Bioshock - Review Roundup

[Dhruin]

Let's get straight into this bunch of Bioshock reviews, mostly based on the Xbox 360 version.
GameSpy (http://au.xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/bioshock/813243p1.html) scored Bioshock at 5/5 and here's their intro:
There is a definite reason that BioShock (http://au.xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/bioshock/) has earned GameSpy's Game of the Show for the last two years at the Electronic Entertainment Expo. While some have called developer Irrational's magnum opus "the spiritual successor to System Shock 2" (the PC title widely hailed as one of, if not the, greatest games ever realized), we are more inclined to label it as the spiritual superior. That's not a statement that we take lightly, mind you, but when confronted by a masterpiece of this magnitude -- a game that is almost more of a quest of self-discovery than a mere plaything -- it's impossible to not recognize the brilliance flooding your senses.
...IGN (http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/813/813214p1.html) awarded 9.7/10:
As you continue through Rapture, you'll discover it speaks to the nature of what a single-player game is--why do we choose to play a game that isn't online, where you can't interact with others? Like reading a novel, it's to form your own impressions, to see the same events, hear the same words, and come away with a unique viewpoint. The thematic blending and twining of BioShock's personalities is so powerful, it acts like any good book or movie, assaulting you with its ideas, popping into your thoughts when you least expect it, and broadening your understanding of what a game can achieve. Instead of painting Good and Evil across the foreheads of Rapture's denizens with a neon brush, Irrational gave everyone murky motives, much like the shadowed, soaking environments you're constantly plodding through, or the blurred vision you get after walking under one of Rapture's ubiquitous waterfalls.
1Up (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3162017) says 10/10:
Sure, weapons and magic are nothing new. But it's the combat scenarios that extract the real beauty of this two-pronged approach: the enemies you fight and the environments in which you fight them. The most common foe in BioShock is the "splicer," the street name given to the city's residents who overindulged in genetic self-modification and subsequently lost their minds. They come in several variations, and even the weaker ones pose a considerable threat to the unprepared. Battling splicers, especially when they're in a group, has this air of chaotic unpredictability -- they have no noticeable "routines," actively track you down or run for cover depending on the tide of the fight, and can use the environment as much as you can (set a splicer on fire and he'll run to the nearest pool of water for relief). Factor in a camera/turret security system whose only allegiance is to the one who hacked it last, and you'll absolutely need to either be comfortable with the plasmid/weapon combination you've chosen or be prepared to use everything at your disposal to make it out alive.
So as a first-person shooter, BioShock is mechanically solid. The control over your abilities is complex without being complicated, and the interaction between the player, the environment, and the threats contained within is seamless. You begin to feel powerful.
...and TeamXbox (http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1368/BioShock/p1/) goes for 9.5/10 but let's take a snip of minor criticism:
I can’t stop raving about BioShock, but I will be honest that it’s not the perfect video game either. First off, it’s an extremely linear game that much of the time channels you from spot to spot along the path you need to follow. While there’s immense variety in the gameplay, as described, at some points it seems too well spelled out, which might irritate those who like more sleuthing in their adventure.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=6037)

[darghan]

buying that one now ...
i just cannot decide whether i want to play it on PC or Xbox 360
anyone having any reports about the graphical quality the game offers on 360? any differences?
thx in advance for any info

[Prime Junta]

@darghan -- two points to consider:

(1) How good is your PC? It'll take a pretty solid one to beat the 360 for prettiness, but if you have one, it will look better.
(2) Consider the user interface. FPS's play better with a mouse than with a gamepad. Also, the PC version has features the 360 one doesn't -- for example, the possibility to switch off the quest compass and "golden glow" around mission-critical artifacts.

Personally, I'd pick the PC version even if my machine was sliiiightly below the 360 in spec. If it's equal or better, it's a bit of a no-brainer really. (Also, the PC version is cheaper.)

[Brother None]

Heh. It aggregates at 98/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/bioshock) right now, beating out Gears of War and Oblivion (94/100, both).

Talk about having something to prove.

[txa1265]

Heh. It aggregates at 98/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/bioshock) right now, beating out Gears of War and Oblivion (94/100, both).

Talk about having something to prove.
Yeah, that will fall after release ... but I wonder how much.

[zakhal]

PS3 players have different opinnions:

http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/?p=83 Score: 5/10

[txa1265]

PS3 players have different opinnions:

http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/?p=83 Score: 5/10

Yeah, but look at the comments at the site:
This site hosts the largest collection of retarded fanboys, regardless of camp, ever. You’re doing a disservice to PS fans and product.

[Brother None]

Yeah, that will fall after release ... but I wonder how much.

I'd estimate it'd fall to 9.5, but that's just a random guess.

It looks to me like some key important opinion leader-types (Game Informer, IGN, XOM) have it at 95% or more, I don't expect many except the marginals to deviate.

[JemyM]

PS3 players have different opinnions:
http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/?p=83 Score: 5/10

That website does not appear serious at all.

[curiously undead]

this game isn't being released on a playstation so how and why are they reviewing it in the first place.

[Brother None]

this game isn't being released on a playstation so how and why are they reviewing it in the first place.

He notes it is a 360 game at the top of the review.

Here's my analysis based on a quick glance; the place is called Sony Defense Force, focused only one PlayStation games. The users are angry that BioShock is not a PS3 release, and that grudge produced this childish review. Note these quotes "the animation seemed stiff and you could tell the 360 was being pushed too hard" and "I also wonder how much better the graphics would’ve been had they not been compressed to fit on a DVD" and "they only had so much system power to work with so maybe this will all be addressed with the PS3 version."

Just an off-shoot of the always-juvenile console wars. Hardly something to take serious.

[Asbjoern]

PS3 players have different opinnions:

http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/?p=83 Score: 5/10

What did you expect. They feel cheated because it isn't being released for the PS3.

But thanks for the link anyway. It was a good laugh. It's quite impressive how much the author managed to criticise the X360 and praise the PS3 in such a short review. Some great quotes:

While the animation seemed stiff and you could tell the 360 was being pushed too hard it still looked like it had a lot of potential.
also wonder how much better the graphics would’ve been had they not been compressed to fit on a DVD.
Now I do not fault the developers for this, they only had so much system power to work with so maybe this will all be addressed with the PS3 version when it comes out.
To conclude, let this game cook in the oven just a little bit longer and wait for the superior PS3 version. Cleaned up textures, animations, AI, extra weapons, Home space, standard HDD and Blu-ray will make this flawed game into a perfect gem.

I pretty much quoted the entire review. It is clear that the game got a low score only because it was a X360 version that was reviewed.

It is kind of sad actually.

EDIT: ah, you beat me to it, Brother None.

[Badesumofu]

That link was good for a laugh. It was also interesting to see this list of scores so far:

GameInformer US - [10/10]
EGM - [10/10]
GamePro - [10/10]
1UP - [10/10]
UK EuroGamer - [10/10]
OXM - [10/10]
X360 Gamer - [10/10]
X360 - [10/10]
OXMA - [10/10]
PC Powerplay - [10/10]
Game Arena - [10/10]
Meristation - [10/10]
Gamer.tv - [10/10]
GamesRadar - [10/10]
GameWorld - [10/10]
Console - [10/10]
GameTap - [10/10]
Console Game World - [10/10]
Alemania 360 Live - [9.8/10]
Hyper - [9.7/10]
IGN - [9.7/10]
PC Zone - [9.6/10]
PC Gamer - [9.5/10]
UnderGround Online - [9.5/10]
TXB - [9.5/10]
Xbox World - [9.4/10

This has to be totally unprecedented.

[1111]

OMG!!! I'm like so excited I peed my pants. Hello bioshock/oblivion games, good bye rpgs!!!

[Prime Junta]

Um... what, other than the camera angle, do Bioshock and Oblivion have in common?

[xSamhainx]

anything that sells good which is not a troo RPG is the enemy

[Ionstormsucks]

More hype pls...

[Asbjoern]

I peed my pants.

So did I!!! I mean, is it even possible to make a better game than Gears of War??? It's like... man, it's like I have to poo too.

[txa1265]

So did I. I mean, is it even possible to make a better game than Gears of War??? It's like... man, it's like I have to poo too.

You people need to consult your physicians about your incontinence issues ...


;)

[Thaurin]

Why is it that every time when a game gets positive criticism and high ratings, it's suddenly "hype"? Maybe Oblivion made you bitter, but I do believe that the high scores it received were deserved. It was a solid, polished game. Maybe not the type of game you hoped for, but it broke new ground, was varied and had great gameplay. It might not have been the most creative work ever, but still.

Now, you may well dislike Bioshock when it comes out. I do still believe that the game getting these high ratings is not the work of industry shills and PR hype. The things I've seen in common in these reviews is the great way that the story is told, the atmosphere and the eye for details, not to mention the graphics. So, I'm sure this will be a good game in its own right, whether it's an RPG, an FPS or an action game.

[1111]

From what I see, what is gathering a lot of attention is the graphics. I might have peed my pants, but we'll see if this game is a game, and not just a pretty screensaver. But we'll see in 2019 when I own a computer that can play it. If only they'd advance gameplay as fast as they advance graphics we'd be in business.

[Brother None]

but I do believe that the high scores it received were deserved

Scores that high can not be deserved. It's a conceptual impossibility.

Now, you may well dislike Bioshock when it comes out.

That's not the point. This does not reflect on the game. It doesn't even reflect on the company. It reflects, very badly, on the media.

[txa1265]

Scores that high can not be deserved. It's a conceptual impossibility.

I feel like the media have backed themselves into a corner in some ways - games like HL2 and FEAR and Oblivion got scored too high and now everything else is following suit. Each of those games has glaring flaws as well as many great things, but certain enough flaws to keep them from the alter of 'ZOMG TEH PREFUCT' ...

[JDR13]

I feel like the media have backed themselves into a corner in some ways - games like HL2 and FEAR and Oblivion got scored too high and now everything else is following suit. Each of those games has glaring flaws as well as many great things, but certain enough flaws to keep them from the alter of 'ZOMG TEH PREFUCT' ...

Maybe JemyM is one of the critics on their scoring team. ;)

[Ionstormsucks]

Why is it that every time when a game gets positive criticism and high ratings, it's suddenly "hype"? Maybe Oblivion made you bitter, but I do believe that the high scores it received were deserved. It was a solid, polished game. Maybe not the type of game you hoped for, but it broke new ground, was varied and had great gameplay. It might not have been the most creative work ever, but still.


Depends pretty much on the point of view - for you a solid, polished game might deserve a 10/10, for me "solid" and "polished" a criteria that are the absolute minimum for a game. I have no doubt that Bioshock will be a rather solid and polished game, but in my opinion a linear shooter (and obviously the game is very linear), does not deserve a 10/10 because for me linearity is a flaw in design - a big one.

You make a a shooter with kick ass gfx but basicaly no content other than killing enemies in various ways you'll get a 10/10. You make a rpg with decent gfx and tons of content and you'll get 6/10, 7/10 if you're lucky.

[Brother None]

I think the issue is that a lot of gaming journalists have moved to a conceptual level where 10/10 represents "game of the year," not "this game is flawless."

The problem is this concept has not taken hold, and I doubt it will. We're raised and schooled to understand an A+ or 100% or 5/5 (for Russians) means "you made no mistakes, this was flawless." Most of us know when toiling away at the university that this is an impossible grade to get (except if the uni grades on the curve, obviously).

But yeah, they're backed into a corner now, with nowhere left to go. This has been coming from some years, with the grasping at higher numbers to be able to praise the next generation of games more. I never saw that need of doing that, but apparently gaming journalists do.

Maybe it's a part of the wider failing of gaming journalism, maybe it's just the death of the broken rating system. We'll see.

[txa1265]

Maybe JemyM is one of the critics on their scoring team. ;)

THREAD SPILLOVER ALERT!!!

Yeah, well, Bioshock might make you pee and poop your pants according to some, but doesn't turn you into a blubbering mess like Final Fantasy, and is therefore inferior and uninspired ... how could anyone even *bother* with these non-FF trivialities ...


:rotfl:

[curiously undead]

its good to see the bioshock haters have retuned after finishing their back to school shoping and have some time to kill. let it all out, because in a few days time it won't matter when the majority are playing and enjoying bioshock are the rest are left playing and enjoying, something else;)

[GhanBuriGhan]

Depends pretty much on the point of view - for you a solid, polished game might deserve a 10/10, for me "solid" and "polished" a criteria that are the absolute minimum for a game. I have no doubt that Bioshock will be a rather solid and polished game, but in my opinion a linear shooter (and obviously the game is very linear), does not deserve a 10/10 because for me linearity is a flaw in design - a big one.

You make a a shooter with kick ass gfx but basicaly no content other than killing enemies in various ways you'll get a 10/10. You make a rpg with decent gfx and tons of content and you'll get 6/10, 7/10 if you're lucky.

Linearity may be a design flaw for (a certain type) of RPGs, but you can't say that for shooters. Linearity is inherent to most of that genre. That you don't like that (and therefore most shooters) doesnt make it a flaw. That there are indeed non-llinear shooters, doesn't mean that linearity is necessarily a design flaw either. Its a design decision. You can certainly strive to make a "perfect" linear shooter (like Half life, or maybe this Bioshock) just as well as you can try to make a perfect platformer, arcade fighting game, and ping pong simulation, etc. Its silly to ask for every game to incorporate your preferred design, or expect review scores to take into account that it cant be played in everyones preferred manner.

I do agree though with your final comment. That Gfx are seen as a necessity for almost any game is bad. Although its not entirely true. I just read very positive reviews on defcon on several major sites, and that game is certainly not about eye candy. But in general its unfortunately true. I guess its in line with mainstream expectations though, which in the end is all what scores from the major sites really express: to what extent does the product conform to or exceed mainstream expectations to this game?

[Lucky Day]

anything that sells good which is not a troo RPG is the enemy

good one samhain

Linearity is never bad a thing if it's compelling. Games without a certain amount of that tend to lose focus, like Morrowind. I almost never play games twice so I never have a reason to go back to check what I missed anyway.

Keep in mind too that this is review based on XBox 360 games. I believe Halo2 and KotOR got this kind press simply because there was a lack of quality games for them at the time.

Also, the large RPG/Story element gives the FPS crowd a breath of fresh air. That's the majority of players and reviewers out there.

[Dhruin]

Sorry, Brother None, I just don't agree with you. Separate the point that the media has arguably inflated scores* and whether or not Bioshock deserves the current scores (can't tell - haven't played it) but on the specific point that these scores are "conceptual impossibility" just doesn't fly for me.

I'm not saying 10/10 should be given lightly - or even that a game has ever been made that deserves 10/10 (including Bioshock, perhaps) - but explain why it is conceptually impossible.


*I can understand the source of this sort of sentiment (IGN's 9.9/10 for Jade Empire seems a classic example) but I just can't come up with solid evidence across the board. I don't really like sites like Gamerankings and Metacritic but I can't see a universal pattern that the gaming media consistently overscores compared to the "general" public. Now, I accept "voters at Gamerankings" is hardly a perfect methodology but I can't come up with a better way of comparing the press to Joe Public.

An alternative argument is that Joe Public is wrong, or inflating scores as influenced by their reading of the media. The problem I see with that is a score is only meaningful in context - and we all know the know the context is that 7/10 is a competent but "average" game. Forcing it to 5/10 doesn't communicate more clearly - it says "this game is shit". And that isn't a benefit.

-------

Oh, and I agree with GhanBuriGhan and others on the linearity thing. It just isn't a design flaw in a shooter.

[Brother None]

Sorry, Brother None, I just don't agree with you. Separate the point that the media has arguably inflated scores* and whether or not Bioshock deserves the current scores (can't tell - haven't played it) but on the specific point that these scores are "conceptual impossibility" just doesn't fly for me.

I think you missed it by a half-inch. I'm not talking about "right" or "wrong." See what I explained here:

I think the issue is that a lot of gaming journalists have moved to a conceptual level where 10/10 represents "game of the year," not "this game is flawless."

The problem is this concept has not taken hold, and I doubt it will. We're raised and schooled to understand an A+ or 100% or 5/5 (for Russians) means "you made no mistakes, this was flawless." Most of us know when toiling away at the university that this is an impossible grade to get (except if the uni grades on the curve, obviously).

The problem is not that Bioshock or even Jade Empire would not deserve a 10/10 score from the conceptual basis of "10/10 represents game of the year material." From the standpoint "best game this year," I could excuse Oblivion or Gears of War getting a 10/10, because they were hyped, but well-made games, and arguably the best of their years (arguably, not solidly).

But like I said above, the problem is that readers aren't used to the concept of 10/10 representing a statement about GotY status, and that's what I meant with "conceptual impossibility." For the average reader, and especially the kind of reader that's not immersed into the media like you, I or the average active poster here, 10/10 will click with the only source of reference he has, which is high school to university grading system. In that conceptual system, a 10/10 either represents the highest single score of the year (when grading on a curve) or a flawless game (when grading without a curve).

Either one is a conceptual impossibility, because:

a) grading on the curve doesn't apply, because on the one hand multiple games get 100% even within a year, and the majority of readers doesn't think on a curve

b) flawless products don't exist. A 10/10, 5/5 or A+ (or whatever system your country uses) is only a possibility on basic tests and becomes impossible on any mature non-curved system (university level)

I'm not saying it's conceptually impossible from the viewpoint of either an experience reader who has got used to the media system or from the viewpoint of journalists themselves, I'm saying that for the average consumer this rating system is inherently flawed in representing the actual quality level of the game (which might well be 90%+, but that's not the point)

You are looking at it from your angle, in which the de facto rating system goes from 5/10 to 10/10, instead of 0/10 to 10/10. This is only acceptable to experienced readers, it is downright deceitful to others. It's also limited because it doesn't leave any rating room beyond games that are going to average 98%+ unless you reset the ratings each year (which is a ridiculous concept)

If I have to define why 100% is conceptually impossible in shorthand, it would be that 100% for a normal reader represents that the game has no flaws (which is an obvious impossibility, because not all elements can please everyone) or a game that could not possibly be topped by following games (you've got to be kidding me).

[Dhruin]

OK, I get where you are coming from. I don't entirely agree but I understand your point of view.

We use a 5/5 system and a "perfect score" isn't perfect:

5 – An outstanding game that will be remembered as a classic. A score of 5 indicates a game that is equal to the best gameplay available in the genre at the time of writing. It is, however, important to understand this does not represent an absolutely flawless game.

As the scoring gets more granular, this becomes harder. I don't have a problem with 10/10 if used carefully but 10.0/10 (as in 9.8/10, 9.9/10 then 10.0/10) or even the very silly 99.99% is a different scale.

[Brother None]

Like I said (lots of editing above), I think the main problem, as some mainstream journalist (don't remember who, probably someone from Gamespy or Gamespot) once explained to me, is that the top rating is reserved for top games. In other words, 10/10 or, for you guys, 5/5 represents top-notch games, but not necessarily perfect games. The reason that doesn't make much sense at a glance, especially if you go into more detailed % or *.*-based systems, is that all sense of proportion and judgement is lost. There's no difference between 10/10 representing "perfect, flawless, best game ever," or just "GotY, great game, best of the year," or even just "really a top-notch game." Gaming journalists, in this way, make themselves incapable from distinguishing great from really great to super-great, because all the greats are shoved up to an artificial roof of 100%

Partially this is an inherent problem of any rating system. Partially it's the big difference between how journalists write down 100% and how readers read it

[Thaurin]

for me "solid" and "polished" a criteria that are the absolute minimum for a game.

And still not just every game company can pull this off. It's actually not very easy to do this right, to do a game right. Very few games have the necessary polish to reach your "minimum" and it certainly isn't trivial, but very desirable and it makes a game a joy to play rather than a chore. A game deserves points for pulling it off.

in my opinion a linear shooter (and obviously the game is very linear), does not deserve a 10/10 because for me linearity is a flaw in design - a big one.

And I can't disagree with you more. I've see it more often in reviews, reviewers calling linear design a flaw. I call it a choice. Some people may actually enjoy a linear game, you know? It's a taste. I wouldn't want all games to be non-linear, to be honest. Sometimes we just want to simply blast away rows after rows of bogeys until we get to that "Congratulations! You have won!" screen.

You make a a shooter with kick ass gfx but basicaly no content other than killing enemies in various ways you'll get a 10/10. You make a rpg with decent gfx and tons of content and you'll get 6/10, 7/10 if you're lucky.

No. Usually, the 6/10 will be because of other areas where the game just doesn't really score. It may well perform brilliantly in one of the areas that you enjoy, but for a review to award 10/10 (and I agree with Brother None, I think it was? It's a bit of an impossibility to give a perfect score, depending on what the criteria for "perfect" are) needs to have an overall picture of quality, thoughtfulness, creativity, innovation and polish. And I know some of you people enjoy your indie games for certain niche qualities, and they may be excellent fun, but today you need the full package to make an impression. Unfortunately, it's been this way for a while with any media when it became easier and easier to produce decent result at home in graphics design, music recording, video editing, etc.

We, the people, just as a whole want to approach perfection more and more and we should just try to approach 10/10 instead of getting there. So Bioshock may well be a 9.9999/10, but 10/10 is always impossible. Know what I mean.

Am I ranting?

[abbaon]

But yeah, they're backed into a corner now, with nowhere left to go. This has been coming from some years, with the grasping at higher numbers to be able to praise the next generation of games more. I never saw that need of doing that, but apparently gaming journalists do.
How many years? Are you just referring to "high-scoring" games, or all of them? Dropped into this graph (http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chartuz8.png), Bioshock would look less like the culmination of an upward trend than a ridiculous outlier, but I'm not sure exactly which scores you think are being inflated. Can you be more specific?

[Reyla]

Um... what, other than the camera angle, do Bioshock and Oblivion have in common?

They are both console games first and foremost.

[curiously undead]

how the hell is bioshock a console game first and foremost ace.
last i checked all of irrationals games prior to bioshock have been solely on the pc. and bioshock is the spititual succesor to 2 pc games.
sharp

[Moriendor]

how the hell is bioshock a console game first and foremost ace.
last i checked all of irrationals games prior to bioshock have been solely on the pc. and bioshock is the spititual succesor to 2 pc games.
sharp

Easy, dude, easy ;) .

First of all, the ties to any previous games are basically non-existent except for "inspiration"...IGNPC: Is Bio a true sequel or prequel to System Shock 2, or is it a spiritual successor?

Ken Levine: BioShock has absolutely no relation to the System Shock series in terms of the intellectual property, characters, settings etc. However, it is inspired by the open-ended design principles pioneered by Looking Glass. Irrational is dedicated to maintaining that tradition.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/556/556421p1.html

... and secondly the X360 has been the lead platform all along...

Everyone knows Irrational Games' president and lead designer Ken Levine, who's been heading the Xbox 360 version of Bioshock. Close to no one knows Joe McDonagh, who is a Senior Designer on the PC version. With his colleagues at Irrational Games Australia, he has applied many changes to the PC version. Jörg Langer talked to Joe in Munich after playing the nearly finished game.

Joe McDonagh: There are very substantial gameplay differences between the two versions. Look, our heritage is PC. We've taken the differences between the two platforms very seriously. We look at history, we look at other PC/console games like Deus Ex 2. We realized that you need to treat them differently. Not only in terms of the balance, but also in the interface. We have a very different interface for the PC version of Bioshock, using much more drag and drop functionality. In terms of the gameplay, we've rebalanced all of the enemies to make the PC version harder. We've taken Softlock out of the PC version. You need this "locking on" with a console, because it's so much harder to aim at something with a game pad, but you don't need it on a PC. But of course, the Xbox 360 version still is the lead version of Bioshock.
http://www.joergspielt.de/ed-orman-english/

[Dhruin]

We, the people, just as a whole want to approach perfection more and more and we should just try to approach 10/10 instead of getting there. So Bioshock may well be a 9.9999/10, but 10/10 is always impossible. Know what I mean.

Am I ranting?

I know what you are saying but I also think you are wrong. 10/10 doesn't necessarily mean "perfect". Look at the snip of our review criteria above - 5/5 simply doesn't mean "perfect" - it means the very best quality of that genre at the time, which Bioshock may or may not be.

If our review score was, say, 2/2 or 3/3 (perhaps equating to crap, mediocre and great), you wouldn't say "you can't have 3/3 -- that's impossible perfection!". At what point do you draw a line and say it's impossible? 4/4? 5/5? 8/8? 10/10?

The more granular, the less abstracted. Sites that use decimal points (9.99/10) have less abstraction, so it gets harder to justify obviously.

Here's what Eurogamer says:

A score of ten reflects a game that, within the reviewer's estimation, is something you must buy: this is the message we're trying to convey. On a basic level it's almost certainly the best quality game ever seen within the context of its genre, and that's why Eurogamer doesn't dish them out very often. A score of 10 usually applies to less than a trio of games in any given year.

But all 10s are not born equal. For starters, you might consider that a ten in the RPG genre still isn't as appealing as an FPS that we scored an eight, or be mystified how we could score a football management game a nine when we only gave that survival-horror game you loved an eight. The best rule is to simply rate like with like, and use your own personal taste barometer to gauge whether the genre is of interest to you. Even so, if you're new to a particular genre then something scoring a ten is a very safe bet indeed. As a starting point, the message is you can't get a better game of this type.

Let us make absolutely clear that a 10 is not and probably never will be "the perfect game". There's always something criticisable about a game, however small.

A 10 will inspire the reviewer because it gets so many things correct. It will be something truly groundbreaking and aesthetically successful, be consistently enjoyable, get the balance right in difficulty terms, be technically very impressive, and be polished to a shine. It will leave the player in no doubt that they're playing something special right from the word go and will continue to inspire and amaze throughout. As we've said, this doesn't mean it's perfect, and we'll be sure to say where it goes wrong too, but maybe those niggles are just so minor that you can let it off. Look at anything under a microscope for long enough and you'll see the flaws. But would you kick a supermodel out of bed for farting?

[Dhruin]

*snip

I think as much for marketing purposes as anything else. The original poster was essentially dismissing the game as console crap. Are you suggesting that quote endorses that point of view?

[Moriendor]

I think as much for marketing purposes as anything else. The original poster was essentially dismissing the game as console crap. Are you suggesting that quote endorses that point of view?

Huh? Console "crap"? :) He said -full quote- "They are both console games first and foremost.". Which is simply a fact. Levine has been heading the X360 team, hasn't he? While the team in Australia did the PC version (obviously not in full parallel development mode but using the same base code that was provided by the X360 team). I think it is great that they have apparently tried very hard to avoid "consolitis" as much as possible and I hope that they have succeeded but the fact remains that this game was primarily developed for the Xbox 360. Whether this is a bad thing or a good thing is up to everyone to decide for themselves. It's still a fact though.

[Acleacius]

First, if a site posts what their ratings mean, (with a 5/5 being a milestone of it’s time to some degree or other) and person misinterprets that meaning, to mean it’s a perfect game, then it’s the person’s fault not the review site.

Secondly, it's rather erroneous (no offense) to speak in generalities when claiming only some stories are linear and others aren't.
How can a story not be linear, if it has a beginning and an end, what’s your example of a non-linear game?
Fallout, maybe I am remembering incorrectly but it has a beginning and end, certainly there are side-quests that can divert you, but still there is a linear story, iirc.
I don’t see how anyone can claim Bioshock just a shooter with a linear story, what are the criteria since you seem to be using this phrase to cast a dispersions, of not being worthy as a quality game?
SS2, had a beginning and an end yet it received critical aclaim, that most gamers do Not dispute.

Thirdly, Bioshock is clearly not a console first game and taking interviews of how important it is for Irrational to make the console game up to their standards as a game developer, is out of context.
Making Bioshock available to play as console game is most likely how Irrational was able to get funding to afford to make, this potentially ground breaking game.
Please, the idea Levine sat back in his chair eating his sushi saying to himself, “how can I make the greatest console game, ever!”, just makes me laugh. :)

Also when Levine says, “No relation to SS2” that is Legal Protection to keep EA from suing the crap out of him and 2K. :)
It clearly is the same formula that Irrational uses very successfully, Isolation, character development, a story of dept, horror and socially relevant topics.

I am not sure where this negitivity stems from against Irrational but it sure doesn't seem warrented, especially since they are so in touch with fans and old school roots of development that are such a rare quality currently, in game development.

[abbaon]

How many years? Are you just referring to "high-scoring" games, or all of them? Dropped into this graph (http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chartuz8.png), Bioshock would look less like the culmination of an upward trend than a ridiculous outlier, but I'm not sure exactly which scores you think are being inflated. Can you be more specific?
This gives a clearer picture. (http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chart2uq9.png) At the start of the 360's life, its scores were clustered higher and more tightly than Xbox reviews were at any point, but that didn't last beyond the first year. Its current spread resembles historical patterns. And reviewers of 360 games don't appear to have been more liberal with scores in the 90s. This is only two of the six consoles, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that game scores are not currently trending upward.

This is fun.

[curiously undead]

bioshock was in development long before the australian studio was even up and running to my knowledge. wasn't the game announced before the xbox 360 was even known to be coming out? also if a man fathers children with different wives (platforms) i'm pretty sure those children are related. just because someone suddenly changes their job or career is everything they've done before forgotten and meaningless...wow i don't envy the world some people live in.

[Dhruin]

OMG!!! I'm like so excited I peed my pants. Hello bioshock/oblivion games, good bye rpgs!!!

From what I see, what is gathering a lot of attention is the graphics. I might have peed my pants, but we'll see if this game is a game, and not just a pretty screensaver.

They are both console games first and foremost.

When I read this progression of comments, the intent behind the words I see is "console crap" - nothing but a "pretty screensaver" for the console kiddies who don't know better. If it isn't what was meant, then the intended idea wasn't communicated to me, sorry. Oblivion and Bioshock are completely different genres and approaches, so I don't see another relationship - unless 1111 was saying they are both game of the year material, so bring it on! ? No, didn't think so.

Ken Levine is lead, sure, but Jon Chey was co-owner of Irrational and project lead, lead programmer and lead AI on System Shock 2, so I doubt the Australian office was just doing a bit of interface tweaking. Basic development seems to have been on the X360 but I still think the development was reasonably parallel and saying "console first and foremost" biases towards a poor port.

[Prime Junta]

Scores that high can not be deserved. It's a conceptual impossibility.

If nobody can ever get the highest score, all that does is make the second-highest score the highest score in reality.

Second, game reviewers are faced with the same problem as any tech reviewers: a moving baseline. Music, for example, has not "evolved" in the sense of "getting measurably and objectively better in some respect" since the Renaissance, perhaps before. Films have not "evolved" in this sense since some vaguely drawn line between the 1920's and the 1960's, depending on whom you ask.

That makes the music or film critic's job that much easier -- they can compare something that came out today with Citizen Kane or Metropolis or even Mass in B minor without sounding completely ridiculous.

A game reviewer always has to adjust for the tech baseline: as awesome as Deus Ex was, if it came out today looking and feeling exactly like it did upon release, it would catch a quite a lot of flak for low poly counts, clunky animations, and what not.

This, of course, leads the problem of score inflation. If Deus Ex was 5/5, and somebody today made something that does everything well that it did well, only with cutting-edge tech and some nice new gameplay and story innovations thrown in, what would that make it?

I believe most reviewers attempt to address this problem by taking the current state of the market as the baseline: a game that's "average" compared to what's available now would be 3/5, a game that's "outstanding" compared to what's available now would be 5/5. As you put it in another message:

I think the issue is that a lot of gaming journalists have moved to a conceptual level where 10/10 represents "game of the year," not "this game is flawless."

So, assuming that someone does come out with an "outstanding" game, and assuming that reviewers attempt to treat their scores this way, I don't think it's impossible for it to (legitimately) score very high among very many reviewers.

[Badesumofu]

If nobody can ever get the highest score, all that does is make the second-highest score the highest score in reality.

A rule in mathematics is that for two numbers to be different, there has to be an infinite number of numbers between them. So if a site uses decimals (and doesn't cut off at two places) then 'the second highest score possible' is, in fact, an impossibility. If X is any number less than 10 there are an infinite number of numbers that are both greater than X and less than 10. You can always keep going higher and higher as long as you never give a 10. In reality, most sites, if they even do decimals, limit it to one place, or even limit it to 'point fives'.

Any system like this has to be considered an abstraction, and thus 10 is not nescessarily a perfect score. In the abstraction, a 10 is whatever the site says it is. I don't know of any sites or mags that use 10 to mean that the game is absolutley flawless, the perfect game. For a site that limits itself to whole numbers or point fives, their score of 9.5 means that the game is closer to 9.5 than 9 or 10. A 10 might mean that the game is closer to 10 than 9.5. PCPP Australia justified it's switch from percentages to marks out of 10 by saying that any scoring system is too subjective to be able to give an exact percentage score. They're right on the money there, I think.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the scores Bioshock is getting are justified. Based on the actual words in the reviews that accompany the scores, I'd say it's pretty likely that they are justified.

[JDR13]

If nobody can ever get the highest score, all that does is make the second-highest score the highest score in reality.
.

I don't think that's what he meant. I think when he said, "It's a conceptual impossibility", he was talking about absolute perfection.

[Ionstormsucks]

Linearity may be a design flaw for (a certain type) of RPGs, but you can't say that for shooters. Linearity is inherent to most of that genre. That you don't like that (and therefore most shooters) doesnt make it a flaw. That there are indeed non-llinear shooters, doesn't mean that linearity is necessarily a design flaw either. Its a design decision. You can certainly strive to make a "perfect" linear shooter (like Half life, or maybe this Bioshock) just as well as you can try to make a perfect platformer, arcade fighting game, and ping pong simulation, etc. Its silly to ask for every game to incorporate your preferred design, or expect review scores to take into account that it cant be played in everyones preferred manner.

Nope, it's not. First of all I don't think linearity is inherent to that genre. There is no natural law or necessity to make a shooter linear. Second I give a damn about genre - genre boundaries are straight from hell. If I play a game I'm not thinking, "Was this a good rpg?" or, "Was this a good shooter?" - I'm thinking, "Was this a good game?" I'm tired that flawed design is constantly defended by bringing in genre as an argument - it isn't one. If you think that linearity is an inherent part of the genre, I tell you it's time to break some genre boundaries then.
And third, and this is basically why I claim that linearity is a flaw, games are not books or movies. If I want linearity, I read a book or watch a movie. A videogame however that is linear is simply crippled that's all. It doesn't make optimal use of the medium it takes place in. That linearity is a design decision is a statement that lazy ass game developers came up. You'll often find it in connection with similar idiotic statements like, "A linear gameplay and plot makes it easier to tell a good story." That's all bla bla... it makes it cheaper to tell a story that's all.

[Brother None]

First, if a site posts what their ratings mean, (with a 5/5 being a milestone of it’s time to some degree or other) and person misinterprets that meaning, to mean it’s a perfect game, then it’s the person’s fault not the review site.

Misreading is never purely the reader's fault, it is always partially the writer's fault.

This gives a clearer picture. (http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chart2uq9.png) At the start of the 360's life, its scores were clustered higher and more tightly than Xbox reviews were at any point, but that didn't last beyond the first year. Its current spread resembles historical patterns. And reviewers of 360 games don't appear to have been more liberal with scores in the 90s. This is only two of the six consoles, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that game scores are not currently trending upward.

I do believe it is. Because your chart shows a tendencies to centrifugally compensate higher scores with lower scores, it does not reflect on the trend of scoring games higher and higher. For that, we need to date the Metacritic top games; the top 10 includes 4 games from 2007, 5 games from 2006, 1 game from 2005. Any direct conclusion drawn out of that as you're doing is ridiculous because the sample material is too small, but considering 2007 is half-over, that looks like a steep incline to me.

If nobody can ever get the highest score, all that does is make the second-highest score the highest score in reality.

Yes, that's the argument they use. Amusingly, it shows a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of a rating system.

The fact that a score isn't used doesn't "just" relegate the second-highest score to the theoretical, it also changes the mental scale. If I say 100% is an unreasonable rating and it is removed, that doesn't mean 90% defaults to the same position as 100%, it means that mentally, 100% is an unattainable peak in a scale, that means you can actually, as a reader, get a perspective on where the game belongs on a scale from 0-100% rather than all games ending up pushing the 100% roof.

It's that simple, really.

Second, game reviewers are faced with the same problem as any tech reviewers: a moving baseline.

Fascinating. That's just another reason the rating system is inherently flawed, though, it doesn't really address my argument, it just adds to it.

Besides, I don't directly care why game reviewers are so incompetent, I care that they are. It's not my job to figure out the why and fix it, that's theirs.

So, assuming that someone does come out with an "outstanding" game, and assuming that reviewers attempt to treat their scores this way, I don't think it's impossible for it to (legitimately) score very high among very many reviewers.

As I already said, that won't work because of the eventual drainage of superlatives and, more importantly, because of the difference between the people reading it and the journalist writing it.

[Prime Junta]

Besides, I don't directly care why game reviewers are so incompetent, I care that they are. It's not my job to figure out the why and fix it, that's theirs.

Funny, I actually find most game reviews I read are pretty useful and give a fairly good idea of what to expect in the game. Of course, there is the occasional complete blooper, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. From where I'm at, most gaming journalists most of the time attempt to do the best they can, and succeed reasonably -- although, of course, being people, they're no more immune to getting caught up in the hype than the rest of us.

[Asbjoern]

Brother None,
I can't quite see, why you have the need to regard a 5/5 as a flawless game just out of principle. When for example RPGWatch writes that a 5/5 isn't a flawless game but just "the best of the best" at the current and past time then you can't argue that they are only allowed to rate flawless games a 5/5 because the general public is used to that rating system. One can define its rating system as one wants just as long as they define it, otherwise the default rating system might just be 5/5 = flawless game.
And because the gaming platform is a dynamic platform then it isn't possible to create a flawless game and what is a flawless game? So I can't see why not the gaming media shouldn't use a rating system that awards "the best of the best" 5/5.
Just as long as there hasn't gone inflation upon the ratings.

As far as I know, the film media and music media works the same way.

And by the way. The general public isn't used to the definition of 5/5 = flawless game because most people hasn't attended university and in lower educational institutions a 5/5 for "the best of the best" can easily occur.

[Brother None]

5/5 looks really weird for Russians.

But I agree with Dhruin's point made there, so you're right. When we're talking 5/5 you're basically saying the 5 has a range from 81% to 100%, you don't detail further, so that doesn't apply here. Such ratings are often indicated by "stars," as in "five stars." And you two are right, that's difference and less confusing.

The further you narrow it down, like IGN, the more confusing it gets, tho'.

I actually find most game reviews I read are pretty useful and give a fairly good idea of what to expect in the game

I used to agree. Until the past few years, culminating in Oblivion. It was like my experience in playing Oblivion was diametrically opposed to what reviewers were writing. I simply could not possibly identify the game I was playing based on the reviews I read, it was like they were reviewing a completely different game.

There's a lot of incompetence out there in the gaming media. Too much, if you ask me, which harms the status of gaming towards the actual, serious media indirectly. Real journalists just chuckle when they see the way gaming journalists operate.

[Prime Junta]

I used to agree. Until the past few years, culminating in Oblivion. It was like my experience in playing Oblivion was diametrically opposed to what reviewers were writing. I simply could not possibly identify the game I was playing based on the reviews I read, it was like they were reviewing a completely different game.

Oblivion was one game that disappointed me too, badly, and the reasons it disappointed were not apparent in the reviews I read. So you have a point there. Still, the fact remains that Oblivion *does* do a great many things very well, it *was* first out of the gate doing these things well, and many if not most gamers *do* appreciate precisely these things (and are not bothered by the things that bothered me).

Examples? Wide-open, seamless, enormous world, tons and tons of characters, quests, and locations, thousands of different loot items, solid combat "feel," very pretty graphics... but poor writing, shoddy voice-acting, simplistic minigames, severely out-of-balance game mechanics. Meaning, all the stuff that makes you go "wow" when you first start it up and start learning it was there, while the actual flaws only come to the surface as you get deeper into it.

So, while a really good reviewer would certainly have dug something of this up even in the short time frame they have to write a review, IMO it's not quite gross incompetence to get caught in the hype, be wowed by the obviously well-done things, and miss some or even most of them.

There's a lot of incompetence out there in the gaming media. Too much, if you ask me, which harms the status of gaming towards the actual, serious media indirectly. Real journalists just chuckle when they see the way gaming journalists operate.

"Real journalists" chuckle when they see any specialty press "journalists" operate. Specialty journalists are enthusiasts first, journalists second. That's just the way things are, and that's why it should be taken with a grain of salt.

(Disclaimer: I used to review games for a publication a while back. It was pretty poorly paid and in the end not very interesting, so I eventually moved on to other things.)

[Brother None]

Oblivion was one game that disappointed me too, badly, and the reasons it disappointed were not apparent in the reviews I read. So you have a point there. Still, the fact remains that Oblivion *does* do a great many things very well, it *was* first out of the gate doing these things well, and many if not most gamers *do* appreciate precisely these things (and are not bothered by the things that bothered me).

Oblivion was definitely a good game. The issue I took with the reviews wasn't that they identified it as a good or even great game, it was the fact that they missed flaws that are so obvious they should be mentioned, even if the reviewer mentions them with "but this flaw is so small it'll hardly bother the average gamer on a play-through."

They've only started identifying these flaws now, a year too late (http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=37708).

IMO it's not quite gross incompetence to get caught in the hype, be wowed by the obviously well-done things, and miss some or even most of them.

I feel it is incompetent, if not necessarily grossly so. But maybe I'm judging too strict.

"Real journalists" chuckle when they see any specialty press "journalists" operate. Specialty journalists are enthusiasts first, journalists second. That's just the way things are, and that's why it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Having a worked as in the editor's room of a speciality (political) press for a short while, I can say that's not necessarily true, and not equally true everywhere. There's a difference between the scope, expertise and enthusiasm of people covering sports, automobiles, music or movies. By comparison, gaming journalism looks like a Marx brothers movie. Not good.

[Thaurin]

linearity is a flaw, games are not books or movies. If I want linearity, I read a book or watch a movie. A videogame however that is linear is simply crippled that's all.

I'm glad you're not head of all game development. I like some of my games linear, thank you.

[Ionstormsucks]

I'm glad you're not head of all game development.

Yeah, me too. I probably would hang myself after a few weeks because I simply couldn't take all the ignorant publishers, the retarded journalists, and the uncritical players anymore.

[Moriendor]

..."console first and foremost" biases towards a poor port.

OK, we just have a different level of perception then :) . I thought it was factual, not biased.
If Oblivion is any indication then the X360 version of Bioshock is probably going to outsell the PC version by a factor of 1:3. It would seem only natural that the developer would cater to the stronger (in numbers) customer base.
Besides, I'm sure that they did have to make compromises somewhere along the way. Developing for the X360 as the "lead platform" means you need to consider certain limitations such as the console's relatively low RAM. You can't pull a Gothic 3 and make a totally wide open game where you can wander seamlessly from level to level... and who knows? Maybe that's what they would have done if they would have made it PC-exclusive? Maybe they would have gone for a more non-linear approach? We'll never know.
However, to develop a game primarily for a console doesn't have to mean that the end result has to be a poor port or that it will suffer from "consolitis" (as I said I'm sure that Irrational did their best to avoid this) but it means that the whole design is most certainly influenced by the "lead platform". With every single design decision they had to ask themselves "Will this work on the 360? Will this work with a gamepad? Will it be fun? Can we do it?".
That's why I think that it is simply stating a fact when someone says that it is "first and foremost" a console game.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

You make a a shooter with kick ass gfx but basicaly no content other than killing enemies in various ways you'll get a 10/10. You make a rpg with decent gfx and tons of content and you'll get 6/10, 7/10 if you're lucky.

Exactly this is my source of overall bitterness concerning the PC platform.

The PC platform is slowly, but steadily being turned into an "action platform" by this, with other, innovative games being thrown out. Or once popular genres, like the adventures. I recently read someone calling "Technomage" an "Action-adventure" game. Huh ? Now everything's action, or what ?

[abbaon]

Because your chart shows a tendencies to centrifugally compensate higher scores with lower scores, it does not reflect on the trend of scoring games higher and higher.
I looked at change in variance over time for my set, and it's small, but it's there. I'll pull the rest of their database and revisit this when my download limit ticks over at the end of the month.

[Thaurin]

Yeah, me too. I probably would hang myself after a few weeks because I simply couldn't take all the ignorant publishers, the retarded journalists, and the uncritical players anymore.

Are you calling me uncritical or was that just a general remark? ;) A game is either fun or it isn't and to me personally is doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how linear or not the game progressed. Like Dungeon Siege 2 that I'm playing right now. You might well hate its guts, but it is right for me at this moment. I like my share of open-ended gameplay, but sometimes just killing host after host of enemies and improving your skills is what I want. I'd have thought that DS2 was a lesser game had it come out less linear. All this doesn't make it a bad game.

[txa1265]

I looked at change in variance over time for my set, and it's small, but it's there. I'll pull the rest of their database and revisit this when my download limit ticks over at the end of the month.

And of course, you really need confidence limits and p-values to make any claims ... oops, that would be my day job speaking ;)

[mactbone]

I looked at change in variance over time for my set, and it's small, but it's there. I'll pull the rest of their database and revisit this when my download limit ticks over at the end of the month.

I'm not sure, but with as many data points as you have for the 360 I have to think it includes a fair number of XBLA games which I don't think should be included. Many of those games were released on other platforms first and have a price point that changes the nature of what is expected in the game.

WRT to the rating system, I'm bothered by it as well. I think that the highest scores should be reserved for genre-defining, classic, unforgettable games. Super Mario, Zelda, etc. will still get a high score when they're reviewed for the Wii - the score won't change despite the low-grade graphics. If Deus Ex suffers from newer graphics outshining it then that's a problem specific to it.

[Lucky Day]

The theory makes sense. Years later the judges for the '76 Olympics admitted doing this for Nadia Comaneci when she got her perfect 10's to make sure her score guaranteed her place over the Russians.

I think one problem is the churn rate. Every year there are new video game players (and therefore reviewers) replacing the older ones. "When I was a child I..understood as a child..but when I became a man I put away childish things." New gamers and reviewers don't only awlays have the save interests or tastes in games as previous ones did. As they get older (like many of us ;) ) either they prefer deeper, more involved games or they quit playing them altogether as kid stuff.