooby_dooby
Legend
Well, for a game to average a 5 it would have to be fundamentally broken on some level, so that's hardly surprising. Scores below 7 are generally reserved for titles that have serious technical issues (graphics, UI, controls, player feedback, etc.), and as such are badly made products.
The real review range lies between 7 - 10, and that's where the disparities are found. Also, the higher up the scale you go, the more each percentage point is worth: the difference between 90 and 96 is much more than the difference between 70 and 76. So a score difference of even 10% can represent a pretty huge difference in quality. For FPS, 80% is the low-end: even shooters that are received relatively poorly by the fanbase can get around that mark. On the other hand, 90% is the absolute high-end, reserved for AAA titles.
So that 10% margin of error is actually pretty big.
Well that was my point. We all know that anything less than a 7 = don't buy. It's easy to tell when a game is broken, and these guys have been giving alot of 5 & 6's to games that weren't.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I don't even know what to say to you,
Ypu can start by reading my full posts...
You must only look at the overall score at Metacritic and Gamerankings because if you took the time to look at the range you'd see ones from above the rest to ones below.
...since that's exactly what I said:
" I can't think of a time I thought a game was a 7, and it averaged a 5."
Ypu can start by reading my full posts...
...since that's exactly what I said:
" I can't think of a time I thought a game was a 7, and it averaged a 5."
Then why care at all about someones review? Because it brings down the precious average for the game?