[mckracken]

Originally Posted by ragnar

*ROFL*. You are trying to be funny.

Everyone that doesn't agree with your taste has bad taste? Good one.

No, Titanic isn't my favourite movie (even if it wasn't that bad). You seem to have a rather strange view of what a reviewers job is. A reviewers job is to convey what a movie/game/book/music is and try to tell if the reader will like it or not. The reviewer is there for the readers. That so called "serious" critic of yours wouldn't do his job proper if he did what you imply.

The reviewer is not, to put it bluntly, a whore for the readers.
And all I needed to know from you, was the "even if it wasnt that bad".
I think its in your interest as well, if I'm ending this conversation, ragnar.

[Erwin_Br]

What I forgot to mention:

If you look at the definition of AG's stars you see that 5 stars means:

An instant, Hall of Fame classic. Every true adventure fan must have this game in their library. Well worth any price!

So, you're saying a game can't have 5 stars because it would leave no room for improvement.

You're wrong, because 5 stars simply means that you should have this game in your collection and that it's a classic.

So if there is a game that's better than game X which got 5 stars, it doesn't mean it has to have a higher score because the conclusion would be the same: you should have this game in your collection and it's a classic.

As I was trying to say, you have to read the review to find out the details and how it compares with other games.

--Erwin

[Tom_K]

Originally Posted by mckracken

Puplications, before giving a final score, discuss in a roundtable their reviews and come to a shared rating.

A shared rating? That makes little sense. How is it that one person can play the actual game, and allow the influence of his peers who have not played the game to effect the final rating? Why would a popular magazine like Game Informer include a "second opinion" rating if this were the case?

I think it's insulting and altogether deflates your argument[s] when you include statements like "should be done by someone with taste", what are you - the good taste ambassador?

The very nature of reviews make them subjective. I think it's ludicrous to imply otherwise. Under the confines of the reviewers experiences, each review is biased. As a reviewer, one simply tries to be as informative as possible, taking into consideration other tastes and preferences. Also, I don't know of anyone who's interested in a game that doesn't scour the net for more than a single review for comparison sake.

As to our rating system, I think Evan (Stinger) answered that question.

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by mckracken

The reviewer is not, to put it bluntly, a whore for the readers.
And all I needed to know from you, was the "even if it wasnt that bad".
I think its in your interest as well, if I'm ending this conversation, ragnar.

So you are basically saying that just because I don't think the movie Titanic is the worst piece of shit ever produced my taste is the most horrible imaginable?

You have a strong case here.

[Jackal]

McKracken, you have a few solid points here, but you're blowing it with your Broken Sword/TLJ vs. Indy/Sam&Max tirade. Say what you will about personal preference, all of these games are quality titles with excellent production values, and AG's reviews reflect that. Your argument over the miniscule difference in scores is purely subjective, period. By all means, start another thread debating which games are better, but it's not helping your cause in this one.

Oh, and I'm sure most print reviewers would laugh themselves silly over your comment that their scoring somehow represents an "objective" standard. They are no more qualified to review games than the next schmoe; they just happen to (typically) WRITE better. "Professional" simply means "paid". Who told you it meant "superior"?

That said, your issue about the 5/5 is legitimate. I understand the spirit of the rating is to give a game a full endorsement, but I agree that a "perfect" score undermines its credibility. And that leads directly into the star system, which I also find extremely limiting, and I'm glad to hear AG is looking into ways to improve its rating system.

Some people may prefer this method, but I find it's a bit of a cop out. Each "score" actually represents a RANGE of scores. That takes some heat off reviewers, but it ends up creating too much "sameness". And many of those are for games I might be on the fence about. Sure, anything 2 or below, or 4 and above I can relate to, but take a 3 star game... Maybe I'm just a freak (quite likely), but I mathematically equate 3 out of 5 with 60%. But since technically the NEXT possible score is 3.5, or 70%, then that's a pretty darn big range this game could fall into. And if we're rounding UP, as our math teachers drill into us, then maybe a 3 is really 55-64%. Either way, still a BIG range, and where a game fits into that range can make a big difference.

Quite true what's been said about it just being a supplement to the overall review, but I'd still rather see a reviewer lay it on the line with an actual percentage.

[mckracken]

**A shared rating? That makes little sense. How is it that one person can play the actual game, and allow the influence of his peers who have not played the game to effect the final rating? Why would a popular magazine like Game Informer include a "second opinion" rating if this were the case?**

Important games are played by more than one person, its a common procedure in game mags these days.

**The very nature of reviews make them subjective. I think it's ludicrous to imply otherwise. Under the confines of the reviewers experiences, each review is biased. As a reviewer, one simply tries to be as informative as possible, taking into consideration other tastes and preferences. Also, I don't know of anyone who's interested in a game that doesn't scour the net for more than a single review for comparison sake.**

Ok lets forget the "yada yada everything is subjective et cetera" preaching from every second person on these boards, because you guys seem to miss my point on purpose, I guess.

But why would a potential reviewer need to take into consideration other tastes and preferences when judging something? You know whats that called in print puplications? Bribe.

What makes it even more interesting (or disturbing if you want)
is that this comes from the mouth of a writer for this very site.

[ragnar]

You quite contradict yourself you know:

Originally Posted by mckracken

Important games are played by more than one person, its a common procedure in game mags these days.

Originally Posted by mckracken

Furthermore the most accurate way to review is by one single person who has got taste. I also run a review site (though in another field)
for four years and ive done every single one alone. With a rating system that goes from 1-10 in half increments and theorethically stops at 9.

Do you want several people reviewing or one single person?

Also, where is your review site, see how "objective" your reviews are.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by mckracken

But why would a potential reviewer need to take into consideration other tastes and preferences when judging something? You know whats that called in print puplications? Bribe.

Whether it is called that in print publications or not, at AG, I think it's called "taking into consideration other tastes and preferences." It is merely an understanding that somebody may like something that you don't.

[Tom_K]

Originally Posted by mckracken

Important games are played by more than one person, its a common procedure in game mags these days.

Fair enough, but the primary difference is this site, the host, and reviewers are all gratis contributors. Perhaps if money were being exchanged the guidelines may, of a necessity, be a bit different. As it is, most seem to have no problem with the format.

Originally Posted by mckracken

Ok lets forget the "yada yada everything is subjective et cetera" preaching from every second person on these boards, because you guys seem to miss my point on purpose, I guess.

But why would a potential reviewer need to take into consideration other tastes and preferences when judging something? You know whats that called in print puplications? Bribe.

What makes it even more interesting (or disturbing if you want)
is that this comes from the mouth of a writer for this very site.

Yes I review games for this site, and if there's a particular problem with my personal reviews - I'm all about a critique, please let me know. As for the "argument" - I was simply stating a fact, not trying to build a case.

Why would someone consider other tastes and preferences? Well, how about a telling statement like "If you like a lot of character interaction and a linear path, then this game is for you" for starters? It's simply in an attempt to help the reader make an informed decision. What you're implying is rather extreme.

You have me interested in checking out your site. Would you care to provide a link?

[DomStLeger]

Originally Posted by mckracken

**The star system doesn't mean the game is perfect but it does means it is better than another game and 5/5 makes it one of the best games available. **

Confusing and contradicting. Youve got 5 stars, you give 5 stars. There is nothing left for improvement. You can look at that from whatever angle you want, its absurd.

I fail to see anything absurd about it. It's absurd to suggest that 1/10th of the possible scores should never be achievable. If it were a 1-100 system then reserving 100 for a perfect game would make sense. But we're talking about a 1,2,3,4,5 system. You can't say no one can get a 5 because then you make it harder to discriminate between games. If you don't use the 5th star you have less catagories for reviewing games into, (11 catagories, 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5 for hundreds of games). You have to use 5/5 to be able to discriminate between games at the top end. To reserve it for a perfect game is a nonsense on this system.

Originally Posted by mckracken

**And you said earlier that Broken Sword is not up to the standards of Indy 4 or Sam&Max and that most gamers would agree. Again thats highly subjective**

It is not subjective. We know from professional reviews (print) that these two games averaged to be rated higher than Broken Sword.

I disagree with that assessment. The reviews from "professionals" are ALL subjective, and they are definately not directly comparable as they are written by completely different people at different times. Like I said, what you think about the games is your opinion, and what I think is mine. They are our own opinions, and to try to say one is truer than the other using someone elses opinion is an utterly flawed arguement. It's like a child saying "I like the colour blue and my best friend likes the colour blue so it must be the best colour". Opinions can only be backed up with facts, not other opinions. So to say Indy4 and S&M are better than Broken Sword because X Y and Z say so it's absurd. It's also a pointless side arguement.

Originally Posted by mckracken

**make a judgement call and say to themselves "what did I think of the game" and then "how similar is my opinion/taste/experience to the majority of other adventure gamers?" before fixing a star.**

Youre implying that a reviewer should also include the likelyness what the anonymous masses thought of game XY, ino his final rating? Disgusting.

The whole job of a reviewer at AGs is to give the reader an idea as to whether a game is good or not. You have to take your readers into account if you're reviewing a game. I'm not saying a reviewer should pander to the masses. But when making their final rating, they have to standardise it - it has to fit the rating system, so you have to know what the readers expect from each rating.

Originally Posted by mckracken

**I think a readers score system might be a good idea, to give people an idea what the general community thought.**
The "community" is the lowest common denominator, which translates to fanboys and imbeciles. (harsh but true) Give them a voice and watch the nerds flock together in a truely gruesome fashion.

Everybody's a critic - this was never truer than it is today.

You're welcome to your opinions. Personally I think the community is not madeup of fanboys and imbecilies. And personally I think that was a rather obnoxious thing to say.

[DomStLeger]

Originally Posted by mckracken

Ok lets forget the "yada yada everything is subjective et cetera" preaching from every second person on these boards, because you guys seem to miss my point on purpose, I guess.

No, more likely because you're having trouble expressing your ideas coherently. No one is deliberately missing any point on purpose.

Originally Posted by mckracken

But why would a potential reviewer need to take into consideration other tastes and preferences when judging something? You know whats that called in print puplications? Bribe.

Because the job of a reviewer is to lay out the pros and cons of the game so people know whether it is worth buying it. Anyone is free to write what they like about a game, but if you're writing a review for a site like this, it is vitally important that you are consistent with the rest of the site to some extent. This is so that people actualy know they can trust the views you express in a review as something reliable on which to base their decision to buy the game. It's as simple as that.

And I've never understood Bribe to mean what you seem to think it means.

[mckracken]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

I disagree with that assessment. The reviews from "professionals" are ALL subjective, and they are definately not directly comparable as they are written by completely different people at different times. Like I said, what you think about the games is your opinion, and what I think is mine. They are our own opinions, and to try to say one is truer than the other using someone elses opinion is an utterly flawed arguement. It's like a child saying "I like the colour blue and my best friend likes the colour blue so it must be the best colour". Opinions can only be backed up with facts, not other opinions. So to say Indy4 and S&M are better than Broken Sword because X Y and Z say so it's absurd. It's also a pointless side arguement.

I see you people here are not very familar with the term "grey".
Objectivity is something to strive for, not a mere black and white degradation.

As for the pros: Theyre paid to write reviews. They get paid for a reason: experience and journalistic talent. Of course youre entitled to tell an art critic that Michelangelo's David sucks. I mean hey its your opinion right? But please dont forget that you would also look like an idiot in the process.

[mckracken]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

Because the job of a reviewer is to lay out the pros and cons of the game so people know whether it is worth buying it. Anyone is free to write what they like about a game, but if you're writing a review for a site like this, it is vitally important that you are consistent with the rest of the site to some extent. This is so that people actualy know they can trust the views you express in a review as something reliable on which to base their decision to buy the game. It's as simple as that.

Oh excuse me, i didnt know this was Amazon.com.
Its of course not the job of a reviewer to help people decide buying a game or not. Where do you get your ideas? And what shabby standard is that?

If anything, this is a side effect, a bypass product. A review should revolve only around the actual quality and its accurate measure, and certainly not about whatsoever commerical and economical aspects.

[DomStLeger]

Originally Posted by mckracken

I see you people here are not very familar with the term "grey".
Objectivity is something to strive for, not a mere black and white degradation.

As for the pros: Theyre paid to write reviews. They get paid for a reason: experience and journalistic talent. Of course youre entitled to tell an art critic that Michelangelo's David sucks. I mean hey its your opinion right? But please dont forget that you would also look like an idiot in the process.

So you're saying that someones reputation makes what they say somehow more worthy? I think this is where we differ; I believe everything should be judged on it's own merits. So, in your example, you would not look stupid telling an art critic Michelangelo's David sucks if you back it up with some good reasons.

But I have to be frank, I fail to see where this is going now, or the relevance of some of what you're talking about: this topic is about the subjectivity of the reviews and the faults with the reating system. I'm not quite sure where the objectivity came into it.

[DomStLeger]

Originally Posted by mckracken

Oh excuse me, i didnt know this was Amazon.com.
Its of course not the job of a reviewer to help people decide buying a game or not. Where do you get your ideas? And what shabby standard is that?

If anything, this is a side effect, a bypass product. A review should revolve only around the actual quality and its accurate measure, and certainly not about whatsoever commerical and economical aspects.

The very job of the reviewer is to aid people in deciding whether the game is worth playing. Have you even read the ratings system on this site?
http://www.adventuregamers.com/about/editorial.php

Of course it should revolve around the actual quality of the games, but the whole point of games reviews is to help people decide whether the game is worth playing. Otherwise what on earth is the point?

[mycroft]

there is something very wrong going on in here.

normally i would've jumped at such a heated discussion as this...but it seems that mckracken is being unreasonable...you are conveniently dodging some excellent and very valid points made against your arguments...see a couple of posts above to see what i mean .you only choose to challenge those to which you can find an answer..

dude..here is some food for thought...

there is no such thing as a perfect game.no game deserves an absolute score.if done so...then that would mean that we have reached the limits of our creative and artistic abilities.beleive me..an art critic will never say that Michelangelo's David is a 'perfect' sculpture.like objectivity...perfection is also to be strived for...but not attainable..such is the irony..

there is no such thing as a neutral review.there always is a certain bias present in a review.be it from one reviewer or a panel of reviewers.even if a review reaches the near depths of being neutral...some moron like you will take it apart for having gotten a better rating than your favourite game.if you think you have written a neutral review from the ones that you mention...please care to enlighten us ignorant fools as to the nature of this beast.post us a link so that we too may see what a neutral review looks like.in this context you cannot possibly challenge what the reviewers at AG considered a better game than another one.

the AG rating system is not flawed.its beauty has already been elaborated by erwin.see a score of 5 stars may mean an absolute score at other reviewing sites/magazines.but AG has an associated context with it.so a game receiving 5 stars is not the greatest game ever made...it is a game that is so good,it is worth having in your library.if another 'better' game has got 5 stars too..then it too must be in your library.as for which game is better if both have got a score of 5 marks..well the reviews clearly mark the pros and cons of the games don't they...see thats what i mean...here a game receiving a score of 5 stars have pros and cons.perfection is not bestowed upon it.



and as for the 'Print Publications' that you have apparently sold your soul to...what do you think of the venerable CGW when it gives a game 5 stars...there is no context in their rating system...to them 5 stars means a perfect game.absolution.no game will ever be perfect.no game ever deserves 5 stars.and as for the pros and cons in CGW...i clearly remember a reviewer giving NFS IV:High Stakes a score of 5 stars and NO cons.an absolutely perfect game in their view.while the game was good...it was far from perfection.the bugs alone are proof of that .the CGW rating system is flawed.we have been following a blind leader.


in conclusion dear mckracken...look within yourself...if you feel we are wrong..show us what right is...post a link to your reviews.

and i feel that from the begining..this thread has been in retaliation of a less than perfect score for your favourite game from AG.

[Marek]

I'd like to add that the "pro" reviewers at large games magazines and commercial websites are just gamers like you and me. There's nothing special about them. Just gamers with opinions. They didn't study to be a 'game critic'.

As for the rest of the thread ... I don't even know what it's about anymore. McKracken, it would help a lot if you didn't take such an accusatory and -- dare I say it -- arrogant tone.

[mycroft]

Originally Posted by Marek

I'd like to add that the "pro" reviewers at large games magazines and commercial websites are just gamers like you and me. There's nothing special about them. Just gamers with opinions. They didn't study to be a 'game critic'.

As for the rest of the thread ... I don't even know what it's about anymore. McKracken, it would help a lot if you didn't take such an accusatory and -- dare I say it -- arrogant tone.

touche...

[mckracken]

You dont like to read a lot, do you? Please
evaluate a bit longer before typing, otherwise I feel like im wasting my time here.

**there is no such thing as a perfect game.no game deserves an absolute score.if done so...then that would mean that we have reached the limits of our creative and artistic abilities.beleive me..an art critic will never say that Michelangelo's David is a 'perfect' sculpture.like objectivity...perfection is also to be strived for...but not attainable..such is the irony..**

RIGHT ON. Exactly what im saying since the beginning. You seem to defend my main argument. !?

**there is no such thing as a neutral review.there always is a certain bias present in a review.be it from one reviewer or a panel of reviewers.even if a review reaches the near depths of being neutral...some moron like you will take it apart for having gotten a better rating than your favourite game.if you think you have written a neutral review from the ones that you mention...please care to enlighten us ignorant fools as to the nature of this beast.post us a link so that we too may see what a neutral review looks like.in this context you cannot possibly challenge what the reviewers at AG considered a better game than another one.**

I do not review adventures. This thread was meant to wake up a few people. It is not to be taken offensive. If someone does, id consider therapy. Oh and consider this my last reply to you, as I dont like being called a moron.

**the AG rating system is not flawed.its beauty has already been elaborated by erwin.see a score of 5 stars may mean an absolute score at other reviewing sites/magazines.but AG has an associated context with it.so a game receiving 5 stars is not the greatest game ever made...it is a game that is so good,it is worth having in your library.if another 'better' game has got 5 stars too..then it too must be in your library.as for which game is better if both have got a score of 5 marks..well the reviews clearly mark the pros and cons of the games don't they...see thats what i mean...here a game receiving a score of 5 stars have pros and cons.perfection is not bestowed upon it.**

Yes it is flawed. The main guy from this site even said that they wanna improve it because its obviously not all that.

**and as for the 'Print Publications' that you have apparently sold your soul to...what do you think of the venerable CGW when it gives a game 5 stars...there is no context in their rating system...to them 5 stars means a perfect game.absolution.no game will ever be perfect.no game ever deserves 5 stars.and as for the pros and cons in CGW...i clearly remember a reviewer giving NFS IV:High Stakes a score of 5 stars and NO cons.an absolutely perfect game in their view.while the game was good...it was far from perfection.the bugs alone are proof of that .the CGW rating system is flawed.we have been following a blind leader.**

Then obviously your "venerable" CGW sucks like a hoover.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by mckracken

**there is no such thing as a perfect game.no game deserves an absolute score.if done so...then that would mean that we have reached the limits of our creative and artistic abilities.beleive me..an art critic will never say that Michelangelo's David is a 'perfect' sculpture.like objectivity...perfection is also to be strived for...but not attainable..such is the irony..**

RIGHT ON. Exactly what im saying since the beginning. You seem to defend my main argument. !?

[....]


**the AG rating system is not flawed.its beauty has already been elaborated by erwin.see a score of 5 stars may mean an absolute score at other reviewing sites/magazines.but AG has an associated context with it.so a game receiving 5 stars is not the greatest game ever made...it is a game that is so good,it is worth having in your library.if another 'better' game has got 5 stars too..then it too must be in your library.as for which game is better if both have got a score of 5 marks..well the reviews clearly mark the pros and cons of the games don't they...see thats what i mean...here a game receiving a score of 5 stars have pros and cons.perfection is not bestowed upon it.**

Yes it is flawed. The main guy from this site even said that they wanna improve it because its obviously not all that.

It seems from these two paragraphs that you are, to a point, mad at Adventure Gamers for having a review system that leaves no room for the perfect game, a type of game you claim doesn't and will never exist. That's a little weird.

They're not out to grade the games as if they are works of art. The reviews are not reviews for reviews sake. That is a pretentious waste of time, self righteous wanking. AG's reviews are aimed at gamers interested in whether or not they should make a purchase, and whether or not game x appeals to their tastes. Adventure Gamers reviews only rate as high as "this game is amazingly good and you need to buy it!" because that's as far as the average reader/consumer is interested. Occasionally a reviewer may go above and beyond that for their own entertainment or some secret purpose of their own but in the end the main purpose of a review is to inform readers if the reviewer and the site thinks the game is good, or if it is crap.

"An art critic will never say that Michelangelo's David is a 'perfect' sculpture," but they would also never say "it's not perfect, it's 4.5/5," because that review system has nothing to do with art. The AG review system is meant for reviewing entertainment products and conveying advice to consumers (even if the review itself tells reviewers they should buy the game for its brilliant artistic acheivements - its still telling them whether or not they should buy the game). Maybe your approach to reviewing could apply to the actual artistic or technical merits of the games artwork, or its musical score, but you can't realistically think that that approach has any relevance to someone who is looking to buy the boxed game at a store? An art critic would never say David is a perfect sculpture, but they might say theres a perfect exhibition going on that is showing David (or at least "Worth paying to see more than any other exhibition in recent times, *****").

In addition to that, if the game actually is a freaking amazing new advancement in the genre that heaps one brilliant touch of innvation on after another, why the heck would anyone want to place the burden of conveying that onto a star or percent system? Read the damn review, especially if it'.s a 4.5 or 5 star review. Find out what made the thing so great, and judge for yourself if the game was simply amazing when it came out, or if its stood the test of time and is a classic.

Originally Posted by mckracken

Its because youve got bad taste - it happens.
Again, looking at professional reviews, both games averaged higher than Broken Sword.

I'd love proof of this, as you've cited it twice now as if it's fact, but haven't bothered to back it up.

I tried poking around Gamerankings.com but since all three of those games (BS1, Sam & Max, Indy: FOA) are old there aren't reliable ratings. However, they do have BS1 for the Gameboy Advance averaging 82% after averaging 39 review scores. Considering that's how professional reviewers scored the absolutely shitty bug-filled GBA version I can't imagine that the PC version scored significantly worse than the PC versions of Sam & Max and Indy: FOA (the Macintosh version of FOA has a 70% on gamerankings by the way, but that's averaging the scores of a whopping 1 review so that's hardly accurate). Please put your money where your mouth is.



Personally I think you're being a bit of a dick about all of this, mckracken.

This whole thread is incredibly dumb.