[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by nordic_guy

Grim Fandango should have got a perfect 5, I'm not sure about TLJ. Maybe 4,5 is the right score for it. I think I'd rank GF slightly higher.

Runaway's score is also way too high, as mention. I think 3 stars would be justa bout right.

GF was not perfect. The controls kinda sucked.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

GF was not perfect. The controls kinda sucked.

No, they didn't.

[Glenn Epic]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

No, they didn't.

I second that notion

[AGA]

That wasn't really a notion, it was more a stubborn refusal to accept any other opinion. [I found GF's controls to be just fine]

[Glenn Epic]

Originally Posted by AGA

That wasn't really a notion, it was more a stubborn refusal to accept any other opinion. [I found GF's controls to be just fine]

Nope, www.dictionary.com

"Notion - A belief or opinion"

His opinion is that the GF controls didn't suck.

[AGA]

Aha. Well I've always taken it to mean " A mental image or representation; an idea or conception.". Obviously I missed the other definitions.

[Marek]

5 stars don't necessarily represent perfection. How many perfect games are there? I'd say there are none. But some games are so damn good that the inevitable flaws that exist in any game are completely and utterly overruled by a game's general qualities.

I think Grim Fandango is a good example of that. In my mind Grim has fairly good puzzles, an okay interface (great idea, bad execution), etc. but its concept, characters, artwork and music are so damn creative that it completely compensates for its less awesome aspects. In my mind Grim Fandango is a 5-star game despite there being games with better puzzles (i.e. Day of the Tentacle) or better interfaces.

GK1 and BS1 are not perfect games either, but they also have such great qualities overall that any flaws are more or less erased. I think 5 stars is the only fair score for such games.

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

GF was not perfect. The controls kinda sucked.

Sorry but it's true! Just ask fov.

[Nude]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

Black Dahlia. I think it's better than 2 1/2 stars it received. I would have given it 4 stars. Law and Order II received 4 stars for example, and I for one think that black dahlia is superior to that game.

I totally agree, the review also seems to be saying that its a good game but the score is too low

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Didn't you ever consider a periodic (annual or something) re-evaluation of grades? I know it depends on various authors and it's difficult, etc... but as such it gives some wrong ideas.

Surely if you made annual reviews of ratings you'd be judging them against games that came later. Wouldn't this be unfair if a game was successful for an innovation that helped create later (better) games of the same type? Games that wouldn't have existed without the original innovation proving it could be done.

I don't have a beef with any review scores. A review is always going to be someone's personal opinion. If I read the review and I find the things they've marked a game down for are things that I don't mind then I'll mentally mark it up. Likewise if the reviewer raves about things I can't stand then I'll mentally mark it down. The text is always more important which is why I like the detail that AG reviews usually go for.

[Kolzig]

Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade should have 3,5/5
Then it would be more truthful than that 2/5.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

By the way, seeing Runaway get a higher grade than all these games shows the weakness of the grading system, in my opinion. Not that I've ever seen a good rating system, mind you, and this one is better than most, anyway.

How so? It really just reflects the subjective nature of reviewing. The review would still be glowing (and therefore hotly disputed) without the score attached. All the score does is show the overall impression at a glance.

Didn't you ever consider a periodic (annual or something) re-evaluation of grades? I know it depends on various authors and it's difficult, etc... but as such it gives some wrong ideas.

I don't know what you mean by "wrong ideas", but there are several major problems with re-evaluating grades.

The biggest one is that a review score is inseparable from the review. It's a reflection of the writer's experience of the game. There's absolutely no way we'd unilaterally edit a score, as then it wouldn't fit the review, so the only person capable of re-evaluating a grade would be the actual writer.

Assuming a writer was willing and available to re-evaluate one, that would still require an entire replay, as trusting to memory is no way to "evaluate" something. And even then, that raises issues, like the "comparing to new games" problem listed above, or experience being improved/worsened by nature of being a replay, etc. So I'm not sure that idea doesn't create more problems than it might solve.

Now, what we might consider doing is entirely re-evaluating a GAME at some point in time with a whole different review (we've done this already), but there'd have to be a pretty strong motivation to do that, rather than just going ahead and reviewing the other games that have no review at all.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by AGA

It was more a stubborn refusal to accept any other opinion.

What can I say?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

What can I say?

Man that guy is hella annoying.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Jackal

How so? It really just reflects the subjective nature of reviewing. The review would still be glowing (and therefore hotly disputed) without the score attached. All the score does is show the overall impression at a glance.

I don't doubt that reviewing is subjective, but you guys should have a basis on which grades are given. And the most important aspect is that you should take other games into consideration. I mean maybe the person who played Runaway really enjoyed the game, which is fine, but then they should take the game and compare it to a game like Grim and say:"Are these 2 games really the same quality"?

For any outsider, seeing Grim and Runaway get 4.5 stars implies they are of the same quality, which does not reflect fairly on the 2 games mentioned.

[Quadriflax]

The Syberia games don't deserve 4.5 stars each. These two games were pretty much what I used to bring myself back into adventure gaming after a long hiatus. I'd give Syberia three stars and Syberia II 3.5 stars. I love the art and the mood, but overall the games fall flat. Especially considering games like Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis and Sam & Max both recieved 4.5 stars as well. There's no way either of the Syberia games match what these two games have.

[fov]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I don't doubt that reviewing is subjective, but you guys should have a basis on which grades are given.

We do.

And the most important aspect is that you should take other games into consideration. I mean maybe the person who played Runaway really enjoyed the game, which is fine, but then they should take the game and compare it to a game like Grim and say:"Are these 2 games really the same quality"?

In a perfect world where the reviews were written by drones. You're not only suggesting that we compare games here, but also two *different* reviewers' opinions of the games. A review is that person's take on that game. It's not the reviewer's responsibility to factor in how other people view other, completely unrelated games. Say I hated Grim Fandango. Is it still my duty, every time I write a review for new game XYZ, to think about my score and go "Wait a minute... how does this game compare to how much OTHER people like Grim Fandango?" It doesn't make sense.

For any outsider, seeing Grim and Runaway get 4.5 stars implies they are of the same quality, which does not reflect fairly on the 2 games mentioned.

Obviously, in the eyes of the reviewers who wrote those reviews, they are of the same quality. Do you not trust the reviewers? Do you doubt that they put a lot of thought and hard work into these opinions? Or are we lying through our teeth just to stir things up?

-emily

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by fov

Obviously, in the eyes of the reviewers who wrote those reviews, they are of the same quality. Do you not trust the reviewers? Do you doubt that they put a lot of thought and hard work into these opinions? Or are we lying through our teeth just to stir things up?

-emily

of course I trust you. You are this forum's most revered mother

[fov]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

of course I trust you. You are this forum's most revered mother

Well good. Because I don't consider Grim Fandango a 4.5 star game.

[MDMaster]

I should vote most of these choices, I mean Runaway 4.5?? Come on! Phantasmagoria 1.5? Naaah! Syberia II same vote as Grim Fandango?? OOOOOOooooooooomyyyyyygooooooooodnessss!

*faints*