Quite possibly, if only you were equating a five-star system to a 100-point numerical system. Nowhere in the magazine have I seen a star-to-percentage scale rating system.
Of course you can make the case that a 0-star = 0/100 simply because 0=0. Sure, why not, however in a star-based system I think you can say that 0 stars basically means “no redeeming value whatsoever.” If a reviewer honestly thought that about the game and back that up with solid statements, than what’s the big deal?
An average-scale system like on gamerankings is going to be influenced by statistical anomalies and the like, which is where Robert Coffey’s review comes in. Some people dig games where you can urinate on people, love the “biting satire” and like all the RwS inside jokes, and that’s the other end of the spectrum.
Maybe I’m not making any sense, it’s 4 AM already… crap.
However, I think what is a bit of a concern is the fact that CGW trumpets “FIRST EVER ZERO-STAR REVIEW! A CGW EXCLUSIVE!” (okay maybe a bit over the top) as well as extolling “most ever 1 1/2 star reviews” in the main editorial, very much own-horn-tooting going on there. To me that’s more troubling and disturbing, as they are pointing out this proud fact like they won a Pulitzer or the National Magazine Awarad or something.
If they had not even bothered to say anything about any of their reviews in the editorial that would have been just fine, but to point it out proudly, like a tatoo, is bad editorial judgement.
Wumpus, have you read the review you so vehemently disagree with? Are there some quotes from the review that you can give and articulate what you disagree with?
well as extolling “most ever 1 1/2 star reviews” in the main editorial, very much own-horn-tooting going on there.
uhhh, I wasn’t “extolling” anything. I was complaining because I found it to be a very depressing fact that day when I was writing the editorial. Most people read our magazine for the reviews, so I was trying to be up front about the fact that there wasn’t much to be excited about this particular month. My exact quote was: “you’re screwed.”
I’ll let Robert speak for himself on this review. We’ve debated many many times over the years (yes, even when Johnny was running it and we were not yet Shadows of Our Former Selves) about giving out review scores lower than a 1. We’ve debated it from a philosophical and statistical standpoint. The bottom line was that this game was as big a piece of shit as any game that more than one of the CGW editors had ever played, on top of the fact that it deeply offended the reviewer in question. It just did not rate even the one. Lord knows we’re not the only publication, covering any art form, that decides at some point to just say: Ya know what, fuck this thing. ZERO.
As to why the “aggrandizing” line appears on the cover, well, we have to plug the reviews on the cover every month. Looking over the lineup, again, there was not a whole lot to plug. So we put that line on there–of course–as a way to make readers curious and want to read it. Is it a “look at me!” tactic? Of course it is. We’re trying to sell magazines. Duh. But the review wasn’t written with that goal–the review was heartfelt. If the game company in question thinks it’s “cool” to get that cover line or to get the zero stars, then they’re just as sad as I already think they are. Hey, they can quote that last sentence too!
And frankly, I don’ t see what all the furor is about. Scharmers made some good points about games like Output, the first BC3K etc etc not having zero stars - but I would would say that those games came at a different time in our industry’s history. So, in much the same way gamers expect more from developers, why not go with the premise that the type and quality of games should also be affected by this change?
I have not yet seen the review but if they gave it zero stars, then it must not have any redeeming qualities - according to the reviewer - and thats perfectly OK. Fact is, even if it was given 0.1 star (if such a scale existed), someone would still bitch at it.
[quote=“Ben_Sones”]
How do you figure?[/quote]
I’m wondering about that myself. But considering who wrote that particular piece of rubbish, why ask why?
Good points. But you’re forgetting a critical aspect here (and which we all do from time to time) : reviews are based on the personal experiences and opinions of the reviewer. I mean, why is this being ignored? Are we now going to be lobbying for the EICs to - unilaterally - alter the scores that a specifically assigned reviewer gives to a game he/she reviewed? OK, so the rumor is that Steve does that, but we’re not talking about Steve this time around. :D I for one don’t want see EICs having ANY say in the final score for games they didn’t - personally - review.
Does Postal 2 merit a zero star rating? Maybe not. I have not played it - I don’t intend to buy it - and therefore cannot pass judgement. But the fact that I won’t be buying it, nor playing it, gives it a zero star rating in my book. :P
But no, seriously though, I’ve seen worse games (Survivor for e.g.) in recent memory not get a zero star rating and it does raise questions as to why this score was given to this game. I mean, even if you can wantonly kill people, piss on them etc etc, the game has to have some merit which would - probably - put it in a spot on the scale which would give it at least a half star. I mean, the Unreal engine for one is enough to give the game a one star rating. But then again, some would say that we’re not rating game engines. But the fact is - yes we are - or reviewers won’t be clamouring about kick-ass or poor graphics and whatnot. I mean, is the game that bad and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever?
Well, there we have it. Sure works for me. And as I pointed out above, Rob’s explanation based on experience and personal opinion is enough for him to give the game whatever star rating he wants. If I played a game and thought all of the above, man I’d be hard pressed to rate it. Period. So, instead of running around screaming controversy and all that nonsense, about a game being given a zero star rating, why don’t we all just assume that the reviewer didn’t like it enough to rate it? Then we can all go home. ;)
Rubbish. Please show me the math involved with equating a 1-5 star rating to a 0-100 point rating. I’ll be waiting. :roll:
And your point was what? I mean, seriously, have you ever - EVAR - successfully made a point or won an argument around here? I mean, c’mon, there IS always a FIRST time for EVERYTHING. So, why does this star rating HAVE to be based on precedent? Why can’t it - in and of itself - be a precedent? Which in fact, for those with enough common sense to fill a vial, is what it is: a PRECEDENT. So, now we have a game that will serve as a litmus test. Next time around, in the same way we associate Outpost, BC3K, Trespasser, Survivor etc etc with bad games, low star ratings etc, we will see another zero star rated game and remember that Postal 2 - in 2003 - set the precedent.
You’re right, its probably 4am where you are, which is probably why you CLEARLY MISSED THE POINT
As far as I can tell, that grandstanding is a take on the same grandstanding that the Postal 2 devs use to promote, hype and sell the game. To me, the CGW version is just giving back a taste of their own medicine. Quite frankly, I find it ironic and amusing, rather than startling and in poor taste. But, as always, YMMV.
[quote=“jeff lackey”]
Wumpus, have you read the review you so vehemently disagree with? Are there some quotes from the review that you can give and articulate what you disagree with?[/quote]
Aw c’mon. No seriously, this is wumpus we’re talking about. Rarely does he post anything worthy of merit. Thats the whole point of his gig.
[b]DISCLAIMER
I don’t give a rat’s ass about what people who run or write for gaming magazines do with their medium. PERIOD. I have quite a few friends and associates going back many, many years, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to grab a fucking torch and run around town naked for them. My opinions are my own and I treat all gaming mags and people who write for them equally and based on merit. So, before you blind masturbating trolls start up some shit (e.g. about me defending CGW for whatever reason, especially me being a game developar), remember, this is ME [Derek Smart] we’re talking about and I’ve been beaten up by the media more times than I’ve had dates. Point being : these are my own opinions based on merit and has nothing to do with anything other than that. But just for the record, I luv ol’ man Green :D[/b]
Zero or not, it’s a well below par game with mean spirited humor. If there were no more games made like this I’d be fine with that. I feel the same way about some movies and TV shows, so this isn’t just discriminating against games. I can enjoy gutter humor as long as I think it was done in the right spirit. This game just felt bitter and sarcastic and it wasn’t fun for me.
Actually, that’s not what happens. It’s not a repeat of the first game (which was pretty much a spree-killer simulation). While you can still go around killing innocents in horrifying ways, your role in the game world isn’t imposed on you. (You can avoid much of the combat, or just kill those who try to kill you.)
Peter[/quote]
I’ve heard this many times, but do you really think the game was intended to be played this way?
Will your rape simulator revolutionize rape games? Will you have photorealistic graphics based on actual rape phootage? Will the sound effects come from Japanese snuff movies? Cause that’s the kind of game you need to break into a market that’s already filled with games like this one
and this one
You’re right, its probably 4am where you are, which is probably why you CLEARLY MISSED THE POINT
As far as I can tell, that grandstanding is a take on the same grandstanding that the Postal 2 devs use to promote, hype and sell the game. To me, the CGW version is just giving back a taste of their own medicine. Quite frankly, I find it ironic and amusing, rather than startling and in poor taste. But, as always, YMMV.
I guess my problem is that the magazine shouldn’t even have or want to do that, but since it was editorial I guess the point is rather moot.
Just publish the damn reviews and talk about the games rather than yourselves.
Game reviewers should should review the overall quality of a game. In my mind Postal 2 is not a 0 game because I can think of countless other games that are worse than it. If they want to talk about the personal problems they have with a game then fine, I just won’t support the magazine with my dollars. They can then continue to question the morality of poor games while hyping games they like, violence and all.
Not everyone agrees, and that’s fine. It’s a revew, and thus an opinion of the product, that serves to bring down the publication in my eyes.
See, this is why game reviews should use the tried-and-true “thumbs up/down” method, instead of coming up with some magical number of quality. Siskel and Ebert gave “I Spit on Your Grave” a thumbs down and I don’t think anyone complained how they overlooked the movie’s cinematography, special effects, etc.
