Hilarious Zelda Review

[Angrist]

I found Viewtiful Joe 1 and 2 for the Gamecube on a store website. VJ1 cost €60, VJ2 €15. So I checked reviews. IGN gave VJ1 a 9.5, but VJ2 a 9.0. I read the review of VJ2 and the only complaint was that it looked too much like VJ1. And it had improved in some parts, so guess which game I bought.

Even though I'd like to know if I've 'already played' a game, I don't think it should affect the score too much.
But yeah, I do agree that scores tend to be too high.

[BreakABone]

I got to say that in general review scales are broken in all industries. It is not just games but all of them.
I mean movies more so because well they use much more limited scales for the most part, thumbs up/thumbs down, 5 stars stuff like that.
But I don't think a game should be marked down because of something that came before it and was "perfect"
If Ocarina was a 10 game and Wind Waker improved on it in every way possible (sans number of dungeons) I don't see why Wind Waker shouldn't be in the 9s. Of course not a 10 because it is building on the foundation of something else (Personally I think Wind Waker is a better game but the style really influences me).

And you also have to take a game for its own merits, I mean would Ocarina of Time review as well today as it did like 10 years ago? I don't think so because of the improvements that have come not only from the Zelda formula but others. There is also a front-ended biase I believe.

Such as Mario 64 which reviews well but in all honesty I believe Super Mario Galaxy trumps the game is every way imagineable but people will argue that Mario 64 should review better because it is the first. And I kind of agree with it, it doesn't have the experience of 11 years but SMG is a much better game for it.

I think makes sense

[bobcat]

Reviews can't be perfect. What somebody sees through their eyes may not be seen through your own.

It's hard to find consistency with reviews (E.g. Assassins Creed is a mixed bag of worms for reviews), but at least it gives the user a fair indication of what people liked/disliked about it

At that present time if a game is worthy of a 9 or 10, then that's what the reviewer will give it. So long as their reasons are justified but at the end it all matters to the person playing in the end and how that game affects them.

Best thing is to read multiple reviews from different people, then make your own judgements from there. If a game has scored well consistently, you can make a safe assumption that it's a worthy game and you may very well like it.

[Angrist]

This is how I rate movies on IMDd:
1. I analyze how good it basically is, story/acting/etc.-wise.
2. I reflect my personal preference for the movie
3. I take into account the feeling the movie has left me in.

Like I know Save The Last Dance could really have been better and deserved an unbiased 7, I gave it an extra point because I just like feel-good romantic movies. And even though I realize that Fight Club is a very clever and good movie, I gave it a lower score because it was unnecessarily violent in my opinion.
And sometimes I just get a great feeling from a movie, like Jerry Maguire, so I add another point.

[gekko]

Interesting you bring it up. A team at my school is working on an artificial intelligence project which has people answer questions about various games they have played.

From that they're developing a system which analyzes the different aspects of the game against the scores that they average from the press, to be able to predict the score games will get by simply answering questions such as "Does it have multiplayer?" and "In seconds, how long do you spend in a menu before beginning the game?"

I like the idea, but without having hundreds of inputs to develop the neural network, I wonder how well it will work out. I think I'd do good on it:

It's Mario- +2
It involves waggle - -10
No classic controller support - -5

Final score: -13 F

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by gekko

Interesting you bring it up. A team at my school is working on an artificial intelligence project which has people answer questions about various games they have played.

From that they're developing a system which analyzes the different aspects of the game against the scores that they average from the press, to be able to predict the score games will get by simply answering questions such as "Does it have multiplayer?" and "In seconds, how long do you spend in a menu before beginning the game?"

I like the idea, but without having hundreds of inputs to develop the neural network, I wonder how well it will work out. I think I'd do good on it:

It's Mario- +2
It involves waggle - -10
No classic controller support - -5

Final score: -13 F

Not an average my friends