Fierce_LiNk
-
Posts
29483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Fierce_LiNk
-
Oh dear. It really isn't an over-analysis, but the system clearly needs to be taken seriously. One of the reasons why Edge are held in such high regard is that they take their reviews seriously. Now, some sites choose to use the 1-10 system, and other sites use the 1-100. Personally, I prefer the second one, because whilst the score is just an indicator, it is a scale within a scale. That is one concept which you have simply not grasped. As a gamer, you should know that things are not simply black and white, and that there are various degrees of "goodness" as I like to call it. 60% is the equivalent of 6 out of 10, but then you look at the sub-level within that. 64% is closer to a low 60, and 66 is a high sixty. That is why I like this particular method. One such example I am going to use is Cel Damage on the Gamecube. A good little game, very good at what it did, excellent multiplayer...but there were so many issues. It was a good little game, but not great. Just missing one or two little finishing touches. In your review, I would have given it a 6 out of 10. In mine, it's a high 6, so along the lines of a 67%. That is a simple concept I think you need to understand. Whilst the score is just an indication, I personally find the percentage based indicator gives you far more insight about the game than the simple 1-10 does. I would also like to point out that in my post I Clearly stated that "The score is an indicator, isn't it?" And that in your system, the scores of 6 and 7 are only one unit apart. You have not addressed this fact. Is the line between a good and great game or average and good game so thin? That is another reason why I prefer the 1-100. Well, you "created the flaw" by comparing Wii Fit to Zelda. Lets just stick with your system of 6/10 now, shall we? Lets say we give Zelda a 6 and Wii Fit a 5. How can you justify one score over the other? You're going to say you can't, because they are two different genres. Which is spot on. So, why did you choose two different genres in the first place? If you're attempting to redicule my point, try a little harder please. If you're going to compare ANY games with each other, they would obviously need to be within the same genre. Lets compare Pro Evo with Fifa, for example. Same genre, but there are differences within them. The presentation in Fifa is something that Pro Evo has never touched upon, for example. The main difference first of all would be the controls for Pro Evo Wii. But, you mark each game on its own merits. Both of these games have positives and negatives, and I think they actually contrast each other quite well. The slick gameplay which Pro Evo has managed for years is becoming more and more apparant in Fifa nowadays, whilst also improving on its previous good points. Whoa, where did I say I would rate films out of 100? I also like how you have clearly not read my point about there not being a halfway point when reviewing a film out of 5. Again, what? I was pointing out the obvious problems, which as far as I am concerned are as clear as daylight. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until you learn to read my posts word for word. Clearly you think that you can seperate games and movies by "good" "bad" "great" and you can't, because there are many shades of grey. Again, look at the Dead Space review on N-E. Does this mean the game is Good or Great? It doesn't work like that. Thank you for your time, it was interesting seeing your points of you. However, I think you really need to be more appreciative of other people's points of view. It would help if you read posts carefully in future.
-
If you're saying that, then why bother with scores at all? Why bother giving out a 7 or an 8 if they are one unit apart? The score is an indicator, isn't it? The difference between the 64% game and 66% game is that there are minor things which the later does better than the first. In a game reviewed at 6 out of 10, there are things which the game "does better" than a game rated 5/10, correct? With games seperate by a few percent, the differences are much more minor. It could be with regards to one particular issue, or maybe several minor issues. I know Empire rate in 5 stars, but not all publications do that. And, personally, I don't like that particular system. So, you mention what is the difference between 64% and 66%: Well, what about the difference between 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 5? I've always thought the "out of 5" system is a strange one because there isn't even a halfway score. 2 out of 5 is below halfway and 3 out of 5 is above halfway. So, what exactly does each score stand for? "Terrible, under average, above average, great, classic?" Is it really that simple? Of course not. Also, notice that jump between above average and great. Or is it "terrible, not worth seeing, worth seeing, good, great"? Maybe I'm being a bit stupid and have misread my own posts (I've looked over and I can't see what you're refering to) but where have I changed my argument and where did I say that no game was perfect? In my original post, I said this: "To give out a maximum score, you'd have to say that there are no flaws within the game whatsoever, and that no stone would be unturned." Then, in a later post, I said: "When a game is created, the creators will no doubt be aiming for that 10, that perfect game. There could be a game created where there are no flaws or areas that could be improved upon, and then THAT game would fully deserve its perfect score. Consider a review like a test. If you get everything absolutely right, you score full marks. If you make a mistake, you lose a mark here and there. I just don't think that 10's should be given for the sake of it, just to make a game look good when maybe it doesn't deserve a 10. A ten is a perfect score and it should be treated like one. I don't see how anyone can argue that?" And, originally, I stated this: "Hmm, maybe they feel under pressure in this day and age to give out higher scores? I mean, these are all important games, so maybe they feel that they need to be dishing out maximum scores?" So, what I said was that (which is actually in agreement with you!) Famitsu are giving out perfect scores too easily. That was my original post. The 40/40 score or 10/10 (or 100/100) is the most perfect score that any game could get. It is very prestigious. Like I mentioned, Ocarina of Time would get my perfect score because there is nothing that I believe could be done to improve it. I've been over that game for 10 years and to this day I have no idea where I'd improve it. By the looks of things, Nintendo are struggling to top that. I don't see where my argument has changed anywhere. But, if anyone feels brave, can anyone argue that Super Mario Bros Wii is a game deserving of a maximum score? I haven't played it yet, so I'll have to wait on that. But, judging by the reactions on here, there are similar issues with some areas that featured in the DS version. Notably, the difficulty.
-
Out of the list you've give me there, Ocarina of Time is the one that I consider is perfect. Never been a huge fan of Mario 64 at all. I can understand it and appreciate it, but it is by no means perfect. It's a great game, but I've often felt it was a tad bit over-rated. Never clicked with it as much as the rest of the gaming population did. Ocarina would get the 10, as that really is flawless, and Mario 64 would get a 9/10. Both are brilliant games. Galaxy is great too, and what is the problem with giving that a 9/10? Haha, a game doesn't have to be given 10/10 to be considered a classic. That's crazy. It's a brilliant game, sublime, but I haven't been right the way through it. Ask me again in a few months when I finish it. I'm slow with games. Tonight, the tv is being used to see Liverpool crash out of the Champions League. This is my football and gaming telly, haha. Right now, I love the game, love the controls, but I do not love the boss battles, which can be a bit dull, in all honesty. I know many others have commented on the difficulty of the game, some saying that it is perhaps a bit too easy. There have been a couple of times where I've not had to challenge myself, but it has caught me out a few times. So, my mind isn't 100% on that yet. At this point in time, 95% is what I would give it. Seriously, reviews have to use decimal places or odd numbers, because it isn't easy to just give each individual game a nice round number. There are various degrees of goodness. A game isn't simply "Good. Great. Crap. Average." It's a lot more complicated for that, and thats why the scores need to reflect it. If a game is bluddy good but not quite brilliant, why wouldn't it be given an 85 or 8.5 or something? Why does it have to be an 8 or a 9? Some sites review with 1-10, and some review with 1-100. Generally, I think you leave yourself more leeway with 1-100. As mcj correctly pointed out (and as you did) marking a game out of 9 would not solve the problem whatsoever. So, I don't see what you're trying to say there. Yes, I am saying that. 10/10 is reserved for the absolute best games that are out there. However, the 10/10 score is being given out far, far too easily by too many reviewers. Once again, check those Famitsu scores. Seven in 2008/2009. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that each of those are perfect games? As much as I love Brawl, it is not a perfect game. It's brilliant, they have done some marvellous things with it, but I think they're marking that too highly. I think too many people want to give out the score because, lets face it, having a 10/10 score attached to the game looks damn impressive, doesn't it? But, just because the score is there does not mean it needs to be given. How many games have you seen given out 0/10? There are some hideous games out there. But, are any hideous enough to earn that? If not, does this mean that the scale starts off at 1?
-
When a game is created, the creators will no doubt be aiming for that 10, that perfect game. There could be a game created where there are no flaws or areas that could be improved upon, and then THAT game would fully deserve its perfect score. Consider a review like a test. If you get everything absolutely right, you score full marks. If you make a mistake, you lose a mark here and there. I just don't think that 10's should be given for the sake of it, just to make a game look good when maybe it doesn't deserve a 10. A ten is a perfect score and it should be treated like one. I don't see how anyone can argue that? I tend to ignore 99% of reviews. If I need to learn about a game, I find out about impressions and stuff on the forum here. When you give a score to one game, you are marking the game as it is there and then. You're not really thinking about it 10 years or something down the line. But, say you mark Call of Duty: Modern Warfare a 10. What happens if Modern Warfare 2 comes out and then improves upon what the first game did? There's a problem there, isn't there? Do they automatically have to give the sequel a 10 if the game is indeed better than its predecessor? That's the problem people set themselves up for when they start giving out such huge scores. It's biting Famitsu in the arse right now. Seven 40/40 games in 2008/2009. I just find that hard to believe, considering that in the past they gave the scores out sparingly. So, either: 1. The standard of videogames has clearly risen and these games are all exceptional and perfect games. 2. Famitsu have changed their review model and are less lenient when giving out these scores. 3. They've got it wrong. Maybe the standard has risen. It's a great time to be a gamer. 3 great systems, so many great games. But, there are also so many challenges out there. It is challenging to make that "classic" game.
-
How is it unfair? If you give a really, really awesome game 10/10, then what would you give a game which is better than that? 11/10? 10/10 is a perfect score. You can't get any more points than that. So, what it is saying is that the game could not physically be any better. If a game could be better, then how could it warrant a 10/10 score? A maximum score? That's part of the problem with review scores. Take the latest Dead Space review on N-E for example. How many people in the comments section just commented on the 8/10 or the 3/5 for graphics rather than what the review itself actually said? For some reason, the perception is that 8 is good but not quite good enough, and that everyone big game needs to be either scoring a 9/10 or 10/10. I think the review was spot on, myself.
-
Every person is different, mind. For example, I haven't touched IGN for many, many months now. Sure, if the readers of that site want to find out much more about the game, they could always go forth and check out a fully fledged review on IGN or Gamespot or elsewhere. But, personally, I feel that the reviews on Able Gamers would be very short and thin if it was purely kept to the accessibility side of things. It's going to sound a bit daft, but in newspapers you sometimes have little exercepts which give you information on some of the latest games or films in the cinema. The reviews are very small, but they give you some form of indication about what the game or film is about. Sometimes you don't need an extensive review. Some gamers do, some don't. Yeah, the way you explained things in that second paragraph sounds right, but only if the review (on Able Gamers) does not elaborate enough or provided enough information for the gamer. That's why the reviews need to be well written and they need to focus on the content very carefully. If the reviews are written well enough, if they provide an indication about whether or not this is a game worth owning or not, then maybe you wouldn't need to visit more than one site. Pour moi, I read the reviews on the main page here or I check the impressions in the forums. Usually the information that applies to me is contained here, so I don't need to visit a multitude of other sites. But, people have different ways of doing things. Some like to read 4 or 5 reviews from different sources, whilst some never read reviews at all. Trolling? What are they doing? I don't really know what's going on, haha. Do your bastard essay. *kiss kiss hug hug*
-
I can definitely see what you mean. But, for gamers to already know about the ins and outs of a particular game, they'd have to read another review elsewhere beforehand. Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't. If that website is the first port of call, then surely they're going to need all that extra information about the game itself? The accessibilty of the game is very important for the target audience. But also, you won't want a hugely accessible game that isn't actually a very good game in the first place, right? So, that's why I think the "other" stuff is needed.
-
Hmm, maybe they feel under pressure in this day and age to give out higher scores? I mean, these are all important games, so maybe they feel that they need to be dishing out maximum scores? Honest opinion, I think it's very dodgey ground when you start giving out 10/10s or 100/100 or whatever. There is always room for improvement somewhere. To give out a maximum score, you'd have to say that there are no flaws within the game whatsoever, and that no stone would be unturned. I think if they keep giving out such high scores, it'll hurt their credibility.
-
It looks like somebody has created a clone which is 65% Pikachu, and 30% Raving Rabbid. The other 5% is consisted of baked beans.
-
You work like I work, haha. When I wake up, I need to be clean for the start of the day. I can't get up, go to work without a shower. So, getting up, showering, then getting all sweaty just doesn't make too much sense to me. For me anyway. And, I know that I work less well when I am sweaty. I take either 2 or 3 showers a day. One before work (in the morning), One after work and then another after the gym. I'm...a bit freakish with being clean.
-
Haha, I know just how bad it can be. The first ever time I did my leg-workout at my local gym, I struggled to walk for days afterwards. It really was punishing. There have also been other occassions as well, but it's all been good. I don't think I've been unlucky with regards to seriously injuring myself or anything, so far. The exercise bike/treadmill can be great for mental strength, haha. It amazes me to see people running or cycling for an hour, having their eyes firmly fixed on the wall in front of them. That's tough, haha.
-
[SPOILERS!!] The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
Fierce_LiNk replied to Dante's topic in Nintendo Gaming
What about the Megaton hammer? No-one really noticed much then, haha. In fact, Link carries around bombs, up to four bottles, arrows, deku nuts, deku sticks haha, and many other things. Plus, even with a huge shield on his back, the guy can still forward roll. He really is a hero. -
The idea is great, so well done to them for implementing this. I'm reading their review for Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. http://www.ablegamers.com/ds/Mario-Luigi-Bowsers-Inside-Story.html Their last paragraph was interesting. They recognise that the game is good, but they emphasise that it isn't very accessible. As long as they can keep this "line" running through their reviews, then I think they'll be onto a great thing. Like the Batman review, they mention that it's one of the best games of the year, but that it isn't very easily accessible for one handed gamers, etc. So, I think they've done well.
-
You'll be fine, Mr. Chair. It's now Monday night, so you've had two sleeps since your workout. Get some rest, and you'll be ok. You just worked hard. That feeling is such a nice one, though. That, and the "burn" which occurs in the gym. God, I live for it.
-
There is only One Kano. Mortal Kombat, baby. Mokong, I'm glad you had a great time. I don't think I'm allowed to be that close to Beyonce...mainly because of my hatred towards her, haha.
-
[SPOILERS!!] The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
Fierce_LiNk replied to Dante's topic in Nintendo Gaming
I definitely agree that it should be used outside of dungeons. When I read your idea, it reminded me of how the hover boots worked in Ocarina of Time. They could let you hover for a few seconds, so you'd need to almost "skip" from platform to platform. Maybe you would have some sort of energy bar that lets you know how long you have left til your ability to hover or float ceases. The upgrade idea could work with this. So, you start off being able to only do a few things with it, but you could build up more things as it progresses. Like the Silver Scale in Ocarina which allowed you to dive further underwater. -
[SPOILERS!!] The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
Fierce_LiNk replied to Dante's topic in Nintendo Gaming
If they were going to do that, surely it'd have to be for a limited amount of time? Otherwise, you would be able to get to almost every area of the map with this item. It would mean you wouldn't need Epona, or any horses or something that was included in the game. -
That is rather sweet, but also damn annoying at the same time. Tell him, "I know" and "But you ain't getting any of this." Then maybe sexy dance a little, complete 3 sets of push-ups and then indulge yourself in an erotic shower. He'll probably cry, mind.
-
[SPOILERS!!] The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
Fierce_LiNk replied to Dante's topic in Nintendo Gaming
I don't mind whatever direction they take with Zelda, as long as it is an engrossing experience that sucks you in. Zelda games have this way of creating another world that seems magical to you. If they keep creating this world, I don't mind what direction they take to get there. My only request would be for them to keep the ball and chain, and also the spinner as weapons from Twilight Princess. Two brilliant weapons/items...if they don't feature at all, it will be criminal. -
Haha, alright. I was only joshing with the Leia anyway. She'd be crazy to wear the bikini, it's winter! She'll catch a cold.
-
Don't put yourself down, Miss Mollymon. I'm sure you'll look awesome in the gold bikini. And plus, well, it is Christmas after all. I think we all deserve it.
-
For some reason, Leia didn't do anything for me when she was dressed like that. Although, when Rachel wears it for Ross in Friends...yeah...I was happy.
-
One of many options, Wolfy. First option, tell the guy straight. "I like you as a friend because you are nice. But nothing more than that because I am interested in other people. Also, you are far, far too clingy for me." Second option, break him easily: "Aww, you're really nice, but I'm not interested in starting anytime soon. Thank you, though." Or, your final option, to give him a taste of his own bastard medicine. Call him once then hang up. Then repeat the process every 5 minutes for two hours. Be overly clingy back to him. If he starts to like it, then say "oh, damn, I rang the wrong person...sorry!" Hang up. Delete number, facebook, msn. Never again.
-
You're never going to attract a male with those hairy tits of yours, Mollymon.