tissuetown Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) You said it in your last post, unless you were being sarcastic. It wasn't very clear. It wasn't very clear? If you say so. But yes, I will comply with the mods wishes and leave you guys to it. I was merely scrutinising sales number of The Conduit that have come out of thin air. Which I do believe to have been very much on topic. Evidently I was attacked for scrutinising said sales numbers by avid fans of The Conduit. They even went as far and made up accusations on things I did not say. Hence the minor argument. But I will end it at that. Edited July 12, 2009 by Retro_Link
dwarf Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 EDIT: Oh god, here comes Dwarf... things is about to get ugly. I'm not even siding with anyone, infact this is brilliant. Pointless drivel, it's actually boring to read after a while, like every forum argument you aren't involved in.
Emasher Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 *Facepalm* Anyway, what weapons are people getting good with in multiplayer? The Deatomizer MK4 is my favorite so far. I'm also liking the SPAS shotgun, the SMAW rocket launcher, the Strike Rifle and the SMG.
Nintendohnut Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 I'm not even siding with anyone, infact this is brilliant. Pointless drivel, it's actually boring to read after a while, like every forum argument you aren't involved in. I think this is meant to be an insult... but after reading it through a few times it seems to actually be a compliment. I think he's saying I'm not boring and pointless. Odd. ANYWAY So I said before that I can't afford this game right now and I'm kind of glad I waited. Personally I think I will probably still get the game, but after a price drop as it seems that it's not really worth the full price. On a slightly unrelated note, I see a lot of people on here saying things like 'oh go on buy it, it's on offer now. I did and I've added it to my pile of games that I need to play'. I thought this was really interesting because personally I buy one game at a time, get the maximum enjoyment out of it that I can, then buy another one. If I had a big stack of games to play I'd just play one til I got stuck somewhere and a little bored, then think 'oh I have that other game, I think I'll play that', and then never get my money's worth. I don't really know why I mention it other than because I noticed it and it intrigued me. How many people buy one game at a time, and how many people buy lots of games whenever they see one they want for a good price, and stack them up? Also: Emasher - you mentioned a few times that you haven't yet come across a conventional sniper rifle (for example in Red Steel and Goldeneye there were guns that were specifically for sniping rather than also being an automatic). Has that changed now or is there no specific sniper in the game? And are there times when you want one?
dwarf Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 I meant 'you' as in me/anyone, was a general statement. I'm neither complimenting or insulting you. Isn't this weird people? This forumer thought I was making a snide comment.
Emasher Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 There is no conventional Sniper Rifle. But there are multiple long range weapons. A sniper rifle wouldn't really fit with the gameplay. The Assault Rifle (SCAR) can usually kill someone with a headshot. The Strike Rifle is similar but is usually an instant kill if you hit someone with a charged shot. The Deatomizer MK4 is very similar. There are also a few scoped weapons in the single player (A Pistol, and slightly different versions of the Strike Rifle and Deatomizer).
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 With that system, you are saying a the average mark has to be fifty percent, and then you're working out a method designed to generate that score consistently. Average doesn't have to mean "not good but not bad". If every game released on the system of the exact same quality, then in order to maintain your average, you'd have to give them all 50%. The games could be of the quality of say Super Mario Galaxy or Action Girlz Racing (thanks LostOverThere ), and it wouldn't make a difference, until you introduced a title that was either better or worse. And at that point, you'd have to re-score all the other games to maintain your average of 50% If every game was perfect, then perfection would become the average, how ever you choose to calculate it. Likewise, utter dross would share the same fate. I do see what you're saying, but ultimately, you mark each game on what they do well and what they don't do well. What I was saying that if this game (to some) is bland, lacks that special charm but it still playable, then really you should be looking to put that score somewhere in the "middle." Rather than along the 70s, which to me signifies that it is a good game. It's very hard to try to type my words down, seeing as I have something in my head that I want to say but I can't find the right words. With something like Mario galaxy, you look at the game, every aspect of it and like many reviews that are out there, you grade it in each of these aspects. You judge the game on its sound, its visual, and ultimately how it plays. Now, that doesn't mean to say that all of these categories are equal. A game could have bad sound but may still get a good score, whereas if the gameplay itself was bad, then the chances of it still getting the same score may not be the same. Some reviewers really pick up on the idea of "lastability" for example. In essence, it really does depend on the actual game in question. But, what I'm saying is you look at what the game does, and you base it on that. I'm not saying you give all games that are neither good nor bad 50%, but rather that you should be looking in that region rather than giving it something higher which indicates that it may better than it actually is. If the game really is a bit "blah" to you, would you still classify it as a good game? If every game were perfect, we'd be living in a utopia! Haha. But, the same would still apply. You'd look at each game and see what it does well and where there is room for improvement. I think maybe we got our wires crossed, because when I say "average" I mean being average in terms of being dull or an experience that is a bit monotonous. I don't mean average in terms of compared to the rest of the games on the system. Like, taking the scores of all Wii games and re-working those so that the average was 50%. I prefer to see each game as a standalone.
dwarf Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 It's just how it's done now, 70% is kind of deemed average to good, so if everyone suddenly changed systemand rated games 50% when before it would've been a 70%, you'd have inconsistent scores. Scores are actually impossible to keep consistent anyway.
Emasher Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 The thing is though, most games that get 70s usually do something good. The Conduit is a good example of this. Not everything in it is just average in my opinion.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) It's just how it's done now, 70% is kind of deemed average to good, so if everyone suddenly changed systemand rated games 50% when before it would've been a 70%, you'd have inconsistent scores. Scores are actually impossible to keep consistent anyway. I just find that strange, since 50 is the middle-mark. It seems like a lot of places are afraid to give scores like 5/10, though, incase it portrays the game in a bad light. Well, 5/10 just means it's bang in the middle, although I guess things are not that simple. The thing is though, most games that get 70s usually do something good. The Conduit is a good example of this. Not everything in it is just average in my opinion. That's what I'm saying though, if a game is deserved of a score like that, then there must be quite a lot that is positive about it. However, if you're feeling underwhelmed by it, or not enthused about playing it, or would rather be playing something else, deeming it a "good game" just doesn't seem accurate, in my opinion. Sorry for taking up your Conduit gaming talk, guys. You better be enjoying this game, or else I will be angry. I want eeeet. Edited July 13, 2009 by Fierce_LiNk Automerged Doublepost
Emasher Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 TBH, most games that were completely average, did everything they needed to, but nothing more, we would probably see as bad games.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 TBH, most games that were completely average, did everything they needed to, but nothing more, we would probably see as bad games. What do you mean "did everything they needed to"? Do you mean "passable" in the sense that has gameplay that works, graphics that allows us to see what is going on?
dwarf Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Well that game doesn't really exist, whatever you are describing.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Basically, yes. That doesn't mean they're necessarily good games, though. I mean, there are games out there, plenty of games that have decent sound that functions, graphics that enable you to recognise that the character infront of you is an enemy, or have an options screen. I mean, that's pretty basic. When you fork out money, you should be receiving a functioning game in return. It's a bit like paying for a music CD, and expecting there to be tracks that work in your CD player or computer. This stuff is a given. But, the main thing you're looking for in games is quality. You're looking for a positive experience, or a game that offers you entertainment. If the experience is frustrating, or you don't receive that "basic" game, or a game which is broken, then you're looking at using the term bad game.
Emasher Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 No, a game that is perfectly in the middle cannot exist, just like game that is perfect cannot exist, and a game that would deserve a 0 cannot exist. For me, when I look at it, a game that gets a score of below 5 should have flaws that "break" the game, and anything above, should have at least some merit to it. But most games that get 7s, do have some sort of merit to them.
dwarf Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 I think a game can get a 0 to be fair, if the experience is so bad that you are worse off for playing it.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 No, a game that is perfectly in the middle cannot exist, just like game that is perfect cannot exist, and a game that would deserve a 0 cannot exist. For me, when I look at it, a game that gets a score of below 5 should have flaws that "break" the game, and anything above, should have at least some merit to it. But most games that get 7s, do have some sort of merit to them. Importantly, you used the word "perfect" there a few times, to describe a perfect game or a game perfectly in the middle. It may not be possible to get a game "perfectly" in the middle, but you will have a number of games that float around this region. Games which on paper may seem promising but it just doesn't quite deliver in reality. Games which are not broken, but may not warrant full price. You're right though, games that do get 7s should have some sort of merit to them. I think the problem with a lot of gamers is that they automatically think of games (especially exclusives or big-hitters) to be reaching for that 8/9 column. If a game slightly drops off to a 7, they start to get worried. But, in reality, I still think a 7 is a good score. It means the game may need some improvements in the sequel or the company's next project, but that the experience is a pleasant one.
dwarf Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 I think your last paragraph there is actually the bombshell. That's why 5 is generally perceived as a bad game.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 I think your last paragraph there is actually the bombshell. That's why 5 is generally perceived as a bad game. I'm glad that paragraph made sense, haha. It's a shame that many people perceive this, and it's ultimately why I tend to not read many reviews, because I don't want to see myself fall into the trap of thinking "oh shit, 6 out of 10, fail!" I guess I may just throw caution to the wind with certain games, but sometimes you need to in order to find the gems.
BlueStar Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 The way it is at the minute though 80% is deemed OK, 90% is deemed good. 70% is basically considered dross and the numbers below 70 are just to add some extra hyperbole about exactly how truely awful a game is. I don't think I've seen any review sites that give anything like 50% to an average game.
Nintendohnut Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 I agree with you actually. Although I do remember reading a review in NGamer a long time ago for a game that wasn't a big release (It was on the 'and as for every other game released this month...' page) that gave a game 50% exactly and summd it up by saying something like 'this is completely average. It doesn't do anything badly, but it does nothing well. Completely middle of the road'. That's the only example I can think of where a reviewer gives a score like that because a game is average. And even then I think I thought 'oh, well that sounds like a poor game' where clearly it wasn't actually poor, it just was... well, nothing really.
Nicktendo Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 My Special Edition came from Zavvi this morning! For £17.95 ! Consider that: Win!
Patch Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Is it just me or does anyone else think Prometheus sounds a lot like Curtis Manning from 24? It's not just you - I thought exactly the same thing. I was expecting him to call me Jack.
ShadowV7 Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 My Special Edition came from Zavvi this morning! For £17.95 ! Consider that: Win! Me too! Can't wait to do badly online!
Recommended Posts