I mentioned that because it seemed like he was overlooking it.
Once Gamerankings started taking reviews from “Christian Game Review” and any number of other random review sites, the average scoring was rendered useless. Now he is cramming reviews in from sites in wartorn Bosnia, a Pole at the international space station, and the losers from the latest round of Bum Fights. These new sites review archives are being mined for scores for as far as ten years back in some cases. There are a lot of shitty review sites being factored in. I just hope the shitty positive reviews and shitty negative reviews will balance out in the end.
This example, however, is further proof that some percentage of high and low scores must be dropped so that, as Phil pointed out, that average isn’t unfairly skewed by some (or multiple) morons. Of course, if internet idiots still read reviews and were educated above the level of fifth grade when they graduate high school, people would not rely exclusively on that average, we would all get along, and world peace would be close behind.
Just so Phil doesn’t get off lightly…
A developer who says that his latest title is his favorite of all the work that he/she has done is a rare bird indeed. :wink:
Not true. If you read the information posted only select sites that meet certain criterion are counted toward the score. The rest are ranked, included, but don’t count toward the score. I’m not sure what they require exactly (mostly because I don’t care that much).
Not true. If you read the information posted only select sites that meet certain criterion are counted toward the score. The rest are ranked, included, but don’t count toward the score. I’m not sure what they require exactly (mostly because I don’t care that much).[/quote]
What, I have to read there too? I thought that was just a link site. Now I have to read Gamerankings criteria outline as well as read the actual reviews at the linked sites? Forget it…lemme get back to PokerStars. No reading required.
Ultimately a review is just one persons opinion and to dismiss it because they may stand up to the scrutiny of the rank-and-file then it becomes elitism. I’m sure the veteran reviewers have their preferences to particular genres and , debate it all you want, it WILL affect their take on the game whether its done conciously or not.
I know its sounds simplistic but unless this guy DID review an alpha then the review is as valid as the next persons.
I know its sounds simplistic but unless this guy DID review an alpha then the review is as valid as the next persons
As a punter I’d dismiss it based on the fact he spent 1/3rd of the review telling me that its the 3rd outing of RRT and is about trains then marked it 40% without ever telling me what is wrong with it other than he doesn’t like trains and “there isnt much new”.
If you are going to pan a game totally and give it a score that low (when anything under 75% on most peoples scale means avoid like the plague unless you really loved the prequel) then I do think you have an obligation to tell people why are marking it that low. Yet there is nothing I can see in that review to justify a mark of 40%, in fact there is little in that review I can see to even begin to evaluate any score they might have awarded it, I have to squint to even make out the screenshots.
If this were some small-time amateur gaming site, then maybe (and it’s a big maybe) I’d say it’s as valid as the next persons. But this supposed to be a review from an actual game mag and must be held to a higher standard. As in the review should actually contain content. This review was nearly 100% content-free.
Isn’t this a fairly commonplace occurance among some of the UK review mags? I know I seem to hear about some minor controversy or another every year when it comes out that a magazine in the UK has reviewed an alpha or beta.
Well sure. It’s definitely valid as an opinion. The guy didn’t like the game, and even though England doesn’t have a Constitution that protects your right to complain about NFL referees even if the league office tells you to shut up, I’m pretty sure the Magna Carta did mention game reviews. The problem is what that guy posted doesn’t serve any purpose as a review, since the whole point of a review is that it provides the service of guiding purchasing decisions. To guide a purchasing decision, the review has to evaulate the game in the sense that it tells me why I may or may not like it. The fact that the guy holds that opinion is great, and it’s “valid” to the extent that I truly believe he doesn’t like it, and he is free not to like the game, and my opinion is no better than his, and we’re all lads together, up with people, etc. But since he absolutely failed to tell me anything in that review other than the fact that he didn’t like the game, the review seems to me to be an objective failure. Although that’s just my opinion, which is as valid as the next guy’s.
On the other hand, if the guy is just being paid to have an opinion, then let me know where to sign up for that.
On the other other hand, if you were just trolling, then nice job.
That review is a shame for this “job” or whatever you want to call it.
That is the type of reviews that make developers shy at press, and what make people bitch about reviews in general (through there are good professionals).
No, in not valid. He is being payed for working in a magazine, that is bought because people want to read it expecting not only opinions (why you need to pay for opinions when they are free at internet?). You want to read serious opinions, you want to read the opinion of someone who have played, understand the game and can give you good reasons why the game is good or bad.
At the end you may be agree or not, that is your freedom. But a review well done is far away of one bad done, specially one that says “I have been finished just at the deadline because my writter doesn´t care about train games”
OK, one more post, even though I said I was through :)
I got confirmation that the original GamesTM review (That was reposted on totalgames.net) was in fact definitely based on the mid-August alpha build.
Totalgames.net pulled all the links to the review from their home page, reviews page, etc. (though the page still sits on their server for the time being, so the link at the top of this thread works), and they will be assigning their own reviewer to review a copy of the gold master (what a concept).
GamesTM is apparently a heavily console focused magazine that has pulled this trick before on PC strategy games. For instance, Age of Wonders Shadow Magic got a 50% from them. I think there’s a lot of fans here of that game who would dispute that score, to put it mildly. Interestingly, that review, which also can be found on totalgames.net, also fails to give any justification for a 50% score, and also looks like the result of about 1 hour spent with the game.
GameRankings.com has also pulled their link for the RT3 ‘review’ in question
Phil, you should let http://www.gametab.com/ know that the review was yanked as well, I know that is a site a lot of qt3 folks use:
http://www.gametab.com/pc/railroad.tycoon.3/1948/
Pulled it, I’ve never like Total Games anyway. ;)
Why in the holy hell do they bother if they are going to so misrepresent two games in fairly popular series…serieses…series’ when the consensus of the entire living and breathing world has opionions that run counter to their reviews. Jeezus Squeezus!
Just do not DO PC strategy reviews! Do some for FPS or one of the 9 million budget console titles released every day! Not sure why I am yelling here.