Of course! Their opinions aren't valid because I don't agree with them!
He didn't say they weren't valid; just ignorable.
I'm not a fan of traditional scoring myself either. If I started a website, I'd base scores on how much reviewers would be willing to pay for the game, but without a scale; since people are always judging the amount of money they'd pay for anything, they'd be a bit more honest in scoring it. So MGS4 would be $20, Brutal Legend $45, Uncharted 2 $50, etc.
Actually, the sentiment seems not so much 'their opinions aren't valid' but rather 'their numbers aren't valid.'
But numbers are NEVER valid. If that's the route you're going, then they are saying "My numbers are more valid than their numbers". Which is like saying "Leprechauns are more real than Unicorns". You might be able to weasel in some reason that one is more plausible than the other, but overall everyone is just going to consider you ridiculous.
Numbers are intended to measure something that's, well, MEASURABLE. The number gives a vague idea, sure, but you can't just go to Metacritic and slam numbers together to gague overall value. For example, when I feel like I need to rate something, I tend to feel like the vast majority of games should have a "5 out of 10". Just like me, other writers and readers will interpret scales differently, they'll have a different "value" for 5 in their mind.
The number system is so ridiculous. Two people with the EXACT SAME OPINION can end up with different numbers.
Actually, the subjectiveness of ratings in general and stars/percentages/numeric/etc scoring system specifically is an argument that comes up in the newsroom every year or so when someone suggests adding a rating to reviews.
The problem is there are many, many people who do go to metacritic or rottentomatoes and do just that -- look at composite scores to decide whether a film/game/book is worth it.
I understand it's so prevalent that it's not uncommon for contracts in the industry to base bonuses/retention on a achieving a minimum aggregate score from a site like metacritic.
It's unfortunate since reviewing entertainment isn't as concrete as reviewing products where obvious flaws can be pointed out. With entertainment, it's inherently subjective to the individual tastes and preferences of the reviewer.
Ratings I think are somewhat egotistical in that they seek to impose a specific value judgement based on the assumption that every readers' tastes mirror those of the reviewer.
And since increasingly few people bother to read the review to spot where their preferences/taste (and therefore affinity for or distaste for) the movie/book/music/game differ from those of the reviewer the whole "5 stars" or 9/10 or 8.5 or whatever system you like does readers a disservice.
Of course! Their opinions aren't valid because I don't agree with them!
If I consistently find myself disagreeing with a specific reviewer or publication, I probably would stop reading their reviews as it becomes clear that their tastes are so dissimilar to mine that their recommendations become worthless to me. Not a question of validity, but personal relevance.
This is a pretty different episode than the first two seasons. The team is clearly different, as is the art style, and I don't think the writing is as strong. It does have some potential for really good puzzles though, and they trimmed down the cast a lot, which might actually be a positive since I was getting a little tired of some characters being shoehorned into the story and wearing out their welcome (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Lincoln).
Except in the case of Valve's episodic games which don't take more than an hour to beat.
If you can get through these in lett then 1 hour the first try then you are a hero.
If you wanted to you could get through every Telltale Episode in 40 minutes or less though. Just skip all the conversations and solve puzzles instantly.
If you're careful about how much walking you do, you could probably solve an episode in even less time. But I don't want to try it because it feels like ruining it.
If you're careful about how much walking you do, you could probably solve an episode in even less time. But I don't want to try it because it feels like ruining.
right. And there is absoluely no point in that. These games offer too much stuff you don't want to miss.
If you're careful about how much walking you do, you could probably solve an episode in even less time. But I don't want to try it because it feels like ruining.
Actually, the first Wallace & Gromit episode took around an hour on the second playthrough, and I wasn't skipping a lot of conversation.
I believe you, but I was talking about beating an episode in fifteen minutes by not talking to anyone unless you had to and right clicking through every conversation.
I figured out that the quickest path through Moai Better Blues would take about 42 steps, not including "go to (place)", and that sounds like it wouldn't take too long.
Isn't that what they said about the first episode of Tales of Monkey Island? I think as seanparkerfilms says the review is positive, it's just been given a low score. If you look at IGN's scores they rate Culture Shock the same as COTD so I don't place too much importance on that.
When in the f*** did a 7.2 become a low score!?
A 7 is generally considered a good but not quite great rating by most review sites. Complaining that they gave it a good score & positive review seems kinda pointless unless you hate the game & wish you hadn't spent your money on it. I mean lighten the hell up everybody... you are acting as if they wiped there ass with the bible or something.
Fanboys on here never cease to make me laugh. Truth be told... Season 2 sucked hard (minus the intro to Ice Station Santa & a good portion of Chariot of the Dogs) & if they stick to the same dated puzzles & humor, then chances are that IGNs review of the new game was being quite generous. Lets see how much shit this stirs up (even though it is true).
I'd ignore any comments about Sam and Max's humor being "immature" or "stupid" as it's pretty much the same quality as other games in the series. In other words, when it's playable, it's hilarious.
Fanboys on here never cease to make me laugh. Truth be told... Season 2 sucked hard (minus the into to ISS & a good portion of Chariot of the dogs) & if they stick to the same dated puzzles & humor, then chances are that IGNs review of the new game was being generous. Lets see how much shit this stirs up (even though it is true).
So you totally hated S&M 2, think you'll dislike S&M3, yet sit here waiting with us for the release?
So you totally hated S&M 2, think you'll dislike S&M3, yet sit here waiting with us for the release?
I don't get it...
I don't recall stating anywhere that I was waiting for the release. Only thing that I remember stating is that bitching over a positive review is completely idiotic. I mean lets face it.... the only reason that you people are getting mad is because it isn't getting top tier scores... nor should it. If you think that Sam & Max is on the same level as games like Mario Galaxy, Fallout 3, Zelda or Modern Warfare II then you are crazy. Any given Sam & Max episode can be beaten (While seeing everything) on the first playthrough in maybe an hour & half to two hours depending on your level of experience, the animation on the characters are shoddy, the controls (be it console or PC) are finicky & the list of complaints (Especially towards the terrible console port jobs of an already bug ridden series) could go on. Don't get me wrong... despite these flaws, I did
rather enjoy the first season, but it is far from perfect. I mean just compare the amount of bang for your buck you are getting for any of the games I mentioned... thats why they score how they do & Sam & Max scores the way it does. Why get up in arms about a number anyways? It is pointless. Besides.... deep down under that thick layer of fanboyism... you know I'm right. I think the score is perfectly fair. I mean $35 (more if bought individually) for 5 episodes (roughly 7 1/2-10 hours of gameplay) is a pretty hefty price to pay for so little content with roughly no replay value when you can pick up a used copy of any ot the aforementioned games (that feature incredible replay value) for roughly the same price (if not cheaper; although at full price they would still be the better deal with the amount of time you will invest).... see how the score factors in now?
PS... sorry for the double post... my PS3 (which I am using to type this) cut me off
Wait, you're trying to tell me Modern Warfare II is worth 60 euro's, while it's playtime is somewhat equal to a single S&M episode, and not with much replay either, and then complain about playtime and replayability?
Seriously?
(I would have given your opinion more merit if it didn't like, included the shortest FPS campaign of all times...)
I mean $35 (more if bought individually) for 5 episodes (roughly 7 1/2-10 hours of gameplay) is a pretty hefty price to pay for so little content with roughly no replay value
Not going to insert myself into this argument, but I feel the need to address this quote.
8-10 hours of gameplay for $35 is the exact opposite of a "hefty price". Considering the vast majority of games these days average at 8-10 hours, and cost $60, I'd say it's a pretty sweet deal. As for replay value: Welcome to adventure games. It's been this way since the beginning. They can't exactly add 8v8 CTF and Team Deathmatch, or have the story change every time you play it. It's a point n' click. Not much wiggle room in the formula.
I would have given your opinion more merit if it didn't like, included the shortest FPS campaign of all times...)
Have you ever heard of a thing called multiplayer? I know that alot of you are (self proclaimed) old school gamers, but hell. Multiplayer is the whole point of FPS games & admit it... you are exaggerating. The single player takes a good 5-7 hours (unless you are a n00b who plays on easy).
In response to ShaggE.
That is somewhat true, yet at the same time, if you go through those games again, it is RARELY the same boring experience that you went through before. The games you are refering to (Ninja Gaiden being a perfect example) tend to host tons of real time action. Adventure games on the other hand don't really give you that experience. You beat it & then you are done... there is absolutely no challenge the second time. This is not an attack on adventure games, I am just making a point. That point being: Quit yer bitchin', its not the end of the world.
If you think that Sam & Max is on the same level as games like Mario Galaxy, Fallout 3, Zelda or Modern Warfare II then you are crazy.
You really can't make a comparison like that. All those games are nothing alike. Thusly, this is the reason why numbered/stared reviews don't work. You CAN'T compare games that are completely different from each other and expect it to make sense.
On a side note, I've noticed that once I started playing game from smaller American companies, I've found it much harder time enjoying to play many of the Nintendo games like Mario and Zelda due to this cold feeling caused by not having an visible crew. I guess somewhat akin to finding out where your food comes from, finding out who makes my games has tripled my enjoyment of the games made by said people.
You really can't make a comparison like that. All those games are nothing alike. Thusly, this is the reason why numbered/stared reviews don't work. You CAN'T compare games that are completely different from each other and expect it to make sense.
Thats not true at all. The point is that they feature fluid movements & control (graphics I can look over as I am not a graphics whore... just a gameplay whore) & offer an obscene amount of gameplay time; be it a single playthrough (Fallout 3), in multiplayer (MWII) or even your 5th time around (Mario Galaxy). You can't fairly rate something that is imperfect with a perfect score, no matter how big of a fan of the series you are. Case in point... I am a HUGE fan of the Namco Tales series, but do I bitch when the games get a less than perfect score? No! Why? Because I can accept that something that I love is not without flaws. It is a reviewers job to pick apart a game & expose not only the good, but the bad as well.
Er... I didn't say they were perfect. In fact, I think people are overreacting about the score as well. I'm just saying that comparing games from different genres and backgrounds together is pretty naive and quite frankly stupid.
Also to say that those games you listed are perfect is incredibly subjective.
Er... I didn't say they were perfect. In fact, I think people are overreacting about the score as well. I'm just saying that comparing games from different genres and backgrounds together is pretty naive and quite frankly stupid.
Also to say that those games you listed are perfect is incredibly subjective.
You can't seem to get this through your head can you? It is about the gameplay... you can compare two games by how well the engine works. For example put Gran Turismo 5 against ET... now even though they are of different genres, it is easy to distinguish which game is better. How? GT5's controls are well tuned, it has an amazing framrate without choppiness & has substantial replay value, whereas ET has none of those things.
Furthermore I never stated they were perfect either. All I said is that it is stupid for people to get mad because S&M got a less than perfect score. The games I mentioned however got higher scores (not perfect scores) for the reasons that I listed in
my comparisons. See whereas, those games bring alot to the table & appeal to a large portion of gamers... a 2 hour buggy adventure game with 0% replay value is only going to appeal to diehard adventure fanboys, so giving it a super high score just doesn't seem right or fair to games like Fallout & SMG which took years of dedication & fine tuning to make as good as they could possibly be.
It is about the gameplay... you can compare two games by how well the engine works. For example put Gran Turismo 5 against ET... now even though they are of different genres, it is easy to distinguish which game is better. How? GT5 controls are well tuned, it has an amazing framrate without choppiness & has substantial replay value, where ET has none of those things.
Oy... You can't judge a recipe of beef stew as a chicken dish, let alone as a dessert. Nor would I compare a 15 year old's drawing on the scale that I would a professional artist with 30+ years of experience. That just wouldn't make any sense. Thusly, I would judge an episodic adventure game made by a small studio very differently than an full fps game made by a big company.
Nor would I compare a 15 year old's drawing on the scale that I would a professional artist with 30+ years of experience.
Of course you could, but it might be cruel to the 15 year old (or to the professional as the case may be).
Honestly, the case that I think is being made is that you can judge something by how well it does what it does. Sam & Max entertains, frustrating controls, glitches and the like all detract from its core purpose. Its ability to perform its core function is something that is comparable. The fact that Telltale is small is only semi-relevant context that serves to temper expectations, but it shouldn't be an excuse.
The fact that Telltale is small is only semi-relevant context that serves to temper expectations, but it shouldn't be an excuse.
Well what I mean by small is the idea that to expect that they would have the resources to render as well as a game like Crysis is naive. That doesn't mean I don't expect them to do the best to their capability, however.
Please quit the internet tough guy act. It makes you look more bitter than credible.
I don't see how that is me being an internet toughguy (if I was trying to be tough I would just tell you to shut your f***ing mouth & agree with me or I'll beat your ass) but okay.
Oy... You can't judge a recipe of beef stew as a chicken dish, let alone as a dessert. Nor would I compare a 15 year old's drawing on the scale that I would a professional artist with 30+ years of experience. That just wouldn't make any sense. Thusly, I would judge an episodic adventure game made by a small studio very differently than an full fps game made by a big company.
When they are charging such a price you can. I know that you want to defend the little guys & that is somewhat honorable (if not a little naive), but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't on the same level & therefore should not be rated equally. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing now... see I don't know..
I'm not going to say too much about this, only that you people are complaining about a number rating from IGN. IGN. The guys behind this atrocity: IMAGE REDACTED
God Hand is the game that sunk Clover Studio, wasn't it?
how much I can stress that it is about the engine & how well it works with the game. To go to your comparison in which you were obviously trying to show me up... You eat a piece of chicken made by a five star chef & then a cake made by a 5 year old with no cooking experience whatsoever... would it be unsafe to say that the piece of chicken would be better by comparison? It is about the technique & how well it comes together. Just because things are out of a particular genre doesn't mean that they can't be compared side by side. Now if I was comparing a couch to a television that would be a different story... but as long as my comparisons are in the same realm as one another they will continue to be valid representations of my point.
God Hand is the game that sunk Clover Studio, wasn't it?
That's a bit misleading. Out of all their games, only Viewtiful Joe had any sort of commercial success. It was honestly kind of a matter of time before they had to call it quits.
EDIT: By the way, anyone else notice that Imagine: Party Babiez ALSO had a higher score than the Penal Zone? OMG THAT MUST MEAN IMAGINE: PARTY BABIEZ IS THE SUPERIOR GAME
Comments
He didn't say they weren't valid; just ignorable.
I'm not a fan of traditional scoring myself either. If I started a website, I'd base scores on how much reviewers would be willing to pay for the game, but without a scale; since people are always judging the amount of money they'd pay for anything, they'd be a bit more honest in scoring it. So MGS4 would be $20, Brutal Legend $45, Uncharted 2 $50, etc.
Numbers are intended to measure something that's, well, MEASURABLE. The number gives a vague idea, sure, but you can't just go to Metacritic and slam numbers together to gague overall value. For example, when I feel like I need to rate something, I tend to feel like the vast majority of games should have a "5 out of 10". Just like me, other writers and readers will interpret scales differently, they'll have a different "value" for 5 in their mind.
The number system is so ridiculous. Two people with the EXACT SAME OPINION can end up with different numbers.
The problem is there are many, many people who do go to metacritic or rottentomatoes and do just that -- look at composite scores to decide whether a film/game/book is worth it.
I understand it's so prevalent that it's not uncommon for contracts in the industry to base bonuses/retention on a achieving a minimum aggregate score from a site like metacritic.
It's unfortunate since reviewing entertainment isn't as concrete as reviewing products where obvious flaws can be pointed out. With entertainment, it's inherently subjective to the individual tastes and preferences of the reviewer.
Ratings I think are somewhat egotistical in that they seek to impose a specific value judgement based on the assumption that every readers' tastes mirror those of the reviewer.
And since increasingly few people bother to read the review to spot where their preferences/taste (and therefore affinity for or distaste for) the movie/book/music/game differ from those of the reviewer the whole "5 stars" or 9/10 or 8.5 or whatever system you like does readers a disservice.
If I consistently find myself disagreeing with a specific reviewer or publication, I probably would stop reading their reviews as it becomes clear that their tastes are so dissimilar to mine that their recommendations become worthless to me. Not a question of validity, but personal relevance.
They forfeited all rights to an opinion when they didn't even bother playing more than an HOUR of the game.
Except in the case of Valve's episodic games which don't take more than an hour to beat.
If you can get through these in lett then 1 hour the first try then you are a hero.
If you wanted to you could get through every Telltale Episode in 40 minutes or less though. Just skip all the conversations and solve puzzles instantly.
right. And there is absoluely no point in that. These games offer too much stuff you don't want to miss.
Actually, the first Wallace & Gromit episode took around an hour on the second playthrough, and I wasn't skipping a lot of conversation.
I figured out that the quickest path through Moai Better Blues would take about 42 steps, not including "go to (place)", and that sounds like it wouldn't take too long.
When in the f*** did a 7.2 become a low score!?
A 7 is generally considered a good but not quite great rating by most review sites. Complaining that they gave it a good score & positive review seems kinda pointless unless you hate the game & wish you hadn't spent your money on it. I mean lighten the hell up everybody... you are acting as if they wiped there ass with the bible or something.
I don't get it...
I don't recall stating anywhere that I was waiting for the release. Only thing that I remember stating is that bitching over a positive review is completely idiotic. I mean lets face it.... the only reason that you people are getting mad is because it isn't getting top tier scores... nor should it. If you think that Sam & Max is on the same level as games like Mario Galaxy, Fallout 3, Zelda or Modern Warfare II then you are crazy. Any given Sam & Max episode can be beaten (While seeing everything) on the first playthrough in maybe an hour & half to two hours depending on your level of experience, the animation on the characters are shoddy, the controls (be it console or PC) are finicky & the list of complaints (Especially towards the terrible console port jobs of an already bug ridden series) could go on. Don't get me wrong... despite these flaws, I did
PS... sorry for the double post... my PS3 (which I am using to type this) cut me off
Ah good old 'stating opinion as fact'. Can't beat it.
Seriously?
(I would have given your opinion more merit if it didn't like, included the shortest FPS campaign of all times...)
Not going to insert myself into this argument, but I feel the need to address this quote.
8-10 hours of gameplay for $35 is the exact opposite of a "hefty price". Considering the vast majority of games these days average at 8-10 hours, and cost $60, I'd say it's a pretty sweet deal. As for replay value: Welcome to adventure games. It's been this way since the beginning. They can't exactly add 8v8 CTF and Team Deathmatch, or have the story change every time you play it. It's a point n' click. Not much wiggle room in the formula.
Have you ever heard of a thing called multiplayer? I know that alot of you are (self proclaimed) old school gamers, but hell. Multiplayer is the whole point of FPS games & admit it... you are exaggerating. The single player takes a good 5-7 hours (unless you are a n00b who plays on easy).
In response to ShaggE.
That is somewhat true, yet at the same time, if you go through those games again, it is RARELY the same boring experience that you went through before. The games you are refering to (Ninja Gaiden being a perfect example) tend to host tons of real time action. Adventure games on the other hand don't really give you that experience. You beat it & then you are done... there is absolutely no challenge the second time. This is not an attack on adventure games, I am just making a point. That point being: Quit yer bitchin', its not the end of the world.
You really can't make a comparison like that. All those games are nothing alike. Thusly, this is the reason why numbered/stared reviews don't work. You CAN'T compare games that are completely different from each other and expect it to make sense.
On a side note, I've noticed that once I started playing game from smaller American companies, I've found it much harder time enjoying to play many of the Nintendo games like Mario and Zelda due to this cold feeling caused by not having an visible crew. I guess somewhat akin to finding out where your food comes from, finding out who makes my games has tripled my enjoyment of the games made by said people.
IDK, maybe that's just me.
Thats not true at all. The point is that they feature fluid movements & control (graphics I can look over as I am not a graphics whore... just a gameplay whore) & offer an obscene amount of gameplay time; be it a single playthrough (Fallout 3), in multiplayer (MWII) or even your 5th time around (Mario Galaxy). You can't fairly rate something that is imperfect with a perfect score, no matter how big of a fan of the series you are. Case in point... I am a HUGE fan of the Namco Tales series, but do I bitch when the games get a less than perfect score? No! Why? Because I can accept that something that I love is not without flaws. It is a reviewers job to pick apart a game & expose not only the good, but the bad as well.
Also to say that those games you listed are perfect is incredibly subjective.
You can't seem to get this through your head can you? It is about the gameplay... you can compare two games by how well the engine works. For example put Gran Turismo 5 against ET... now even though they are of different genres, it is easy to distinguish which game is better. How? GT5's controls are well tuned, it has an amazing framrate without choppiness & has substantial replay value, whereas ET has none of those things.
Furthermore I never stated they were perfect either. All I said is that it is stupid for people to get mad because S&M got a less than perfect score. The games I mentioned however got higher scores (not perfect scores) for the reasons that I listed in
Please quit the internet tough guy act. It makes you look more bitter than credible.
Oy... You can't judge a recipe of beef stew as a chicken dish, let alone as a dessert. Nor would I compare a 15 year old's drawing on the scale that I would a professional artist with 30+ years of experience. That just wouldn't make any sense. Thusly, I would judge an episodic adventure game made by a small studio very differently than an full fps game made by a big company.
But you could judge the beef stew and chicken dish as entrees/meals.
Of course you could, but it might be cruel to the 15 year old (or to the professional as the case may be).
Honestly, the case that I think is being made is that you can judge something by how well it does what it does. Sam & Max entertains, frustrating controls, glitches and the like all detract from its core purpose. Its ability to perform its core function is something that is comparable. The fact that Telltale is small is only semi-relevant context that serves to temper expectations, but it shouldn't be an excuse.
Well what I mean by small is the idea that to expect that they would have the resources to render as well as a game like Crysis is naive. That doesn't mean I don't expect them to do the best to their capability, however.
I don't see how that is me being an internet toughguy (if I was trying to be tough I would just tell you to shut your f***ing mouth & agree with me or I'll beat your ass) but okay.
When they are charging such a price you can. I know that you want to defend the little guys & that is somewhat honorable (if not a little naive), but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't on the same level & therefore should not be rated equally. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing now... see I don't know..
And since you apparently failed to read my main point, I could easily say the same of you.
Internet Toughguy does seem to be rather ill-defined doesn't it.
God Hand is the game that sunk Clover Studio, wasn't it?
how much I can stress that it is about the engine & how well it works with the game. To go to your comparison in which you were obviously trying to show me up... You eat a piece of chicken made by a five star chef & then a cake made by a 5 year old with no cooking experience whatsoever... would it be unsafe to say that the piece of chicken would be better by comparison? It is about the technique & how well it comes together. Just because things are out of a particular genre doesn't mean that they can't be compared side by side. Now if I was comparing a couch to a television that would be a different story... but as long as my comparisons are in the same realm as one another they will continue to be valid representations of my point.
That's a bit misleading. Out of all their games, only Viewtiful Joe had any sort of commercial success. It was honestly kind of a matter of time before they had to call it quits.
EDIT: By the way, anyone else notice that Imagine: Party Babiez ALSO had a higher score than the Penal Zone? OMG THAT MUST MEAN IMAGINE: PARTY BABIEZ IS THE SUPERIOR GAME