Do you think the scores are padded?

[Dan]

GTA IV, has undoubtedly the highest rating of any game by professional critics. It certainly has the most perfects I have ever seen. What is strange though, is that the user reviews give it about an 84%. Do you think that the financial backing of GTA IV affected it's critic ratings?

 

[PvtRyan]

It's because the users rate the game on the criteria of how many funny outfits they can get for Niko.

 

[KagePrototype]

I don't think they're padded, but I do think it's very easy to get your hopes up when you see a lot of perfect scores like that. It's easy to be dissapointed when you let hype take over your common sense.

Simply put, don't let review scores dictate your expectations.

 

[Kadayi]

By all accounts, beyond the most out there fanboyish the game is simply a further evolution of the existing GTA formula, but what makes it so standout is how cohesive it all is as I understand it, which is where the high Critic scores have come from. User score is never that reliable a measure tbh, because as PvtRyan so rightly points out the user criteria for what makes a good/bad game isn't necessarily based on sound reasoning.

 

[PvtRyan]

What Kadayi and Kage said also. The reviewers who gave out high 9's and 10's seem to base their score on the overall experience that GTA4 offers, the ride, while all critical reviews (users and critics alike) seem to base their score on what GTA4 does wrong, the bumps in the road during the ride, while most of those points are valid, they're also very minor in the huge scope of the game and generally don't detract from the overall experience.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Err, user ratings aren't exactly reliable. I can't comment on that 8.4 specifically as you didn't mention where it was from, but usually sites that allow user reviews don't wait until the game is actually released to let users rate them, so most of the rating is made up on fanboys giving it unjustified tens or people who don't like the series or can't play it spamming it with zeros. Just depends which group is bigger... any proper reviews afterwards only tangent this score slightly.

I was pretty surprised by the press scores, though. The first few perfects were predictable since pre-release reviews are always hyped as hell, but I expected it to drop off a bit after the other, smaller sites/magazines got their hands on it. Not so. The lowest score it's yet recieved is an 85 from GameCritics, who complain about the vehicle combat (fair enough). Besides that and maybe one or two others, every score is a 9 or above... not exactly a lot of room for disparity.

I don't know about it's financial backing influencing them, but I'd say that for at least a few the hype effected the score more than a little. Reviewers are gamers too, and if anything they're closer to the anticipation of a big release like this than anyone, so it's not surprising that it could tint their final impressions of a game. Besides that, I think some of it is owing to the more generous scoring system of today. Each game taken for it's own time, GTA IV isn't really the greatest game ever, it's just the greatest game in recent memory.

I also think that, while there have been many quality releases over the last year, a lot of the higher profile ones have failed to live up to expectations. Bioshock fell short on the open-ended gameplay and CHOICE!! it was constantly touted for. Assassin's Creed was brilliant in concept but flawed and repetitive in execution. Mass Effect was... well... KotoR with guns (and hot blue lesbian sex). GTA IV is probably one of the first games of this generation and on this sort of scale to actually deliver on more or less everything it sets out to do, one of the first games for which it's hype was actually justified. Reading the reviews, this is something that a lot of critics are quick to point out, which I think lends a lot to why they've been so generous with it despite it's flaws. The general tone seems to be "not perfect, not the best game ever, just the best game in ages." This, combined with the game's fevered hype and today's more forgiving 8-10 review scale, are probably the main things that put it ahead of the pack.

On the other hand, it's kind of nice to see a game finally knock Ocarina of Time off it's pedestal, if barely.

It's because the users rate the game on the criteria of how many funny outfits they can get for Niko.

This too.

 

[Solaris]

I wish the choppers didnt come so often, hard to get a good gunfight because choppers take you out while your holding back the cops from behind a car.

 

[Raziaar]

I wish the choppers didnt come so often, hard to get a good gunfight because choppers take you out while your holding back the cops from behind a car.

Then shoot the cops off the side of the choppers. That's the part you really need to worry about when it comes to them.

 

[Kadayi]

Mass Effect was... well... KotoR with guns (and hot blue lesbian sex).

I think the hot blue Lesbian Sex is worth at least a 9.5 :thumbs:

Anyhows with respect to GTAIV (again). If money has been a feature of it's success I'd say it principally come down to the fact that the development costs of $100 million are far and away the highest I've ever known for a game (that's over twice what Valve spent on HL2 as a comparison). When your putting that much money into a product, its very hard to end up with a polished turd.

Woah 3000 posts after 4+ years

 

[Warbie]

I think the reviews are somewhat padded - how many have mentioned how awful the controls are? - I can't think of a recent 3rd person game that has implemented movement as poorly - or how sloppy the online setup is?

As fun as gta 4 is, and it is good fun, the pick up and play, sandbox element has taken quite a hit. It's no longer about tearing around a city and getting into crazy gun fights just for the pure fun of it, there's a story and friends to babysit. This isn't to say I think the characters and setting aren't great, just that the experience is too different for GTA4 to count as an evolution of the series - for everything that's been gained, something has been lost. I loaded up Saint's Row for comparisons sake (yes, I know, a cheap whore of a game) and immediately noticed how much more intense and fast paced (and fun) the fire fights were, how much more fluid and exciting the car chasing, and how much more 'gta' it is than gta 4. So much more happens in a session - more missions, more fights, more 10 car pile-ups. In gaining some realism and a more driven and well structured story, it's lost its arcadyness - which is probably why opinions are a little divided.

Still, it's hard to say that gta 4 doesn't do so much so right. Despite the dull moments it's cracking game. It's also the only game ever that my misses enjoys watching - which says more than any review out there.

 

[Bad^Hat]

^ Nah. If you want to free roam, put your phone on sleep mode. Voila, no more calls from Kiki asking which of your cheap whores you're with.

Ask me, it's better than ever. It's more realistic, and as a result it's a bit more toned back and less arcadey, but everything is so much more tactile and satisfying as a result. Plus, maybe it was just me, but cop chases in the old GTAs were far too frustrating to be any fun for prolonged amounts of time. Your cars were far too weak, the police way too relentless, and you'd die under gunfire in seconds flat. I like the more subtle approach, even if it does make it a bit easier (especially if it makes it easier).

One thing I do miss though - vigilante mode, and all the other continuous side missions. Really hope they get added back in as they were in future GTAs, the way they are now is pretty dull.

 

[Operational]

I think reviewers are too effected by hype... like they are writing under the influence of group think rather than what they really think.

 

[Kadayi]

I think reviewers are too effected by hype... like they are writing under the influence of group think rather than what they really think.

So you think there is some secret cabal at work or something? Jesus :dozey:

 

[Operational]

So you think there is some secret cabal at work or something? Jesus :dozey:

um.... no

Where you got "secret cabal" out of groupthink I do not know. I'm saying I think some reviewers are easily swayed by the public's pre-release perception of a game.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm saying I think some reviewers are easily swayed by the public's pre-release perception of a game.

The public who see far less of a game than the reviewers are actually privy to. :dozey:

 

[Operational]

The public who see far less of a game than the reviewers are actually privy to. :dozey:

Yep. Keyword being "perception".

 

[Kadayi]

Yep. Keyword being "perception".

And where exactly do the public get their perception of a game from? :dozey:

 

[Operational]

And where exactly do the public get their perception of a game from? :dozey:

Where does hype come from in general? It's there before anyone (including reviewers) actually plays the game. It comes from screenshots and gameplay vids and comments by the developers and who the developers are, etc. Point being if all those things work as intended there is a perception that the game is really good before anyone has had the chance to play it. Of course the game itself has to be good but a good game can be turned into, "OMG game x is teh greetest game evah!" with enough hype and reviewers follow suit (I'm still going with groupthink here).

The OP was talking about how high the review scores (98% average) for GTA4 are, in fact it's rated as the best game of all for both XBox 360 and the PS3. I haven't played it but to the people who have is it really worthy of being the best on both those platforms? The user submitted scores on metacritic place it at about 8.3 (with over a thousand votes), how do you explain the large difference?

 

[Kadayi]

Where does hype come from in general? It's there before anyone (including reviewers) actually plays the game. It comes from screenshots and gameplay vids and comments by the developers and who the developers are, etc. Point being if all those things work as intended there is a perception that the game is really good before anyone has had the chance to play it. Of course the game itself has to be good but a good game can be turned into, "OMG game x is teh greetest game evah!" with enough hype and reviewers follow suit (I'm still going with groupthink here).

Not where generally, where specifically? Could if perhaps be from the very professional gaming sites and magazines that actually review the games in the end? Hmm could be batman. Which kind of pisses all over your original assertion that reviewers are lead by the fans. :dozey:

The OP was talking about how high the review scores (98% average) for GTA4 are, in fact it's rated as the best game of all for both XBox 360 and the PS3. I haven't played it but to the people who have is it really worthy of being the best on both those platforms? The user submitted scores on metacritic place it at about 8.3 (with over a thousand votes), how do you explain the large difference?

I think we already covered why user submitted scores aren't generally worth the paper they are written on most of the time on page one of the thread. :dozey:

 

[Nitre]

I reckon it's the same as i was for Halo 3. It got amazing reviews from all over the place but most people i talked to about it who weren't fanboys said it wasn't really that great.

 

[Operational]

Could if perhaps be from the very professional gaming sites and magazines that actually review the games in the end?

Err I was answering your question about where the pre-release public perception of a game comes from... are you saying that hype only comes from a review after the game is released?

Hmm could be batman. Which kind of pisses all over your original assertion that reviewers are lead by the fans. :dozey:

I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think we already covered why user submitted scores aren't generally worth the paper they are written on most of the time on page one of the thread. :dozey:

So you agree that GTA4 is the best game on both Xbox and PS3? A collective 98% average is a near flawless game and yet I've heard many negatives about it.

:dozey:

:dozey:

:dozey:

:dozey:
...
:dozey:

You've broken the forums dozey emoticon quota.

 

[Kadayi]

Err I was answering your question about where the pre-release public perception of a game comes from... are you saying that hype only comes from a review after the game is released?

After the games release? You are aware of game previews, yes? Articles/screenshots/trailers found on professional gaming sites and in gaming magazines prior to a games release? Surely Australia isn't that backward is it? :dozey:

I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not:-

I'm saying I think some reviewers are easily swayed by the public's pre-release perception of a game.

:dozey:

So you agree that GTA4 is the best game on both Xbox and PS3? A collective 98% average is a near flawless game and yet I've heard many negatives about it.

As I've not played it on either platform I can't comment. However I know better than to try and draw parallels between professional reviews and user experiences. A games reviewers job is to assess a game against it's peers in terms of the overall experience not whether it is flawless (that's a fools errand). User perception ultimately tends to be less broad and less objective. :dozey:

You've broken the forums dozey emoticon quota.

not yet it seems :dozey:

 

[PvtRyan]

So you agree that GTA4 is the best game on both Xbox and PS3? A collective 98% average is a near flawless game and yet I've heard many negatives about it.

I'm not a fan of ratings in the first place, especially not ratings on the scale of 0-100 which almost turn game reviewing into a science, while it's by definition highly subjective. Everyone who reads a score has a different interpretation as to what it means. I see a 98% as a "fucking awesome" game, whereas you apparently see 98% as a game where 98% of it is good while 2% is bad. GTA4 to me is a fucking awesome game eventhough I've spotted MANY flaws. I've walked into more than one door expecting it to open, so by your reasoning I should detract 1%. The cover system sometimes picks stupid objects to hide behind, or the one you didn't intend to hide behind, -1%. The phone has very poor contrast on an SDTV, -1%. You can't run down trees, -1%. I can keep going like this until the game gets an 80% or so, and some reviewers do, but that's just not the right way. Game reviewing is not done by starting at 100% and then detracting points for whatever is wrong with it. That's the objective way of judging and that's oxymoronic in light of what you're really doing: saying whether you like a game or not, which is hugely subjective.

Scores should be for things that can be judged objectively. An exam, where getting 60 out of 100 wrong objectively nets you a 40% score. A gymnast doing whatever gymnasts do but failing on the landing gets points detracted. But as far as I'm concerned, games, movies and such can be rated binary: like or dislike, with a motivation of course. At most a 5-star type of system.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't trust users. Bunch of bastards.

 

[Pesmerga]

When a game reviewer gives a 100% score, they automatically discredit any score they're ever going to give again. Sorry, but there is no perfect game. I thought it was obvious that while IGN may have given GTAIV an extremely high score without any sort of financial pressure, they wouldn't have given it a 10.

 

[PvtRyan]

I don't trust users. Bunch of bastards.

Another problem with users is that they do vote binary: if they like something, they vote it a 10, if they don't, it gets a 1. If they voted honestly then 10s and 1s would be rare while 5, 6 and 7 would be more common, giving a graph of it a bell curve. But now it's more like an inverse bell curve. Here's a random movie I clicked on from IMDb:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0866439/ratings

 

[Operational]

After the games release? You are aware of game previews, yes? Articles/screenshots/trailers found on professional gaming sites and in gaming magazines prior to a games release? Surely Australia isn't that backward is it? :dozey:

Where does hype come from in general? It's there before anyone (including reviewers) actually plays the game. It comes from screenshots and gameplay vids and comments by the developers and who the developers are, etc. Point being if all those things work as intended there is a perception that the game is really good before anyone has had the chance to play it.

However I know better than to try and draw parallels between professional reviews and user experiences.

Reviewers gave GTA4 a near perfect score, going from the votes on metacritic most people didn't feel that way, I think that's an important difference.

A games reviewers job is to assess a game against it's peers in terms of the overall experience not whether it is flawless (that's a fools errand).

So a game can't be judged on it's own merits?

User perception ultimately tends to be less broad and less objective. :dozey:

And therefore meaningless?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the reviewers own opinions are influenced by groupthink, public perception and hype (being only human after all, they can be hyped for a game). This can lead to under or over-exaggerated scores compared to what most people thought after playing. You don't think that. Simple.

 

[Warbie]

I have no problem with a game getting a 10/10 - it doesn' t mean it's perfect, but rather an example of the very best that can currently be found in gaming - and think the reviews GTA4's been enjoying are almost deserved. They nearly all fail to mention some of the more obvious flaws in the game, though. I suspect hype and the fact that quite a few of these reviewers are more journalist than gamer is playing a part.

 

[Kadayi]

Reviewers gave GTA4 a near perfect score, going from the votes on metacritic most people didn't feel that way, I think that's an important difference.

But we've already determined that the assessment criteria under which critics and users operate is generally entirely different.

So a game can't be judged on it's own merits?

In order to measure something you need a rule to check it against. There is no such thing as a point of isolation when it comes to assessing something as complex as a computer game. An assessment always has to be made in context, both in terms of it's contemporaries, it's previous iterations, it's handling, technological strengths & weaknesses, etc etc. There is no such thing as the perfect computer game. Plenty of people loved Portal, but I bet neither Kim or Eric think it's the mutts nuts themselves.

And therefore meaningless?

I'd take user comments over user scores every time. If the best someone can say is 'this game sucks!!!' and some one else is 'I find the interface a bit janky when it comes to trading goods because, etc etc' I've a much better idea as to whose assessment I'm likely to listen to.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the reviewers own opinions are influenced by groupthink, public perception and hype (being only human after all, they can be hyped for a game). This can lead to under or over-exaggerated scores compared to what most people thought after playing. You don't think that. Simple.

So far you haven't provided a solid rationale to support your position.

 

[Asknoone]

:dozey:

 

[Operational]

So far you haven't provided a solid rationale to support your position.

And you have? I'd like to hear about these godlike reviewers free from emotion and totally unbiased, right down to disregarding any particular likes/dislike of genre's.

 

[Kadayi]

And you have? I'd like to hear about these godlike reviewers free from emotion and totally unbiased, right down to disregarding any particular likes/dislike of genre's.

In all seriousness any professional gaming website or magazine employs a method to it's game scoring and it's generally the case that review scores are agreed upon by more than one individual (senior editors for a start). It's also pretty rare that a magazine is going to let someone loose on a review of a game genre they aren't familiar with. If your reviewers an expert in FPS, he's probably not the ideal candidate to review a sports game and vise versa.

Trust me there are bad reviewers out there, but thats because they have bad editors. Russell Pitts at the Escapist is an embarrassment of an editor. The only good thing going for that site is Zero Punctuation.

Here's a bad reviewer and editor in action:-

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/2672-Review-The-Witcher

The reviewer clearly demonstrates a disdain for RPGs at the beginning, so it's no surprise he doesn't give the Witcher it's due, and poo poos it, but that he doesn't even play the thing through fully is what irks the people in the comment section. Rather than concede that they have a point (the game is epic in size, it needs a proper evaluation), the editor Russell Pitts instead opts to start banning them wholesale. However I'd say Russ is the exception rather than the rule. :dozey: