GorgeousOrifice
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope this finally shows how completely ridiculous is the system of giving games ratings on a 100-point scale. 9.2 = 92%.
Come on, is a game that ranks 9.4 really THAT much better than a 9.2? What kind of rating criteria go into this? And don't talk about composite scores either, like 9.5 on graphics, 10.0 on sound, etc. A game is all about a complete, unified experience. It's just as pointless to analyze any creative effort in the same way. Make a distinction between idea and implementation like every other aesthetic discipline.
Games should be rated with stars according to the following scale:
***** - Near perfect, a fine exemplar of the art
No game is perfect, but if a game is good enough that comparisons to perfection don't seem at all ridiculous, it may be a candidate for the vaunted 5-star rating. These games are revolutionary in all aspects: they introduce something never before seen while making it feel like the most natural thing in the world; they offer a degree of immersion previously unknown in games; they spawn countless imitations that never seem to capture the essence of the original. They are infinitely replayable, and repeated play brings new and unique enjoyment every time.
This is the rarefied air. Very, very few games are worthy to be included here.
Example games: Half-Life, Myst, Space Invaders, The Sims, Everquest, Final Fantasy VII.
**** - A strong effort and a satisfying experience
An enjoyable and interesting game that makes you feel like it was worth the price as you're playing it. These games contain some minor innovations or technical work that show that a great deal of thought and care was put into their design. You should feel very comfortable recommending this game to other gamers, and you wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to them. Usually good for a few replays that are as enjoyable as the first time.
Example games: Halo, Halo 2, Doom 3, Morrowind, Civilization III.
*** - Solid game, but nothing beyond competent
A well-tested and well-explored idea, competently made and packaged. These games are satisfying yet disposable; you play them, you enjoy playing them, but they don't stick with you, and you don't feel a great need to play them again once you finish them.
Examples: Serious Sam, Oddworld, NFL 2K5, Painkiller.
** - Flawed game, not enjoyable
May have a couple interesting ideas or sequences, but suffers from unforgivable and very obvious flaws that destroy the immersive experience.
Examples: Daikatana, Jurassic Park: Trespasser.
* - Just flat-out unplayable
Not at all interesting or enjoyable. If you throw down the controller in disgust after 10 minutes, this is where the game belongs.
Very few examples of this, thankfully, because games this bad generally get canned before ever seeing the light of day.
Examples: E.T. for the Atari 2600, "15-minute mods" for popular PC games.
It's okay to disagree on whether a game is a two- or three- star, or a three- or four- star. Those are productive debates that really get into what it's like to play the game and how we respond to the games. But diddling over a difference as small as that between 9.2 and 9.6 just makes us look petty and stupid. The REAL culprits are certain gaming outlets, namely ALL OF THEM, that foster this kind of childish crap.
Come on, is a game that ranks 9.4 really THAT much better than a 9.2? What kind of rating criteria go into this? And don't talk about composite scores either, like 9.5 on graphics, 10.0 on sound, etc. A game is all about a complete, unified experience. It's just as pointless to analyze any creative effort in the same way. Make a distinction between idea and implementation like every other aesthetic discipline.
Games should be rated with stars according to the following scale:
***** - Near perfect, a fine exemplar of the art
No game is perfect, but if a game is good enough that comparisons to perfection don't seem at all ridiculous, it may be a candidate for the vaunted 5-star rating. These games are revolutionary in all aspects: they introduce something never before seen while making it feel like the most natural thing in the world; they offer a degree of immersion previously unknown in games; they spawn countless imitations that never seem to capture the essence of the original. They are infinitely replayable, and repeated play brings new and unique enjoyment every time.
This is the rarefied air. Very, very few games are worthy to be included here.
Example games: Half-Life, Myst, Space Invaders, The Sims, Everquest, Final Fantasy VII.
**** - A strong effort and a satisfying experience
An enjoyable and interesting game that makes you feel like it was worth the price as you're playing it. These games contain some minor innovations or technical work that show that a great deal of thought and care was put into their design. You should feel very comfortable recommending this game to other gamers, and you wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to them. Usually good for a few replays that are as enjoyable as the first time.
Example games: Halo, Halo 2, Doom 3, Morrowind, Civilization III.
*** - Solid game, but nothing beyond competent
A well-tested and well-explored idea, competently made and packaged. These games are satisfying yet disposable; you play them, you enjoy playing them, but they don't stick with you, and you don't feel a great need to play them again once you finish them.
Examples: Serious Sam, Oddworld, NFL 2K5, Painkiller.
** - Flawed game, not enjoyable
May have a couple interesting ideas or sequences, but suffers from unforgivable and very obvious flaws that destroy the immersive experience.
Examples: Daikatana, Jurassic Park: Trespasser.
* - Just flat-out unplayable
Not at all interesting or enjoyable. If you throw down the controller in disgust after 10 minutes, this is where the game belongs.
Very few examples of this, thankfully, because games this bad generally get canned before ever seeing the light of day.
Examples: E.T. for the Atari 2600, "15-minute mods" for popular PC games.
It's okay to disagree on whether a game is a two- or three- star, or a three- or four- star. Those are productive debates that really get into what it's like to play the game and how we respond to the games. But diddling over a difference as small as that between 9.2 and 9.6 just makes us look petty and stupid. The REAL culprits are certain gaming outlets, namely ALL OF THEM, that foster this kind of childish crap.
![[46] pushit [2]](https://valvetime-data.community.forum/avatars/m/23/23967.jpg?1330940211){kind=avatar}
