NWN2 - International Reviews
 

A couple of readers have written in with non-English reviews of NWN2, so I'll group them here.

• An Italian review of NWN2 is up at La maschera riposta, with a score of 5/5
• A Swedish review can be found at fz.se with a score of 4.5/5 and an award.

More information.

I hate it when reviews give a perfect score. 5/5, 10/10, 100%.

Sheesh. Sure a game can be good, but not perfect. And that's irrefutable. No game is perfect.

I have a list of favourite games that have consumed my waking hours (Gothic series, Icewind Dale, NWN, Warcraft 3, etc) and i would rate them very very highly. But the highest I would ever go is 95%.

I wish reviewers not gush over games (mainstream, hyped ones usually). Strikes me as being amateurish…

/rant over :blush:

One point, 5/5 is NOT a perfect game, there is NO such thing!! However, it should mean an excellent game. If we don't use the full range of scoring, we limit ourselves too much. For example, I gave Lazarus 10/10 for a host of reasons. Was it perfect? No, but it sure came close and was one of the best releases of the year at a price that was perfect. Would I give Oblivion a 10? NO WAY!! It's an 8; with key mods installed I'd give it 8.5!!

Hmmm, I see your point Corwin.

I just find that using a very basic numerical scoring system is too inaccurate. *puts on analytical hat* It demonstrably promotes oversimplification and facilitates the glossing-over of bad points.

I think all games should use percentages. So 5/5 could more accurately mean 95% instead.

Oh well, at least reviews don't use a binary/dichotomy system. "Good" or "Bad" :)

We've had LONG and sometimes HEATED discussions here about our scoring system, just as we did back at the Dot. We are planning initially to use a 5 point system because it's easy to implement and hopefully won't be the major focus of people's response. We want them to discuss the REVIEW, not the score we give it!!

Well, yeah but the score reflects the gist of the review. So people who are not bothered to read through the review (damn you all!) will just look at the score and base their opinions on that.

Nonetheless, I understand the reasoning that you've explained! *salutes*

No offense meant to the watch's future reviewers, but I think scores are useless. The text of the review itself should suffice.

We agree, but most people demand some sort of score!!

This debate re-ignited at GamerDad as well recently. Andrew Bub decided that since his main thrust was content rather than critical reviews, that all platforms of a multiplatform review were covered at once by a single review - including next gen and handheld (ex. something like Tiger Woods Golf). That caused GameRanking to 'unbold' GamerDad, which was a major force in keeping scoring … I pushed the issue, but was rebuked … for now ;)

I think fewer levels are better - I'd be happy with a Up / Down / Meh type of thing … even a strict Up / Down if pressed.

For me the problem is that I'm an engineer / statistician by training and trade … so I can't help but believe that the difference between a game rated 8.5 and one rated 8.0 is greater than that same 8.5 game and one rated 8.75. I believe that numbers should have *meaning* or not be used at all.

Of course, the majority of professional reviewers are non-science types, so …

Let's not start yet another debate on scores, hehe. I think everyone agrees that reading a reviewers score doesn't say a whole lot about the content and how he actually feels about the game as different reviewers use different scores. Personally I prefer no score at all, but instead a summary at top or bottom which sums up more than a number can.

Yeah, I also agree that would be a great alternative. No score but a a brief summary of no more than a dozen words.

How about both!! :)

Haha, going all the way I see. How bout this: we have two types of review per game.

1) Simplified and brief, fits on 1 page and has a score.
For people who can't be bothered with reading everything (OH NOES!! REEDING IS TEH HARD!11!)

2) Dissertation style,spanning MANY pages, completely comprehensive and ends with a summary. No score.

Why should we make so much effort to make two similar reviews in different styles? So that we can log the IP of people (1), locate them and bash them over the head with a dictionary. :p

I like your thinking, but since I'm one of those people here who writes reviews, I don't really want to write 2 for the same game. That could take me as long as 30 minutes!! :biggrin:

Holy shit. Was that a period, Corwin?

Last time I looked in a mirror, I was not a female!! :p

Some places do this by having a 'One-Minute Review', which summarizes the review in a paragraph. Given the quality of some of the reviews I've been reading, that style is often quite preferable! :)

Here is how we approach reviews: http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/info?infoid=2
A 5/5 score is not equal to 100%. It just means that it is an excellent game at this time.

I'll just be the stodgy conservative here and demand that we just keep things the way they are. Seriously, it aint broke, dont fix it

Well, misleading as scores can be due to lack of standardization, I find a score helpful to settle the moot points where the reviewer is obviously trying to be fair and present all sides of an issue. Then you wonder, does the reviewer actually like this part of the game or is he seeking to appear unbiased? If you look at the score, you can see his position on the game in microcosm, as it were. Besides, we all know that size—er, scores don't matter. : )