The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[RYSE] Reviewing and scoring
Code Vision
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Hi everyone!
My first post here (from my phone, no less) so if I mess something up, let me know.
First-off, I love the site so far. People seem more reasonable and thoughtful thank some other places, so I wanted to run something by you to see what you think. The question is about reviews and scoring for games.
I can be a little long winded, so if you want to just get to the point you can skip my lead-in.....
So, RYSE... This is a game that caught a ton of flack for the QTE/QTE-like events during combat at E3. From what I could tell, these queues were a little like what you might see in a have like The Path of Neo, where they guided the combat somewhat, but nothing like what you would get from a Boss fight in a game like God of War. It turns out that the mechanics of it are something different than either game, but at the time my initial feeling was that folks were being a little hard on the game prematurely. I thought, "Maybe we should wait and see how this develops."
I didn't exactly follow every bit of news on it, because there were other games I was more interested in. But it stuck with me in the back of my mind, the reaction people had to this game being so, well, reactionary. So I did check in from time to time to see what updates were coming in. The previews I heard on my regular podcasts were completely unenthusiastic. Complaints of repetitive combat, silly story, low difficulty all seemed fair. But there was a hint of disdain in each of their voices toward this game that went a bit beyond an objective critique of the game mechanics. It seemed almost like this have rubbed all of these people the wrong way.
When the Xbone launched, I skipped it completely because as the father of a 2 year old I find that I tend to commit to one or two games at a time. Picked up Forza and BF4.... Ryse was going to be a rental or a price-drop purchase.
Turns out I got a gift card, so I used it last night to grab Ruse (at full price) from the XBL store. At this point my expectations were pretty low, but there are not many games to choose from at the moment.
Long story short, I love this game. I know, cool story bro... Look I know it's fairly common to like a game that reviews poorly, and I also get that there are still a lot of people out there who will not enjoy this. But this is a game that throughout this process has got me thinking about the purpose of reviews, and the effectiveness in scoring.
In my mind, there are a few questions reviewers are trying to answer when they sum it all up with that ever-controversial score:
1. How good is this game?
2. Will you like this game?
3. Should you buy this game?
There are others, to be sure, and all kinds of factors can let people to focus on one aspect or another. But since reviews are usually for the consuming public, ideally they are trying to get to one of these answers.
To me, there are a couple of problems. The first is that the reviews don't usually answer all three questions consistently. And the second is that they don't always tell you which question they are answering. There's guys have to play through a lot more than the average gamer, and they can't just stop playing if they don't like it. But my worry it's that their reviews are more of a reflection of they overall feel of the game, and they they just throw in a lot of their analysis on the mechanics or story or visuals just to show that they actually thought about it. That's good effort, but the result is a one size fits all score that seems one- dimensional, and not particularly helpful to fans of a certain genre or franchise.
I know you can't account for ask of the variety in taste out there, but do you have any favorite sites, reviewers, or even ideas about ways to score games in a way that can be more helpful to people on the fence about certain games?
Personally, I think you should outright answer a handful of questions off the bat...
What kind of game is this?
Who might like it?
Do I like it?
Games I like that are similar.
Is it a buy, rent, borrow, or skip?
I also think that the have should be reviewed by someone who either likes it, or who hates it the least of anyone else in the office.
If any of you actually read all that, do u have any thoughts?
Thanks guys!
My first post here (from my phone, no less) so if I mess something up, let me know.
First-off, I love the site so far. People seem more reasonable and thoughtful thank some other places, so I wanted to run something by you to see what you think. The question is about reviews and scoring for games.
I can be a little long winded, so if you want to just get to the point you can skip my lead-in.....
So, RYSE... This is a game that caught a ton of flack for the QTE/QTE-like events during combat at E3. From what I could tell, these queues were a little like what you might see in a have like The Path of Neo, where they guided the combat somewhat, but nothing like what you would get from a Boss fight in a game like God of War. It turns out that the mechanics of it are something different than either game, but at the time my initial feeling was that folks were being a little hard on the game prematurely. I thought, "Maybe we should wait and see how this develops."
I didn't exactly follow every bit of news on it, because there were other games I was more interested in. But it stuck with me in the back of my mind, the reaction people had to this game being so, well, reactionary. So I did check in from time to time to see what updates were coming in. The previews I heard on my regular podcasts were completely unenthusiastic. Complaints of repetitive combat, silly story, low difficulty all seemed fair. But there was a hint of disdain in each of their voices toward this game that went a bit beyond an objective critique of the game mechanics. It seemed almost like this have rubbed all of these people the wrong way.
When the Xbone launched, I skipped it completely because as the father of a 2 year old I find that I tend to commit to one or two games at a time. Picked up Forza and BF4.... Ryse was going to be a rental or a price-drop purchase.
Turns out I got a gift card, so I used it last night to grab Ruse (at full price) from the XBL store. At this point my expectations were pretty low, but there are not many games to choose from at the moment.
Long story short, I love this game. I know, cool story bro... Look I know it's fairly common to like a game that reviews poorly, and I also get that there are still a lot of people out there who will not enjoy this. But this is a game that throughout this process has got me thinking about the purpose of reviews, and the effectiveness in scoring.
In my mind, there are a few questions reviewers are trying to answer when they sum it all up with that ever-controversial score:
1. How good is this game?
2. Will you like this game?
3. Should you buy this game?
There are others, to be sure, and all kinds of factors can let people to focus on one aspect or another. But since reviews are usually for the consuming public, ideally they are trying to get to one of these answers.
To me, there are a couple of problems. The first is that the reviews don't usually answer all three questions consistently. And the second is that they don't always tell you which question they are answering. There's guys have to play through a lot more than the average gamer, and they can't just stop playing if they don't like it. But my worry it's that their reviews are more of a reflection of they overall feel of the game, and they they just throw in a lot of their analysis on the mechanics or story or visuals just to show that they actually thought about it. That's good effort, but the result is a one size fits all score that seems one- dimensional, and not particularly helpful to fans of a certain genre or franchise.
I know you can't account for ask of the variety in taste out there, but do you have any favorite sites, reviewers, or even ideas about ways to score games in a way that can be more helpful to people on the fence about certain games?
Personally, I think you should outright answer a handful of questions off the bat...
What kind of game is this?
Who might like it?
Do I like it?
Games I like that are similar.
Is it a buy, rent, borrow, or skip?
I also think that the have should be reviewed by someone who either likes it, or who hates it the least of anyone else in the office.
If any of you actually read all that, do u have any thoughts?
Thanks guys!
0
Posts
I don't have the game nor do I have the urge to try the game out. But to have every game reviewed by only people who "like" the game is a terrible, terrible metric to follow. Even more than what we have now.
Thanks for the replies!
Just curious, why do you think it wouldn't work? My feeling is that someone who can see the merits in the game will give you better information then someone who's turned off by it. Like might be too strong of a word, but I think the idea would be to rate the game for people likely to play it, not just for the sake of having a review. One site that I think is fairly well known recently did a review for Forza by someone who doesn't even play racing games. For me, a review from a Forza player, or at least a fan of the genre could have been more insightful, and talk more directly to the folks who play that kind of game.
Do you think this would be less helpful to potential newcomers to the series, maybe?
Basically this. I don't trust review sites anymore, especially after even PC Gamer turned to crapola. The level of unprofessionalism, general corruption, and annoying bias in review sites wore me out after a while and I do not read them at all anymore. Especially after spending a few years with the fine chaps around here and realizing that the PA forums are the best possible gaming news/reviews site I could get.
There's no conspiracy in the industry because you liked a game that got middling to negative reviews. There's no overhaul needed, either. Ryse is just hard for some to swallow because 60 dollars is a lot to ask for a repetitive, five-hour brawler. It has a very limited number of enemy types (each with at most only one other skin for their models), all with a very limited number of move sets. The boss fights, which are almost all one-on-one encounters, suffer from the latter problem, as well. Every fight thus becomes predictable. The game unfortunately does not stir the pot enough to keep them interesting.
*Fun tip! Your Focus ability allows you to slow down time, stunning enemies for a moment while you unleash a torrent of unblockable attacks. This amusingly works on bosses to completely eliminate whatever challenge they offer.
Some people can look past those issues, not even see them, and just enjoy a bloody, gorgeous adventure through ancient Rome. That's fine. But there's also nothing wrong if people don't think it has enough meat on its bones to justify its asking price.
Yeah I get that. Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I would hope that some one who likes a game could be honest about it's flaws. But I think if we moved away from scores and more towards getting at what makes a game a value for a player the people can just look and say "Hey, Forza is really polished and they tried something new with the drivatars, but it's still a fairly hardcore Sim on closed tracks, so its not for me."
I dunno though... Maybe you're right, and wide-eyed gushing over a game that you and only you enjoy isn't any better than cynicism or a disinterested review. I guess I was going there was a happy medium out there.
I've never heard of ABDN before. I will take a look.
Hi Dashui,
I don't understand why you think i belive there would be a conspiracy against this game, or any game. I never heard of anything like that before. But I do think the wave of criticism against Ryse carried enough momentum to pull more than a few folks along for the ride.
I wanted to flesh out my post more, but it was already so long.
My problem with the way Ryse was treated wasn't because it got bad scores. It's because I think people saw those QTEs and were so turned off that they never gave it the attention and real criticism it deserves.
What you are saying about game is absolutely true (the combat, and especially the price), and I would never have bought this game at full price if I didn't get that gift card. But wouldn't that criticism would apply to most "brawlers", and lots of other games that get more attention and conversation around them?
The reviews I read just weren't particularly thoughtful. I don't care that they didn't like the game, but I thought that there was enough there that was done right to discuss it if you didn't like the final product.
I don't know if the reviewers of the game were fans of the genre. But their critique of the game from one article to the next was every bit as repetitive and unvaried as the combat they were so down on. Am I wrong in thinking it could have been more informative? I know reviews aren't going to make the decision for you. I just think they could be more comprehensive, and could have let people know that while this have might be behind the curve on some elements, it does some things well enough that there might be something there for people who like action, immersive visuals, and badass sword fighting..
Maybe I'm making too much of it but I feel like I would have missed out on a game that turned out to be underrated by many accounts....at least in my opinion.
Thanks for the links...I guess I could be looking in the wrong places.
The thing with brawlers/beat-em-ups and character action games is that they are heavily skill based games. You need to learn and understand the way the games work and play much like you would a fighting game. It's because of the depth and complexity that the combat in these games (Bayonetta for example) is prevented from becoming stale and repetitive as it will punish you for messing up and not getting better at your ability to read and play the genre, as well as the game. Ryse, with 5 hours of content and repetitive combat doesn't have the same replayability as other games in it's genre pushes it down.
It's from what I've seen and heard from people whom are well known for their indepth knowledge and love of character action/brawlers like Ryse is trying to be that it seems to be behind the curve on a lot of these elements, and the ones that exceed them pull it off with more flare, style and enthusiasm than Ryse does with it's boring ho hum art direction. Numerous other games do all of these things way better. Ryse's only real high point is that it's packed full of next gen pretty's which will fall apart when other companies get their next gen exclusives to market.
Edit: I feel that there are much better games that fit into this genre that you could've spent your money on. Ryse is mediocre by all accounts.
Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
Agreed.
Though in the end you should decide based on the information you can get together about a game. What parts were enjoyed the most. Why? Would I enjoy them? What parts are critizized? Why? Would those parts bother me?
These are the questions you have to ask yourself and imo will lead you to games that you enjoy.
A forum like PA is perfect for this due to a wide variety of opinions and the resulting discussions. It's also easier than trying to find *your* perfect reviewer.
Just curious, did you play the game? I ask because in most of the boss fights focus doesn't work.
I beat it, and Focus totally works during boss fights unless a patch changed that. Some will shrug it off fairly quickly, but if you horde your Focus through a level you can just spam it to take off a huge chunk of their health.
Anyhoo, I beat the game on Centurion first, then Legendary (go me? w/e). The effectiveness of focus during boss fights depended greatly on the difficulty level. A stagger into a perfect combo hits would get a good bit of damage, but focus stagger into blindly tapping generally got broken quickly.
Hoarding your focus to use it all at the end of the level doesn't really speak to difficulty or challenge of the game no more than hoarding heavy hitters until a boss comes along in any other game too, heh.
I hear it's a really short game, and that starts the line of questions about entertainment value and time value, it all depends on what you get out of a game. If a game looks interesting, just try it. Simple as that.
Basically, 7-8 is fans of the genre, 8-9 is iffy, and 9-10 is generally excellent for anyone, in my experience. It's not perfect, but it has served me well. Below 7 means that there are significant flaws on the product that detract from it's playability and go below the standards expected for a high price-point luxury good, and that means you have to really question if you want the game and look into what the flaws are. I think the system works well for a cursory glance, esp. when shopping between games in the same genre.
Whenever I tried to use it in a boss fight, the screen would flash, but it seemed to dissipate instantly. Maybe my meter wasn't high enough?
Being aware of biases is also very important, as is price difference, just like when choosing what newspapers to read. Right now there is a big push to promote indie games on many sites, so you see scores of 9/10 for games that cost ten bucks but obviously you're not going to get the same experience as from a 9/10 rated AAA game.
I think most gamers understand that they need to consume a range of opinions and make their own mind up.
Steam: adamjnet