Gamespot give Postal 2 a 4.8

[Anonymous]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/postal2/review.html

[Reed]

It's definitely not doing too hot (surprise), though 4 out of 8 reviews have actually given it 70%+

http://www.gametab.com/pc/postal.2/1281/ (59% average)

[Anonymous]

Wow, sparked quite a thread over at Shacknews http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=7239817

[Matthew Gallant]

Every thread over at Shacknews is "quite a thread", in a sense.

[Hump]

Big George from 3DR weighs in:

NO game is worth a 4.8/10. It's unfair and it's biased. And reivewers tty to wield this power. Postal 2 is BETTER than Unreal 2. PERIOD. And Unreal 2 got 75's and higher everywhere.

So, fuck biased, unfair reviewers with axes to grind.

and


I don't like ppl trying to make an example of this game. You don't like it? Fine. It's not a 4.8 unless it's a totally buggy piece of shit that's NO FUN TO ANYONE. Postal 2 IS fin to some people.

Sorry, lame ass, uppity reviewers piss me off.

[Matthew Gallant]

Is that really him, though?

[chet]

I think this review makes a case for editors changing reviews.

It is not a case of "getting it" as some shack readers think, because whatever grand idea they were trying to achieve in Postal2 is meaningless 2 seconds after the game just isn't fun - but I do think it is a valid issue of comparative rating being askew.

Rayman Arena was given a 5.1 by gamespot - even though to play the game, you have to insert both CDs that come with the game in sequence everytime you play the game. Erik gave it a 1.5/5 in CGW, a 3 in gamespot terms.

Erik is obviously a bit more harsh in his reviews than most reviewers, so when you compare his 4.8 to a Ryan Davis or Andrew Park review, the numbers are not going to be comparable. Is this Erik's job to edit himself and fit his score in with the company paying him? Or is it their job?

In the end, a site's function is to deliver a comparable metric of the quality of the game. In this case, I think gamespot failed. Which is why I think a simple rating of - buy, try or avoid or some other simplistic method is superior to the wacky Gamespot numbering system. While they try to blur the numbers with their mediocre - great - or whatever wording system, the thing that sticks is the numbers.

Having said that, I am still surprised even for Erik the low score. We had discussed the game in length and I was expecting a 6-7 rating.

chet

[DrCrypt]

NO game is worth a 4.8/10.

So the scale should just start at five, because it is objectively impossible for a game to be worse than that and not just be the reviewer Nazis truncheoning another poor electronic yarmulke? Hell, once you start the scale at 5, doesn't that then mean that no game deserves a score below a 7.5, which means that no game deserves a review below an 8.75, which means... ad infinitim, up until the point where the score range starts at 9.99999 and ends at motherfuckin' 10.0.

George Broussard - "Every game is a ten!"

[Erik]

Once you've explored its admittedly novel violent interactions for an hour or two, there really isn't much left to do. If the core combat had been better, it'd have a lot more staying power. Also, I have no problem knocking a few points off for the absurdly long and absurdly frequent loads. If your game takes place in a GTA3-like open architecture city, loads like that are unacceptable. I'm not sure if the demo give you a real sense of just how awful those load times are.

[Jim Preston]

After reading Erik's review, I'm not sure why this game got a lofty 4.8. If I understand the review correctly, there is nothing interesting about the non-combat portion, and the combat portion is boring and dated. The graphics are mediocre in the exteriors, and the interiors are bland and underdeveloped. The city doesn't feel alive and the humor is forced and juvenile. Finally, the lack of interesting gameplay is compounded by inexcusable load times.

So why did this receive a 4.8? Or is the reality that anything below of 6 is deemed terrible and the actual number is rather irrelevant?

[Ben Sones]

Or is the reality that anything below of 6 is deemed terrible and the actual number is rather irrelevant?

I don't know if the GameSpot editors would agree, but in practical terms, this is the case. Their scale seems to work more like a grading scale--in the 70s equals a "C," in the 60s equals a "D," below that is a failing grade.

That's not exactly how their ratings description describes it, but how they want it to work is irrelevant compared to how it works in practice. The reality is that anything in the bottom half of the scale is a failing grade, and a 4.8 is effectively the same as a 1.0 (in that you wouldn't want to spend money on a game that received either score).

Like I said in some other thread, having this level of granularity in a scoring scale seems pointless to me. How many different degrees of "don't buy this game" do we really need?

[Erik]

The graphics are mediocre in the exteriors

Well, technically, I said the exteriors "look good".

I actually wish the Gamespot scoring system was *more* complex, so that I could assign scores on a sliding scale based on how much you're paying for the game. Like if you're at a garage sale and Postal 2 is 50 cents, it's an 8.2.

[Kalle]

More proof that the optimum scale for grades is in the 1-5 range.

[Ben Sones]

Numerical scores are ill-suited for providing that level of sophistication, though. That's what the text of the review is for. In any event, there are very few games that I wouldn't try for fifty cents...

[Erik]

An interesting post from that Shacknews thread:

Postal 2's load times aren't bad because of loading resources & such, they are doing a wacky trick to simulate a persistant world in an engine that doesn't support it.

When you change levels in Unreal, everything in the map is reloaded. The only thing that carries over is the Player and the Player's Inventory. You'll notice when you cross loading zones in Postal 2 that people you've killed stay dead and weapons/ammo you've picked up stay gone.

What they are doing is saving the state of the people you've killed, stuff you've picked up, and a bunch of misc stats into an actor and they then insert that actor into the Player's inventory so it carries across to the next loaded area. The next area parses through that information and then sets up the map accordingly.

If they had changed the Unreal engine to accommodate this, the load times would be significantly faster IMO. Unfortunately, they do it through Unrealscript which is pretty slow.

Useless trivia, but after poking through their code, that seems to be what is going on.

[Ben Sones]

Postal 2's load times aren't bad because of loading resources & such, they are doing a wacky trick to simulate a persistant world in an engine that doesn't support it.

If the developers had been smart, then they would have toted the long load times as a feature--one designed to try the player's patience and egg them on towards acts of violence in the game. In fact, they could have made them extra long, with annoying extras like load bars that start over when they fill up and elevator music.

[Mike Cathcart]

Ben, I'm too lazy to go look at that "who are you" thread, but I'm hoping that next to your name it doesn't say "Game Designer".

As far as levels of badness, though, I agree with you. I've been reading Erik's reviews for a while now and when it comes to first person shooters I pretty much trust him completely. He's probably played more of them at this point than I ever will. If Erik rates a game below a 7.5 I'm not gonna waste any time on it, so a 4.8 or a 0.3 are the same.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

So why did this receive a 4.8? Or is the reality that anything below of 6 is deemed terrible and the actual number is rather irrelevant?

I think Jim put his finger on it. Once a game is rated below the "don't bother" line then it doesn't really matter how far below it is. This is all rather subjective and even using tenths of points is probably silly.

[Anonymous]

An interesting post from that Shacknews thread:


When you change levels in Unreal, everything in the map is reloaded. The only thing that carries over is the Player and the Player's Inventory. You'll notice when you cross loading zones in Postal 2 that people you've killed stay dead and weapons/ammo you've picked up stay gone.

What they are doing is saving the state of the people you've killed, stuff you've picked up, and a bunch of misc stats into an actor and they then insert that actor into the Player's inventory so it carries across to the next loaded area. The next area parses through that information and then sets up the map accordingly.

Quake 2 kept track of enemies and items between levels, and it did it pretty quickly, even when I had a really low end computer (p-200 with no vid acceleration) to play it on.

[Erik Andersson]

An interesting post from that Shacknews thread:

Postal 2's load times aren't bad because of loading resources & such, they are doing a wacky trick to simulate a persistant world in an engine that doesn't support it.

When you change levels in Unreal, everything in the map is reloaded. The only thing that carries over is the Player and the Player's Inventory. You'll notice when you cross loading zones in Postal 2 that people you've killed stay dead and weapons/ammo you've picked up stay gone.

What they are doing is saving the state of the people you've killed, stuff you've picked up, and a bunch of misc stats into an actor and they then insert that actor into the Player's inventory so it carries across to the next loaded area. The next area parses through that information and then sets up the map accordingly.

If they had changed the Unreal engine to accommodate this, the load times would be significantly faster IMO. Unfortunately, they do it through Unrealscript which is pretty slow.

Useless trivia, but after poking through their code, that seems to be what is going on.

Didn't Deus Ex do something similar? I remember it said "saving" as well as "loading" when you entered a new level. First I thought it meant auto saving, but I didn't find any such saves, so I suppose it meant that they were actually saving the level (without removing the "saving"-message). In your savegame directory there were also lots of separate files with names related to the levels you could go back to.

[greywind]

Ben, I'm too lazy to go look at that "who are you" thread, but I'm hoping that next to your name it doesn't say "Game Designer".
I don't know how anyone could have missed the sarcasm in Ben's post, it was practically dripping with it... :shock:

ian

[Mike Cathcart]

I don't know how anyone could have missed the sarcasm in Ben's post, it was practically dripping with it... :shock:

ian

Yeah, I got it, I was just kidding. I probably should have misspelled something to make it more obvious...

[Rywill]

Quake 2 kept track of enemies and items between levels, and it did it pretty quickly, even when I had a really low end computer (p-200 with no vid acceleration) to play it on.

Right, I think the point is that some engines (like Q2) are designed to work this way, and other ones (Unreal) are not. RWS wanted to do persistent levels, but foolishly chose to try and cram that feature into a "not" engine, resulting in long (and totally unnecessary, in the sense that they could be eliminated through use of a different engine) load times.

Quake 2 kept track of enemies and items between levels, and it did it pretty quickly, even when I had a really low end computer (p-200 with no vid acceleration) to play it on.

[Ron Dulin]

Hey, let's talk about review scoring systems again.

[Erik]

I just want to reiterate that Postal 2's load times are a real deal breaker. Some games have long loads, but you at least get to play the game for ten minutes afterwards. P2 honestly loads for a minute, lets you walk for twenty seconds, then starts loading again. Some of the paths to the various goals are set up so that you only walk 3 seconds between loads. The more I think about it, the more I've decided that that's an inexcusable design flaw in a game that's supposed to reward exploration. In any game, actually. I don't care what George Broussard thinks.

The subject line of some mail I just got is "Horses cock in girls pussy". So Postal 2 isn't even as offensive as Outlook.

[Erik]

Hello. I'd like to once again address the issue of loading. I've said it before, but I wish John Carmack would put curvy surfaces, dynamic lighting, and his amateur moon shot club on the back burner for a year and then figure out a way to eliminate load times. Objectively, I'm sure some game I loaded from tape onto my Atari 400 had longer loads than Postal 2. Subjectively, though, P2 has the most oppressive load times of any game I've ever played. Come to think of it, those Atari games loaded once and then you were done, so Postal may be objectively the worst as well. If George Broussard thinks that's in any way acceptable, then he's even fatter than I thought he was. He needs to get all Snickered up to come in here and do his business. Punk ass, pussy ass, crooked ass cop.

[DrCrypt]

Objectively, I'm sure some game I loaded from tape onto my Atari 400 had longer loads than Postal 2.

Like, for example, Arena Psychotica?!?!?!?

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v3n1/arena.jpg (http://www.atarimagazines.com/v3n1/ArenaPsychotica.html)

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I can't imagine how anybody - any. body. can put up with that crappy forum on Shacknews. I mean, seriously, IMO its the worse forum in the entire history of the Net. Probably bested only by Slashdot. Which is why I don't post at either. Its supposed to be fun, not work.

oh, about Postal 2. I don't give a shit cuz I ain't buying it.

And once again, people (at least the normal ones) need to fully understand that a reviewer is entitled to his/her opinions. I could never understand what all the furor over reviews and scores were. Back in the day, I bitched at them so much, I lost track of who I was cussing from one month to the next. In the end, you just get resigned to that fact that, at the end of the day, most of them are just fucking wankers anyway.

If you worry you'll die.

If you don't worry, you'll die.

Why worry and die?

Erik (or any reviewer) wants to give a game a low score, thats his entitlement. Anyone who feels so bad about it, can frigging well write their own rebuttal. Or. Just shut the fuck up and move on - knowing that, bitching or not, you can't change a damn thing.

[Jason McMaster]

Have you been to AICN?

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Have you been to AICN?

Dear Lord, yeah. But at least you can read them.

[Tyjenks]

]IAnd once again, people (at least the normal ones) need to fully understand that a reviewer is entitled to his/her opinions. I could never understand what all the furor over reviews and scores were. Back in the day, I bitched at them so much, I lost track of who I was cussing from one month to the next. In the end, you just get resigned to that fact that, at the end of the day, most of them are just fucking wankers anyway.

Whew! Now the pressure is off. However, if I review your game, I don't think I can make fun of you any more. That sucks!!!

EDIT: Don't want to mar my journalist integrity, ya' know.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

]IAnd once again, people (at least the normal ones) need to fully understand that a reviewer is entitled to his/her opinions. I could never understand what all the furor over reviews and scores were. Back in the day, I bitched at them so much, I lost track of who I was cussing from one month to the next. In the end, you just get resigned to that fact that, at the end of the day, most of them are just fucking wankers anyway.

Whew! Now the pressure is off. However, if I review your game, I don't think I can make fun of you any more. That sucks!!!

EDIT: Don't want to mar my journalist integrity, ya' know.

heh

Anyway, as I grew older - and wiser (!) - I developed the notion that if the review was accurate, to-the-point and conveyed the game in the manner it was intended scores become irrelevant.

Some reviewers end up reviewing a game for what they want it to be, what they think it should be or what its not and that pisses me off more than any score.

For me, as complex as my games are, I can take one look at a review and tell - immediately - if the reviewer (or wanker, depending on who is doing the review) actually played it or not. And because most of these mags have deadlines, silly word counts (same as interviews!) etc, if the reviewer is a n00b to the game, then he's got his work cut out for me. And this is the reason why mags should continue to match reviewers to their game preferences.

e.g. if I see Denny review an RTS (credibility notwithstanding) I'd take it less seriously than I would if he reviewed a sim. Nothing to do with the writing, just that him, Andy Mahood and a few others, are the sort of reviewers who do those type of games justice because they know what to look for, how to approach those types of games etc etc.

In the end, when you look at a well written review, you forget the score. In fact, sometimes, the reviewers don't even give the score. They leave it up to the EIC. And in the case one BCM review, it would've gotten a .5 higher, but the EIC didn't see it that way and scored it lower by .5

The CGM review (http://www.cgonline.com/reviews/btlcrusmil-01-r1.html) was also accurate, to the point and jams a lot of stuff within the constraints of the word count while leaving enough room for the potential gamer to either buy a good game and enjoy it, or buy a good game and, well, go hang himself. Same with Andy, Jeff and a bunch of other reviewers who have experience in a specific genre and actually put in the time to write an object review.

You can't get too close to something to the extent that you lose all common sense and objectivity. Thats what happens when you take reviews, reviewers and their scores too seriously. Life's too short and I just want to live the rest of it knowing that I have people who buy my games because they enjoy playing them, not because of some arbitrary score drummed up by someone we don't have the benefit of grading.

Pissing in the wind usually ends up with you pissing on yourself. Why do it?

And if we take George B's rant seriously, then, considering that, at one time or another, I've probably pissed off every reviewer in the industry, none of my games would get a good score. So, saying that Erik gave the game a 4.8 because he has an axe to grind is just plain stupid.

But if Erik goes anywhere near any of my games and writes rubbish, I'm gonna hurt him. :D

Just kidding Erik!!

[Moore]

Does this mean Duke has massive load times? ;D

[Jason McMaster]

Well, we all do have to remember the picture of George wailing and crying is flabby eyes out on OMM

[Andrew Mayer]

]Have you been to AICN?

Dear Lord, yeah. But at least you can read them.
I think the fact that their software often randomizes the posting order is the true saving grace of the AICN forums.

Your Power Pill (http://www.levelupdesign.com/gamelog)

[voltaic]

Hello. I'd like to once again address the issue of loading. I've said it before, but I wish John Carmack would put curvy surfaces, dynamic lighting, and his amateur moon shot club on the back burner for a year and then figure out a way to eliminate load times. Objectively, I'm sure some game I loaded from tape onto my Atari 400 had longer loads than Postal 2. Subjectively, though, P2 has the most oppressive load times of any game I've ever played.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but what did/does Carmack have to do with Postal 2 in any way?

[Erik]

but what did/does Carmack have to do with Postal 2 in any way

Nothing other than he's the type of genius who could get the job done if he wasn't already busy doing other things that I consider less important to my enjoyment of video games.

[Ben]

Erik, that Macy Gray quote from Training Day may be the best completely nonsensical quote of a minor line from a mediocre movie ever.

[voltaic]

but what did/does Carmack have to do with Postal 2 in any way
Nothing other than he's the type of genius who could get the job done if he wasn't already busy doing other things that I consider less important to my enjoyment of video games.
But I thought someone mentioned that Quake 2 (i.e. a Carmack Engine game) did have great, short load times. So what could he have done better in Postal 2, a game he didn't have any association with?

[Kevin Grey]

Hello. I'd like to once again address the issue of loading. I've said it before, but I wish John Carmack would put curvy surfaces, dynamic lighting, and his amateur moon shot club on the back burner for a year and then figure out a way to eliminate load times.
This seems to be a technical area that consoles are leading over PCs. Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Metroid Prime, and Zelda TWW all have virtually non existant load times while the only PC title I can think of that did it is Dungeon Siege. Too bad that the three major PC game engines (Quake 3, Unreal, Lithtech) haven't made any attempts to incorporate this.

[Rob_Merritt]

Does this mean Duke has massive load times? ;D

He is protesting way to much. Something tells me that DNF is following Postal 2s lead. Probably not in load times but in content.

[Angie Gallant]

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing since I read his responces in that thread, but I'll freely admit that I'm biased against the Duke franchise so I could be reading into it too much.

[Dave Long]

He is protesting way to much. Something tells me that DNF is following Postal 2s lead. Probably not in load times but in content.

Grand Theft Nukem?

--Dave

[Slothrop]

but what did/does Carmack have to do with Postal 2 in any way
Nothing other than he's the type of genius who could get the job done if he wasn't already busy doing other things that I consider less important to my enjoyment of video games.
But I thought someone mentioned that Quake 2 (i.e. a Carmack Engine game) did have great, short load times. So what could he have done better in Postal 2, a game he didn't have any association with?

That's just Erik's style y'all; one part trenchant insight, one part free-association cultural reference non-sequitors, one part whacked-out craaaazy shit. Erik, I think you should write your professional reviews in that good old OMM idiom. Sigh. OMM. In conclusion: a midget, leaf-blower, vaseline, crack-whore, etc.

[Brad Wardell]

NO game is worth a 4.8/10.

So the scale should just start at five, because it is objectively impossible for a game to be worse than that and not just be the reviewer Nazis truncheoning another poor electronic yarmulke? Hell, once you start the scale at 5, doesn't that then mean that no game deserves a score below a 7.5, which means that no game deserves a review below an 8.75, which means... ad infinitim, up until the point where the score range starts at 9.99999 and ends at motherfuckin' 10.0.

George Broussard - "Every game is a ten!"

I haven't played Postal 2 but all I can say to them is, "Welcome to the party, Pal!"

LightWeight Ninja, a game we made (I wasn't involved on it but I played it and my kids love it, it's a neat fun little side scroller) got a 3.9!

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/lightweightninja/index.html

LightWeight Ninja wasn't buggy and it didn't have any particular failings. It was just a fairly standard side scroller with intermissions. But it was 20 bucks and pretty darn fun I thought.

So it's not like Gamespot doesn't give low ratings to games.

Incidentally, LWNinja scored a 7.0 on their reader reviews.

[Anonymous]

Hello. I'd like to once again address the issue of loading. I've said it before, but I wish John Carmack would put curvy surfaces, dynamic lighting, and his amateur moon shot club on the back burner for a year and then figure out a way to eliminate load times.
This seems to be a technical area that consoles are leading over PCs. Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Metroid Prime, and Zelda TWW all have virtually non existant load times while the only PC title I can think of that did it is Dungeon Siege. Too bad that the three major PC game engines (Quake 3, Unreal, Lithtech) haven't made any attempts to incorporate this.

Funny that consoles lead in this area considering that all PCs come standard with hard drives.

[wumpus]

Incidentally, LWNinja scored a 7.0 on their reader reviews.
When there is a big disparity between reader review scores and the critical review score, I do think the reviewer made a mistake. Or the reviewer is losing touch with his/her audience, at least.*

The gamespot reader reviews aren't exactly objective-- self-selecting, biased towards the existing review, etc-- but they should carry some weight. Particularly when they deviate significantly from the review score. I spot checked a number of them, and it is strange how closely they cluster around the review scores for the most part. When they don't, watch out. Example: Vietcong had a review score of 7.9 but a reader rating of 9.0. Black Hawk Down, 5.6 / 8.1.

* Just like Tom Chick! Except Tom actually liked Vietcong. So never mind.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Re: load times...saving a lot of world state doesn't have to be slow. Doing it in a scripting language, yeah, that's probably quite slow. They should have done some code engine-side to take care of that, it would undoubtedly have been much faster.

Re: console load times...it's one of those benefits of a standardized hardware platform. Basically, you can process all of your resources into the format you need offline, and just load it in really, really fast, and not have to do any work on it while you load it. You can't do that on the PC because of different graphic/sound capabilities and options -- it's just not practical to do this for all the possible combinations of hardware.

BTW, none of this precludes "no loading screens" in PC games, as evidenced by Dungeon Siege, Operation Flashpoint, and others.

[Anonymous]

Incidentally, LWNinja scored a 7.0 on their reader reviews.
When there is a big disparity between reader review scores and the critical review score, I do think the reviewer made a mistake. Or the reviewer is losing touch with his/her audience, at least.*

The gamespot reader reviews aren't exactly objective-- self-selecting, biased towards the existing review, etc-- but they should carry some weight. Particularly when they deviate significantly from the review score. I spot checked a number of them, and it is strange how closely they cluster around the review scores for the most part. When they don't, watch out. Example: Vietcong had a review score of 7.9 but a reader rating of 9.0. Black Hawk Down, 5.6 / 8.1.

* Just like Tom Chick! Except Tom actually liked Vietcong. So never mind.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, reviews are not supposed to reflect the reviewer's opinion of the game, based on his/her experience. It's now supposed to reflect what we predict our readership thinks the game should rate. Man, why didn't you tell me earlier? I could save a lot of time by not playing any of these games, and calling up Miss Cleo's Psychic Hotline to tell me what score I should give. Brilliant! Or we could just turn on the reader ratings before a game is released and I'll just use whatever number comes up, give or take 0.4 points.

-Bob C

[Jason McCullough]

There's a tradeoff in the current state of FPS design. Extreme cases:

1) Break the game into "levels" of a size where you can load the entire thing on first entrance. This is the easy way.

2) Load the entire game "on demand." With modern hard drives and careful map design, you can make the entire game a virtually seamless experience. This is the hard way, obviously.

2) is obviously a superior gameplay experience, but I think we don't see much of it because the game market is in some ways "broken." All sorts of obvious stuff to improve gameplay simply doesn't happen, and when it does happen, it seems to be entirely on the console side. I'm not sure why; could be competition, could be hardware pressures, could be evil.

An example of the right way to handle this: I'm replaying the single player campaign of jedi knight 2, and having a lot more fun than last time, for no apparent reason. I just timed it, and loading a level for the first time takes 90 seconds. Reloading a quicksave on the same level? 9 seconds. I'd prefer an all-dynamic system, but hey, this is as good as it gets for the big chunk style.

Something else that pisses me off, though, along the same lines:

1) The game won't let you alt-tab out. This is an pet peeve of mine - I'd like to be able to check my email without quitting the game, you fuckers.
2) You can "fake" alt-tabbing out by switching between fullscreen and windowed.
3) It takes 90 goddamn seconds to switch.

It's an incredible fucking pain in the ass. No idea where I was going with this, but hey, there you go.

Oh, Postal? Sounds about right to me after playing the demo.

When there is a big disparity between reader review scores and the critical review score, I do think the reviewer made a mistake. Or the reviewer is losing touch with his/her audience, at least.

Readers could also be stupid, you know. Don't let me get in the way of your crusade for an Objective Measure of Artistic/Game Design Talent, though.

[chet]

Them Oron - (who I secretly think is the idiot who reviewed blackhawk down on GS), wumpus is merely saying, after the fact, some reviewers may have missed the boat. Did you know we don't have to take reviewers word as gospel truth of the quality of the game? I guess you are saying... ah fuck it - who cares, everyone else here can see you are an idiot.

Chet

[chet]

Hey, let's talk about review scoring systems again.

Yes, lets. What the fuck was up with the review of black hawk down? Ignoring the score, the game was based on source material, and all of the reviewers complaints were basically aimed at the source material, linear missions, stupid enemies, travelling convoys not slowing down to engage the enemy. Shouldn't someone on the Gamespot staff told Scott that he was a moron and rejected the review?

I mean, you guys have been going downhill ever since you dropped the omm column, but I think the Black Hawk Down review was a new low point for gamespot and the "scoring" of Postal 2 not far behind.

Chet

[Erik]

The gamespot reader reviews aren't exactly objective-- self-selecting, biased towards the existing review, etc-- but they should carry some weight.

I agree, but before a reader review score carries any weight, I think the number of voters needs to reach some critical mass. I'm not sure what that number is, but I'll just guess that it's at least 50. Or maybe 100. You also need to discount cases where the readers are clearly out of their minds, such as the time 1600 lunatics collectively decided Soldier of Fortune 2 deserved only a 6.4.

[chet]

By that last post, I can only guess Erik has killed someone tonight and is trying to plant some evidence to later use in his insanity plea. SOF2 returned Raven to their early days of sucking the fun out of any gaming using an Id engine.

Chet

[Erik]

SOF2 returned Raven to their early days of sucking the fun out of any gaming using an Id engine.

BF1942 was the only multiplayer game better than SOF2 last year.

[BloodKnight]

I just got my review copy a few days ago..to be honest, I was hoping this game would be good.

Alas, it isn't. For something that could've been a great game, they really messed it up. To summarize it: The demo pretty much shows the entire game, including what you can do to the people.

The only thing I liked about it was the graphics, level design, and the errands. After you have done some of the errands, you get a cutscene with a whacked situation (not going to spoil it)

Other then that, it is a very mediocre game that tries to be funny.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

Them Oron - (who I secretly think is the idiot who reviewed blackhawk down on GS), wumpus is merely saying, after the fact, some reviewers may have missed the boat. Did you know we don't have to take reviewers word as gospel truth of the quality of the game? I guess you are saying... ah fuck it - who cares, everyone else here can see you are an idiot.


Chet, do you ever reread your posts? Do you realize that you appear to be uneducated and unable to put a coherent thought together except perhaps by accident? Do you even try to make sense or do you just consider posting to be purely an opportunity for your own emotional release?

[DaveC]

Something else that pisses me off, though, along the same lines:

1) The game won't let you alt-tab out. This is an pet peeve of mine - I'd like to be able to check my email without quitting the game, you fuckers.


Apparently there are very good reasons for this. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I asked our programmers once.

[Dave Long]

SOF2 returned Raven to their early days of sucking the fun out of any gaming using an Id engine.

BF1942 was the only multiplayer game better than SOF2 last year.

No kidding. SoF2 multiplayer was addictive as hell. I played the MP demo more than I played many full games last year! :shock:

--Dave

[Gordon Cameron]

Them Oron - (who I secretly think is the idiot who reviewed blackhawk down on GS), wumpus is merely saying, after the fact, some reviewers may have missed the boat. Did you know we don't have to take reviewers word as gospel truth of the quality of the game? I guess you are saying... ah fuck it - who cares, everyone else here can see you are an idiot.

Chet

It almost seemed like Wumpus was suggesting reviewers "weight" their ratings based on reader-review numbers. Maybe I misread him. This to me would be like a film critic "weighing" his rating based on box office. (Of course in many cases this is impractical anyway, as critics review games/movies before the average shmoe gets a chance to see them.) Vox populi shouldn't interfere with a critic's right to have his own opinion -- if he was later proved to be completely out of the loop, well, happens to the best of us. Gamers/readers, of course, can and should avail themselves of reader-reviews/rankings along with critics, and message board hype, and everything else in making the decision where to part with their $50...

[Xaroc]

By that last post, I can only guess Erik has killed someone tonight and is trying to plant some evidence to later use in his insanity plea. SOF2 returned Raven to their early days of sucking the fun out of any gaming using an Id engine.

Chet

I have to agree with Chet, SOF2 blew chunks.

-- Xaroc

[BobC]

Them Oron - (who I secretly think is the idiot who reviewed blackhawk down on GS), wumpus is merely saying, after the fact, some reviewers may have missed the boat. Did you know we don't have to take reviewers word as gospel truth of the quality of the game? I guess you are saying... ah fuck it - who cares, everyone else here can see you are an idiot.

Chet

OK apparently the forum is now forcing me to create a login. So I guess I'll shed the Them Oron moniker and go with BobC.

Anyway, I hope you didn't spend too much time formulating this brilliant theory. My name (as I clearly put in the post you replied to) is Bob. The reviewer of Black Hawk Down, clearly labeled on the review, was Scott. Bob. Scott. Yeah, we must be the same. So who's the idiot again?

I never said reviewers' word should be gospel truth, so sorry, but I don't think I'll let you stuff words in my mouth. I was merely questioning why we should take reader reviews to be gospel truth. As Erik and Gordon (with movies) so aptly pointed out, they're not always so smart anyway. Just take a look at who we elected for president if you don't believe me. ;)

FWIW I agreed with Scott's assessment of Black Hawk Down. While you can argue until you're blue in the face that the AI of the Somalis should be stupid (more of an accident than intentional), you can't argue that the AI of your fellow elite Delta Force members should be dumber than a brick. Maybe that bothers you less than it bothers me, but there were other problems with the game. I tend to expect more from military shooters these days than Operation Wolf all over again (which is what the vehicle riding elements of that game really amounted to).

[Gordon Cameron]

Just take a look at who we elected for president if you don't believe me.

That comment could backfire -- after all the other guy got more votes. :wink:

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, reviews are not supposed to reflect the reviewer's opinion of the game, based on his/her experience. It's now supposed to reflect what we predict our readership thinks the game should rate. Man, why didn't you tell me earlier? I could save a lot of time by not playing any of these games, and calling up Miss Cleo's Psychic Hotline to tell me what score I should give. Brilliant! Or we could just turn on the reader ratings before a game is released and I'll just use whatever number comes up, give or take 0.4 points.

-Bob C

ROFLM...*splutter*...SAO!!! Man, that was heelarious. Good point though.

[Bub, Andrew]

SAO?

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

ROTFLMSAO =

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Sorry Ass Off

Yeah, its my variation. Its nicer :D

[wumpus]

You also need to discount cases where the readers are clearly out of their minds, such as the time 1600 lunatics collectively decided Soldier of Fortune 2 deserved only a 6.4.
As Chet and Xaroc prove, not everyone agreed. SOF2 was difficult; it was probably the closest I've ever seen a game come to delivering a challenging multiplayer-like experience in singleplayer. I've mentioned this before, but in the jungle levels, I found my eyes instinctively wandering up to the upper right hand side of the screen and looking for the "kill board" messages when I died. I can't recall doing that before in any other game. So, in essence, SOF2 was a SP game that played very much like a MP game. In other words, extremely satisfying visceral (and tough) combat. I think that's an amazing accomplishment-- particularly given how limp and cartoony SOF1 was-- but it is definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

As for the multiplayer-- there's no question that SOF2 is one the best. But again, not everyone plays multiplayer, so that has to factor into the review score.

It almost seemed like Wumpus was suggesting reviewers "weight" their ratings based on reader-review numbers. Maybe I misread him. This to me would be like a film critic "weighing" his rating based on box office.
Not a great analogy, because movies are totally passive experiences that last 2-3 hours at most. Whereas games are demanding: you are an active participant for 40+ hours, maybe with a lot of other people too in multiplayer. I want a different kind of criticism here. Popularity matters: what good is a multiplayer game nobody else is playing?

Anyway, I'm not proposing that critics should score anything other than what they feel is right. And if you're out of sync with reader review scores occasionally, no problem. For example, the SOF2 user reviews are totally explainable if you consider how heavily weighted the game is toward MP-like experiences. Not every gamer is into that. But when the score discrepancy becomes a recurring problem-- every review is way off-- then it's time to consider another line of work.

I tend to expect more from military shooters these days than Operation Wolf all over again (which is what the vehicle riding elements of that game really amounted to).
When the user reviews are consistently 50% higher than the critical review, maybe you should consider the possibility that your readers really do want Operation Wolf all over again. Or else you misread the game.

[Dave Long]

As for the multiplayer-- there's no question that SOF2 is one the best. But again, not everyone plays multiplayer, so that has to factor into the review score.

But you've basically indicated that you think SOF2 is a pretty great game all around, which means you, as a reviewer, would have and should have scored it highly. Trying to take into account what those 1600 lunatics thought about the game before they thought it is just dumb. You can't do that. From the MP demo, it was already clear that a lot of folks were playing and loving SOF2. I even got someone that rarely plays that kind of stuff to try it out, and he played as much as I did after being turned onto it.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go here. I think you're getting so charged up with scoring (as everyone seems to do these days) that you're forgetting there was an entire text review attached to SOF2 that would have said... "single player is hard as nails and multiplayer is so good you should buy the game just to play it, etc."

I have no idea how this relates to Postal 2 and I kind of wish this discussion wasn't in a Postal 2 thread so no one would even know the game exists and it would die immediately upon hitting the shelves, but that's just me...

--Dave

[Gordon Cameron]

I want a different kind of criticism here. Popularity matters: what good is a multiplayer game nobody else is playing?

If your point is that "number of fans" can actually *alter* the quality of a game (i.e. by providing a more robust MP environment as well as potential modders etc.), and this doesn't apply to movies, well, ok, I take your point. But still, what should a critic do? Say "this game sucked, but it sells well, ergo there will be a lot of people online playing it, ergo I add 2 points?" Ok, if you want. Seems to me you can figure out that information pretty easily on your own, though...

[Brad Wardell]

Incidentally, LWNinja scored a 7.0 on their reader reviews.
When there is a big disparity between reader review scores and the critical review score, I do think the reviewer made a mistake. Or the reviewer is losing touch with his/her audience, at least.*

The gamespot reader reviews aren't exactly objective-- self-selecting, biased towards the existing review, etc-- but they should carry some weight. Particularly when they deviate significantly from the review score. I spot checked a number of them, and it is strange how closely they cluster around the review scores for the most part. When they don't, watch out. Example: Vietcong had a review score of 7.9 but a reader rating of 9.0. Black Hawk Down, 5.6 / 8.1.

* Just like Tom Chick! Except Tom actually liked Vietcong. So never mind.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, reviews are not supposed to reflect the reviewer's opinion of the game, based on his/her experience. It's now supposed to reflect what we predict our readership thinks the game should rate. Man, why didn't you tell me earlier? I could save a lot of time by not playing any of these games, and calling up Miss Cleo's Psychic Hotline to tell me what score I should give. Brilliant! Or we could just turn on the reader ratings before a game is released and I'll just use whatever number comes up, give or take 0.4 points.

-Bob C


No but reviews should be consistent with other games that have been reviewed by a given magazine. Gamespot is actually one of the better webzines for this sort of thing.

I don't think the webzine needs or should try to predict how the general public is going to react to something. But if the reader score is way out of whack, then it does indicate that something might have gone wrong.

But often times reviews are just not in tune with other reviews. A review for a game mag isn't just "one man's opinion". They are reviewing for a collective.

The gamespot review on Postal might have been too hard or it might have been too easy or it might have been spot on. I don't know, but either way, I don't buy the whole argument that a review is just one guy's opinion and we should just take it as such. Any mag that takes that view has no business doing reviews. That's why they have editors -- to ensure that there's some sort of internal consistency.

Otherwise you could end up with "Custard's Revenge" that gets a 4 star review while Half Life gets 2 stars simply because of th eluck of the draw on reviewers.

[Gordon Cameron]

But often times reviews are just not in tune with other reviews. A review for a game mag isn't just "one man's opinion". They are reviewing for a collective.

I prefer critics who seem idiosycratic and have their own opinion. Like Tom, he doesn't seem to be "Chick of Borg." So occasionally he tilts against the entire mass of gaming consensus (i.e. Deus Ex). No biggie.

Fuck, if I thought my favorite film critics (Kael, Ebert, Anthony Lane, etc.) were arguing for a "collective" I'd find that pretty depressing. But maybe it really is apples and oranges. Maybe game reviews are like... er... evaluating products for Consumer Reports or something. I never thought of them that way, myself.

[Brooski]

But often times reviews are just not in tune with other reviews. A review for a game mag isn't just "one man's opinion". They are reviewing for a collective.

if I thought my favorite film critics (Kael, Ebert, Anthony Lane, etc.) were arguing for a "collective" I'd find that pretty depressing. But maybe it really is apples and oranges. Maybe game reviews are like... er... evaluating products for Consumer Reports or something. I never thought of them that way, myself.
One of the things that makes game reviews different is that almost no one looks at the byline. Look at the title of this thread: "Gamespot gives Postal 2 a 4.8." While it's Erik's review, few people are going to remember that. Far more people will remember "Roger Ebert's" opinion about a film than "The Chicago Sun-Times'" opinion about a film. If Gamespot's reviews were written by one or two people, you'd probably see more reader identification with the reviewer. Stanley Kauffman reviews the films at The New Republic, so every time I open the magazine to the film section, I get his opinion. With websites, where the pool of writers is large and changes frequently, readers identify with the constant, which is the site itself. Hence, Gamespot - not Erik - is bias.

[Brad Wardell]

Bruce: Exactly.

And I think many of the top reviewers know this too. That before they give WizBang II a 1.0 they'll look at other games and look at it for ratings.

The TEXT of the review is where critics/reviewers can present their own style. But the ratings, however, are where some consistency should come in.

Just to pick on one example was the GalCiv review over at StrategyInformer. They reviewed both GalCiv and The Corporate Machine. They rated GalCiv's graphics LOWER than TCM's. Now, TCM was many things, but graphically pretty was not one of them (the game actually had no animation -- in a 2001 game).

Though I'd say that even if the reviewer misses that, the editor would/should look at other games they've reviewed in that genre and try to double check to make sure that it's on the mark.

In Postal 2, the load time issue could be a game killer. If something makes the game realistically unplayable, then a 4.8 doesn't seem so harsh. I dunno, I haven't played that game.

Anyway, like Bruce says it's not Roger Ebert reviewing the game, it's the game mag that is known for reviewing it. Roger Ebert only has to be consistent with Roger Ebert (And some would say he's not great at that either <g>). But a game mag should be consistent with itself or at least try to be. IMO of course.

[Matthew Gallant]

Hence, Gamespot - not Erik - is bias.

I thought you knew the rule. In regards to bias/biased, if you use the wrong part of speech/case, you have to use all caps. If you use the correct part of speech, you are in no way allowed to use any sort of emphasis unless you also misspell the word.

Correct:
"Gamespot is BIAS against Xbox and if you can't see it your stupid."
"There is too much BIASED in Gamespot's reviews, but that doesn't mean that your right."
"Gamespot shows an incredable amount of bias towards Gamecube games, because they think its 4 kids. I guess they don't care if it's FUN, they only want good graphics. 8.1? This should of got at least a 9.2, maybe 9.3."
"Gertsman is totally BIASSEd and everyone knows it. He is the worst reviewer they have."

Incorrect:
"That was a BIASED and totally gay review. Clearly Splinter Cell was to hard for him, so he got mad and took pints off."
"I guess that Running With Sissors did not pay them enough money for a good review! Postal 2 is so awesum, I guess bias wind out again."


I hope this helps.

[Gordon Cameron]

Well, a question for reviewers then -- would you like there to be more individual-critic recognition? Would it be better from your POV if it weren't "A Gamespot Review" but "A Greg Kasavin review" etc.?

Within the snobby Q23 circles, of course certain reviewers do have individual notoriety. But I suppose it's true, for average readers, they are thinking more of the institution than the critic; and this is much less the case with movies.

Is this a desirable state of affairs, and if so, does it go to some fundamental difference between games and (say) movies? (I.e. not just a difference in the state of journalism and public acceptance for the medium, but rather something different about the medium itself... a different sort of product...)

[Brad Wardell]

Well when I let the air out of Tom Chick's tires, it was not directly at him of course but at the magazine in question. ;)

[Supertanker]

]ROTFLMSAO

I use this too, but my "S" stands for "Seckseh."

I'm in the odd group that tries to ignore the numerical rating attached to reviews. I understand there is market demand for a simple rating system, and so I look at the numbers/stars/drools as more of a service to the non-hardcore and the ad blurb authors than information helpful to forming my opinion of a game.

This reminds me of debates about political philosophy in college. Do we assume that a gaming Plato lives in every person waiting to be awakened with reasoned debate, or do we impose the Leviathan of numerical scores onto the masses?

[steve]

Well, a question for reviewers then -- would you like there to be more individual-critic recognition? Would it be better from your POV if it weren't "A Gamespot Review" but "A Greg Kasavin review" etc.?
Writers get bylines, so what's the issue?

I'm not sure how publications like the Sun-Times work, but I suspect many of those writers who we know are either on-staff or, at a minimum, have some sort of exclusivity deal with the publication to be the officail reviewer.

Is this a desirable state of affairs, and if so, does it go to some fundamental difference between games and (say) movies? (I.e. not just a difference in the state of journalism and public acceptance for the medium, but rather something different about the medium itself... a different sort of product...)
Most movies aren't 40 hours long. Except for Solaris (the remake, not the original, which I believe is actually 80 hours long).

No game reviewer could possibly play every game--even every major one--in order to get the sort of consistency you see with movie reviewers. So it's up to the publication's editors to do what they can to maintain some sort of consistency. It's not easy--in fact, it's pretty much impossible--but I think the occasions when this even becomes an issue are fairly rare. Which is pretty amazing, when you consider how many games are reviewed every year by each publication.

[wumpus]

You're fired.

[Gordon Cameron]

No game reviewer could possibly play every game--even every major one--in order to get the sort of consistency you see with movie reviewers.

This is an interesting point, and one I hadn't thought of. A movie critic can pretty much see everything -- at least everything major -- and can become a one-person institution. A game critic can't.

Still, I gotta admit, I find this "collective" idea pretty creepy. And again, look at Tom Chick -- he's about as respected a critic as there is in gaming journalism right now and based on my reading of his reviews I don't think he has been collectivized at all. Neither was Scorpia, another of my favorite cantankerous critics. Of course, Scorpia had that flap with CGW years ago, which I guess threw some of these very issues into relief...

[steve]

Still, I gotta admit, I find this "collective" idea pretty creepy.
It is creepy. Reviewers shouldn't try to anticipate what the audience will feel about a game; if the editors think it's totally off-base (based on what criteria, I have no idea), they can kill the review and assign it to someone with more "conventional" views (whatever that means).

[Tyjenks]

Reviewers shouldn't try to anticipate what the audience will feel about a game; if the editors think it's totally off-base (based on what criteria, I have no idea), they can kill the review and assign it to someone with more "conventional" views (whatever that means).

Sounds like you have got it down to an exact science. :wink:

[Caryn Law]

This is an interesting point, and one I hadn't thought of. A movie critic can pretty much see everything -- at least everything major -- and can become a one-person institution. A game critic can't.

Here's a question with some unorganized follow up thoughts: do the reviewers of most of the major game sites and magazines stick to one particular favored genre when reviewing games?

My favorite genres were always FPS and RTS, so when I reviewed games and reviewed ones in those genres I'd be reviewing them within a particular context ("I've played other FPS games, and this one isn't as fun/is the best."). If the reader knew my history and was interested in the review because they too enjoyed FPS', they'd know that I had a similar game background that they did and might feel that my review of the game, as opposed to someone who enjoyed RPGs more than FPSs, would be more useful to them.

Gamers tend to genre bin themselves for the most part, I think; most RPG fans don't play FPS, for instance, although of course there are crossovers. But movie reviewers don't do that -- you don't see Ebert only watching and reviewing action movies. Most people tend to like a much broader range of movies than they do games, I think. But if you knew that Ebert didn't really enjoy romantic comedies as a whole, would you trust a review of such a movie from him? I wonder how much of this similar tilt is taken into game reviews.

Then again, you can argue that a game should ultimately be enjoyable to anyone regardless of genre, so an FPS would likely score really high if the reviewer who played it doesn't normally play FPS' and still enjoyed it.

But I guess this relates to Postal 2 in this way: if someone disliked bad B horror movies, would they be likely to even look at a review of Evil Dead, much less possibly pick it up in the store? Similarly, could/should you review a game like Postal 2 within a similar context? "This is clearly an over-the-top parody, and if you're into that sort of thing you'll like it." But I haven't played it yet, so I could be talking out of the wrong orifice.

[Ben Sones]

I dunno... I don't like to stray too far into "you might like this game if..." territory. I can easily say whether or not I like a game, and why, but trying to guess whether people with tastes different from my own will like it is a tricky proposition. Probably a pointless one, too--I think most people understand that reviews, of any sort, are just one person's opinion. The goal shouldn't be to get that opinion to match the mean average of the general public; the goal should be to produce a review that is articulate and specific in its criticisms.

[Gordon Cameron]

But if you knew that Ebert didn't really enjoy romantic comedies as a whole, would you trust a review of such a movie from him?

It's actually funny to read Ebert reviews of movies that he thinks are well made, but which obviously don't interest him at all. You can see him sort of running the calculus in his mind of "well, I hate this sort of movie, but I suppose someone who would actually want to see such a film, would be satisfied with this one..." More egg-heady critics, like the ones you'd read in the LA Weekly or the Village Voice, often don't even bother with the "recommendation" aspect of such films, and instead make themselves happy by analyzing the sociopolitical ramifications of the text...

Heck, in my lowly capacity as a script reader, I sometimes encounter the same thing. The easy scripts to cover are the ones I love or hate. Then at least I have a strong and immediate opinion. The worst are the ones that elicit absolutely *no* reaction. Then it's like pulling teeth.

As for "Genre-specific" critics, I can think of at least one -- Scorpia. Desslock seems to limit himself primarily to RPGs and space sims (correct me if I'm wrong...).

[Greg Kasavin]

No game reviewer could possibly play every game--even every major one--in order to get the sort of consistency you see with movie reviewers.

This is an interesting point, and one I hadn't thought of. A movie critic can pretty much see everything -- at least everything major -- and can become a one-person institution. A game critic can't.

I was thinking about disagreeing with the original point, but now that it's being reinforced, I just have to. I know I'm not the only one here who's actively keeping up with the times. While you couldn't realistically finish every major game that came out in a year, it's not beyond the realm of possibility to at least play everything and give yourself a good, educated frame of reference about what's actually going on in this business. If you can't afford to buy every big game, you could still rent, and that wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

It takes more effort to play every game in a year than to kick back and watch every movie, but that's very, very different from what you guys are saying.

[Bub, Andrew]

Gordon Berg and Jeff Lackey are best known for they're flight sim reviews, Mahood and Gord Goble concern themselves mainly with racing sims, William Abner is probably the best sports reviewer in the business, Geryk usually covers wargames and turn-based fare. Others are jack-of-all-genre types, which can be helpful in finding work because they're knowledgable/familiar/appreciative of everything, but difficult because you're never the first person an editor thinks of when assigning a review.

As a reviewer I wish I'd spent more time specializing, as a gamer I'm glad I like games from all genres about equally.

[Gordon Cameron]

It takes more effort to play every game in a year than to kick back and watch every movie, but that's very, very different from what you guys are saying.

Um... well what he was saying, and what intuitively made sense to me, was that it takes more *time* to play every game because a game generally takes more than 2 hours to play through. Surely if you are going to play a game thoroughly enough to review it, you should devote 5-10 hours anyway? And some games I'd think would take more time than that. Some as much as 20+.

I don't know about effort, I'm just talking about time consumption. Of course, if it's your job to do something, time and effort amount to the same thing... it's all work (in my experience anyway).

How is this incorrect? What math am I not doing? Are there fewer games released per month than movies? Are you able to complete a game in the same time it takes to watch a movie?

But anyway, if we are wrong, then does that mean there *are* "one man institution" game critics out there who review *everything* of note? Or at least could, in theory? Who are they?

Anyway, this is your profession so naturally I will defer to what you and your colleagues say about it...