UDPATE: PART 2 IS NOW UP
Lets make one thing clear before we continue. This is not a criticism of Killzone 2; this is a study on the way review scores are handled. Now, on with the show!
Recently an explosion of comments have come out from EDGE’s review of Killzone 2. To summarize, EDGE gave Killzone 2 a 7/10 and every fanboy came out of the woodwork to either trash EDGE for falling out of line with the 10’s, or diss the game and PS3 in general.
This isn’t really the first time a review or magazine has been assaulted by fanboys for being supposedly “bias”, or “attention grabbing”. What I am still perplexed by is this misunderstanding when it comes to review scoring.
Let’s make this clear, reviews are not science and their is no set standard for how to conduct them. This, (as many reviewers have stated), is part of the problem. Some one learns one set of rules to reviews and then misplaces those onto other reviewers rules.
Not to mention the mysterious idea of reviews go 6-10, and anything lower then an 8 is trash. All of these impressions of reviews creates a lot of confusion for not only mom and dad consumers, but gamers as well.
While we would all like to sit back and hope to get a call from reviewers saying that a set system has been put in place, that just is not going to happen. So why don’t we just rid ourselves of review scores? Why not let people quote words instead of numbers?
Unfortunately that’s a utopian view of the situation. Many magazines and publications have tried this to only get letters complaining that they now have to read the reviews instead of just glance through them. While their are a handful of cases where this has worked, the vast majority of readers wanted number scores or some sort of point system.
So are we doomed to continue this dance then? I don’t think so. What reviews need is consumer education. General guidelines to how to perceive and look at reviews.
It is true that some reviews are built around the 6-10 scale and poorly explain what the reviewer thinks. What I am shooting for is more understanding to how reviews are set-up and what to look for. In the next part of this article I will break down reviews piece by piece and explain all the parts.
© Copyright 2009 UFF Network and its owners. All rights reserved.
You only try to make polemic.
dozens of sites coincide: 9 average score…
Pero sos un pedazo de imbecil que quiere crear polemica.
Reply to Comment
@BLABLABLA,
Did you even read the article?
The article doesn’t criticise the game; it talks about the perceptions of scores, and how reviewers are using an unbalanced system to rate games.
Reply to Comment
The problem is not the actual score, it’s the fact that EDGE didn’t review all games with the same criteria.
It’s funny how “journalists” fail to see that, and they only charge against the “fanboys” … it seems like it’s easier to do that than to notice that there is something wrong with the way reviews are done.
I won’t say nothing about their Halo 3 or LBP reviews…
Reply to Comment
@SIN,
What “criteria” are they not sticking to?
LittleBigPlanet and Halo 3 had industry shaping innovations that evolved and build upon what video games could do. Killzone 2, despite being a fun game while it lasts… did not.
Having said that, the article is trying to state that games need to be scored differently, with 5 = average instead of 8 = average like it currently seems to be. A point I have to completely agree with.
Reply to Comment
@Michael O’Connor, Halo 3 Industry shaping ? Here is what Edge said about Halo 3 :
Edge Magazine “In substance it’s nothing new”.
All reviewers agree that Halo 3 brings nothing new to the table, it’s no revolution. That didn’t prevent edge from giving it 100 ! Perfect !
EDGE IS biased. End of story.
Go stir controversy elsewhere. Plenty of room in the RROD dept.
Reply to Comment
@Funny,
First of all, that’s one line of the review, taken completely out of context.
I could go on forever about the Forge system in Halo 3, which allowed players to greate their own designs and play modes… or the ability to save and share media from the game with other players all over the world, which helped to build community around the title… or the online four player co-op, which was a first for the genre at the time…
How exactly is EDGE biased? It gave LittleBigPlanet 10 out of 10. And as a proud supporter of the PS3 *and* 360, I very much appreciate that score.
Back up your opinion with facts, please.
Secondly, what controversy? The article states that Killzone 2 is a good game with a few minor flaws, then focused on the main topic of the article, the way in which games are scored.
I fail to see what “controversy” exists in this piece… beyond the mountains that fanboys want to make out of molehills.
Reply to Comment
Ya know its sooo very funny that reviewers like this and dumb talking like Halo3 has so many innovations that evolved or some BULLS**IT and Killzone2 has nothing to go for it HA!
listen to yourself Killzone2 DESERVES a 10/10 from anywer i dont give a F**CK what u say. How can you say such bullS**IT things about basicly the most technology advanced game EVER talking like theres better out there how do u do that? an people trying to say controller lag WTF seriously? are you on crack?
his game is PERFECT honestly i cant believe everyone is acting like this against the best game in the WORLD to this date go find another game like it i bet u cant cuz Killzone2 has best graphics, best gameplay/realism, amazing online,
amazing detail to everything and im not just talking graphics wise AMAZING detail to everything i think i made it clear enough. How can you score gears a 9/10 and killzone2 a 7/10 and if they are tryin to get the reviews back to “normal” or watever like the article states how bout change ur other reviews back down atleast the new games ones and still give killzone2 a 10/10.
Dont even bother reading reviews any more theres no point go rent it if your not sure. if u like it buy it then.
Reply to Comment
Woo, did anyone feel the floor move? I swear I just heard most of these guys tackle a Master Chief stand up in a GameStop somewhere. On that note, let’s take a vote. Raise your hand if you read the article and care to comment on what I actually wrote?
…
That’s what I thought.
While I can’t say I didn’t enjoy reading your comments I must be off to write an actual article suggesting Halo 3, LBP, and Killzone 2 are THE greatest games on god’s green earth. (Run on sentances FTW) That and how the Wii sucks, because it’s not a 360 or PS3.
P.S. Oh, and one on how the PS3 sucks because Microsoft rockzorz!
P.S.S. I would give this comment a 7/10
Reply to Comment
Killzone 2 is a visual giant. It looks beautiful on every level, and it plays well. From my own personal viewpoint though, there’s nothing in it that’s truly innovative, and a lot that’s derivative. That doesn’t make it a bad game, just not a perfect one.
I agree… how is 7 an unfair score? What’s the point of “10″ as a score if it doesn’t actually signify the very pinnacle of the industry?
Here’s an example. Citizen Kane is often considered one of the most innovative movies of all time. It reinvented the expectations of film… and back then, film wasn’t treated as a serious art-form, much like gaming isn’t now.
Citizen Kane is a 10 out 10 movie.
Name me half a dozen movies in the last decade that deserve a 10. It’ll be a difficult list to compile, no doubt.
Gaming magazine (and even internet websites) tend to be far too simple minded and juvenile to actually score games in a subjective fashion. 10s get thrown around all over the place, and when anything is labelled with anything lower than 8, its automatically labelled as crap.
Video games have a lot of growing up to do yet, and its adolescent attitude to reviewing is as much to blame for this as the games themselves.
Reply to Comment
I think a lot of the backlash most reviewers get is because the public can’t “read” the scores/points properly. 8 to 10 is considered to be the “top-tier”, but neither realise that a 7 or 6 game can still be fun to play.
There’s also the fanboy market that desperately want their game to succeed and can’t fathom the fact that someone might actually find fault within the game they so insanely try to defend.
Reply to Comment
The edge review had a 1/3 of it dedicated to talking about the story and the fact that Rico, a character that was presented in 04, was a copy of Cole Train. There was ZERO analysis on why exactly the game garnered a 7. That’s the issue with the review.
Also, to the grander scheme of reviewing, there needs to be an end of “10″ being a perfect score. It’s asinine to the highest order. Gaming journalism needs to evolve from the juvenile view that not giving something the perfect means you’re writing a better review. There’s a reason why the majority of gamers don’t read the reviews. The content there is shit and is coated with glittering generalities instead of actually explanations.
Finally, gaming journalism needs to get rid of the nation that “innovation” is automatically gold. It’s not. It’s one the things that game developers sugar coat when talking about their games because the media whines when they don’t say they are changing the heavens and the earth. The same reason why we rarely hear people say something is going to be linear, because linear has become synonymous with bad with reviewers.
Reply to Comment
While I’m sorry that a good deal of people will frown upon this piece because it even mentions the “savior like” Killzone 2. I had to say good work. I think you bring to light an interesting dilemma which is plaguing the video game media industry at the moment.
I think it comes to emotions being incredibly high this generation, and sadly a good deal of that is coming from PS3 owners. Why is that? I can only deduce it has to do with the console becoming this generations mainstream media whipping boy. While I think the PS3 is a fine machine with some truly great games (MGS4, Folklore, Heavenly Sword) it’s sad that it s success or measured lack of, is such a heated topic – so much so that its infected it’s software reception at any launch.
Killzone 2 without a doubt a fantastic looking game, no one can deny that. But as with all reviews it comes down to the reviewers opinion of the product. How that’s measured is different from writer to writer, but at the end it’s the consumers voice that really is the deciding factor on a games success. One look at WiiPlay’s sales numbers is a clear indicator of that.
Play what you like, and don’t let a reviews score dictate your purchasing habits. And for the love of all that’s good there’s no reason to get in arms over someones differing opinion.
I think I’ve rambled on long enough, I just wanted to say great article and keep up the good work. You’ve gained one new reader for whatever its worth.
Reply to Comment
@Ethan Weir,
Thanks for taking the time to read the subject of the article for the topic it was intended to delve into, instead of looking at the surface subject and assuming, as many have done.
Hope you stick around, and thanks for the thought provoking reply.
Reply to Comment
The problem with edge’s review was that it was inconsistent.in the same issue they gave let’s tap wii an 8/10 and another light gun shooter on wii an 8/10(both of which are receiving average between 6.5-7.5).
beside MultiPlayer of this game is so deep and new that it makes up for the lack of deep”story”as edge puts it.(cause that was their only complain with KZ2,,,,story)
Reply to Comment
@MNBB,
It’s quite possible that Lets Tap might just be a better game.
Explanations for why EDGE *wasn’t* inconsistent can be found above.
Reply to Comment
@Michael O’Connor,
Really? you don’t actually believe that, do you?
First of all, about the forge with regards to Halo3. It’s a level editor and have been done in previous games. So have the co-op mode. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad game, it just means that Bungie refined it to make it very enjoyable. Which is essentially what Guerrilla did with KZ2. Does it means that it should’ve been punished for that? no. Even if it was, consistency should be applied here and Halo 3 should also be punished.
As one poster stated above, it’s not the score people are arguining about. It’s the review itself which doesn’t match with the score.
Before you flame me, I have read this article and I have read the review. I don’t blindly look at the score and scream “FOUL!!!!!”. I love to read the substance to see why the game merits the score. If you read the review by EDGE, the only knock against the game was the story. Fine, that’s your opinion and if you don’t like the story, you don’t like the story. However, the same reason why KZ2 was dinged should’ve been applied to Gears of War 2. Grunts with foul mouths and big guns plowing through a level.
You say KZ2 didn’t bring many industry innovations. Fine, I guess the cover system is just a “gimmick” right? 95% of games doesn’t bring innovation. They’ll refine the heck out of it, thus making it fun and that’s what matters. My beef with EDGE has not been the score but the fact that a reviewer dinged three points for something really trite and yet they praise it for another game.
Reply to Comment
@son_of_games ^_^,
“It’s a level editor and have been done in previous games.”
True, but not online, in real time, in a first person shooter, with as many options or half as much freedom. On console. That’s the important point.
“It doesn’t mean it’s a bad game, it just means that Bungie refined it to make it very enjoyable. Which is essentially what Guerrilla did with KZ2.”
I agree, but what it lacks in is what warrants a lower score. But its still a *good* score.
“Fine, I guess the cover system is just a “gimmick” right? 95% of games doesn’t bring innovation.”
The cover system is actually my favourite unique part of Killzone 2, but it’s not enough to award a 10 in my opinion. And true, 95% of games don’t bring innovation or polish. That’s exactly why they don’t deserve (or get) higher scores.
“However, the same reason why KZ2 was dinged should’ve been applied to Gears of War 2.”
Agreed. Never understood the fuss of GoW 2 myself.
Reply to Comment
“True, but not online, in real time, in a first person shooter, with as many options or half as much freedom. On console. That’s the important point.”
Fair enough but does it still warrant a 10? What I mean is, while you say the Forge hasn’t been done before, does it overcome the flaws the single-player clearly presented? But alas, I guess it’s subjective and that’s fine.
I’m not trying to say KZ2 do not deserve a 10 and to me no game deserve a 10 (MGS IMHO was close), but the multiplayer aspect in the review was hardly touched upon in the EDGE article and from what I gather, the badge/level up system is sooooooo much fun and yet wasn’t really expanded on. I was in the beta and I had a blast but that was a beta. They had the full game and the multiplayer sessions and they should’ve done that. Otherwise I’m just going to believe they loved it and that’s not why they dinged points on.
I guess my beef is consistency and that’s what gets me. If you’re ready for the onslaught of fanboys, at least show in your review information in which they can’t use against you. And to me, there’s more than enough info (or lack thereof) to merit complaint. Well, I hope you didn’t take this as me being a douche or something. I’m just merely presenting my points of view.
Reply to Comment
@son_of_games ^_^,
To be honest, I think Ethen’s response below me summed my thoughts up ten times better (and more eloquently) than I ever could.
As for why the multiplayer wasn’t touch on? It probably wasn’t available, but that’s the fault of the developers, not EDGE. Had it been, I’ve no doubt they would have warranted it an 8 at least.
One thing we can agree on at least: Killzone 2 is a very nice game.
Reply to Comment
Just to touch on Halo 3. While Halo 3 was “in my opinion” not the second coming of shooters; but than what is? It brought a lot to the console FPS that had not been done before, or even that well.
4 player co-op with a plethora of game options.
Forge: Which was a level editor with a robust tool set and the ability to share levels with anyone online.
Saved user films and screen shots. Allowing for the first time on a console for gamers to record any fight. Be it in campaign or multiplayer. Along with user made movies was the ability to a screen shot anywhere! Giving gamers an almost directr like experience being able to rewind and forward complete play throughs lining up that perfect shot to share or save.
Online stat ranking. Halo 3’s online hub has never been done before to such a deep extent for any console game before it. Allowing to gain rank, check kills, length of matches ect.
No Halo 3 is not the best FPS on consoles, but this generation it has been the most fully fleshed. It’s only competitor so far has been CoD4, and even CoD4 did not bring the amount of content and fresh user based ideas to the console like Halo 3 has.
Perhaps, this is the reason why EDGE decided to give it a 10. The story may have been weak and visually it had its moments, but looking at it as a total package; hell few shooters have been able to come close.
Reply to Comment
Ethan Weir-Haze was actually the first game to have 4 player co-op, no Halo3. Just thought I’d correct you :)
Reply to Comment
@Eddie,
How is that even possible?
Halo 3 was released a good six months before Haze.
Reply to Comment
Yes, Halo 3 came out a good deal before Haze.
Halo 3 – Sept. 25, 2007
Haze – May. 22, 2008
Reply to Comment
Actually, you’re both wrong. If I remember correctly, desert storm II on the original Xbox had four-player split-screen co-op.
Shame about how crap it was.
Reply to Comment
Although the rating systems have been skewed to 8-10=good range, I never trust the numeric rating from any site. I always read the review and watch gameplay videos before I decide if it is worth picking up. The rating system isn’t always right.
–
Frank B.
Car accident lawyer
Reply to Comment
Leave A Comment