A.I.
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 639
- Reaction score
- 0
Subtitled: The methodology and epistemology of game reviewing.
It's getting more and more depressing through these days reading on these forums: "OMG, this magazine says Halo2 beats HL2!!!11! OMG HL2 will suck!!!!!11!1"
I think that games shouldn't be scored (at least the way they are now). Why? Because we're measuring quality with numbers, that means that they can be inaccurate at some point especially at the best games. You can easily tell that a game with 23% score is unplayable crap, but comparing games with ratings above 90% is impossible because personal flavour of the reviewer comes in to play.
I hate the way games are statistically/cathegorically reviewed like:
Graphics 45%
Sound 66%
AI 75%
UI 32%
Gameplay 67%
(add whatever you want)
Total 50%
It's about quality, not quantity!!! Can you measure how good the graphics are in a game? No. It depends on the viewer, right? Therefore, I think we should develop some other standards to review a game to stop this score nonsense.
It's getting more and more depressing through these days reading on these forums: "OMG, this magazine says Halo2 beats HL2!!!11! OMG HL2 will suck!!!!!11!1"
I think that games shouldn't be scored (at least the way they are now). Why? Because we're measuring quality with numbers, that means that they can be inaccurate at some point especially at the best games. You can easily tell that a game with 23% score is unplayable crap, but comparing games with ratings above 90% is impossible because personal flavour of the reviewer comes in to play.
I hate the way games are statistically/cathegorically reviewed like:
Graphics 45%
Sound 66%
AI 75%
UI 32%
Gameplay 67%
(add whatever you want)
Total 50%
It's about quality, not quantity!!! Can you measure how good the graphics are in a game? No. It depends on the viewer, right? Therefore, I think we should develop some other standards to review a game to stop this score nonsense.
