CD Projekt - Conference Summary

10-11 million I think, yeah, but I don't recall where I heard that. And yes, that's a lot by Polish standards.

Brother None said:

That's what I meant. Maybe I'm too much of an underachiever, but if I had a straight-rating press, I'd be pretty happy to go into the 80s range.

Hell, I myself, as a reviewer, don't go into the 80s range that easily. Let alone the 90s. Even Dragon Age, easily RPGotY, might not hit the 90s if I were reviewing it (I'm not).

And yeah, that 8.2 rating looked weird after that interview, but is pretty high by GB standards, even though Carter habitually rates a lot higher than I do. Personally, and I've said this before, I loathe ratings and would just like to dump 'em from GB wholesale. Or at least just give them over to the head editor so they're more consistent.

Click to expand...

Thing is 90%+ has been the 'we love this game you should buy it' rating for games since day one. I've noticed a few 'hardcore' individuals claiming that knocking, or not giving out so many high scores is the way to go. The reality is that it just takes the scores out of context with what the mainstream is doing. If your 8 is as good as, say, Gamespot's 9 and you're put along side Metacritic your 8 is an 8 plain and simple. If the niche won't stick their necks out for their titles you can hardly expect the mainstream guys to do it for them.

Just look at it like school -- 90+% == A, 80-89% == B, 70-79% == C, and below 70% well it's probably not worth differentiating.

It does seem odd to me to be unhappy an arbitrary rating scale. There is nothing that intrinsically says that 50% must be "decent" or 80% must be "decent". The only advantage of pushing it down is to have more precision to differentiate between higher-rated things, but even ten different degrees of "A" makes little sense (and heck, you can also use decimals if you really want).

For example, good ol' days review of Bard's Tale from Your Sinclair. Basically, I haven't played this game at all 9/10.

woges said:

Thing is 90%+ has been the 'we love this game you should buy it' rating for games since day one.

Click to expand...

To some extent, sure, though I feel scores have been going up it's easy enough to point to older titles with high scores (I believe BG2oA has 95 on metacritic), but that is untenable without statistical research. My other issue is also unprovable without statistical research, but I feel that the 60-100 scale is used for NA AAA titles, in which 80-90 is decent and only 90+ is good; stay away from AAA titles that rate in the low 80s, and can you even name an AAA title that ranked below 80 on metacritic in the past 5 or so years? Meanwhile, the full 10-100 or 0-100 scale is used for non-NA AAA titles that lack NA clout (some are not NA but still have clout, like BW), and is definitely used for non-AAA titles and indies.

Does that partially make sense because AAA games are what it's all about anyway, and with the money involved tend generally not to be horrifically terrible? Sure. Does that make it fair or even? Not really.

woges said:

If the niche won't stick their necks out for their titles you can hardly expect the mainstream guys to do it for them.

Click to expand...

Stick their necks out? I stick my neck out by refusing in any way to adapt my writing to anything but my own views and standards on journalism. I'm certainly not pumping up grades because mainstream sites do. What'd be the point? GB is not on Metacritic or GameRankings anyway.

hackbod said:

It does seem odd to me to be unhappy an arbitrary rating scale.

Click to expand...

Is it? If every AAA title defaults over 90% anyway, how are casual gamers supposed to tell what's a good reception and what isn't? You say it's nothing to be unhappy about because as an "insider" you've adapted to the scale anyway. What about people not that into games? People news to game? In other words: MetaCritic's audience.

Heh, I just checked Gamespot's review of MotB and it scored an 8.0. I do agree that scores are BS especially if you're dealing with an audience that knows what it likes, but I'd like to see an depth study of the Watch's or GameBanshee's audience. Thing is as an alternative source you don't think something is amiss when you're giving out the same/similar rewards as the same guys you're complaining about?

Kieron Gillen gave it one of its lowest marks on Metacritic, for example, with arguments like 'it's only for the western rpg head'. An awful premise that could be substituted with any genre to give a lower score. If you're giving the same score as these guys then you're just climbing into bed with them instead of offering an alternative viewpoint. I'm not singling KG out as a bad man fallacy either, or that I disagree with all his opinions/reviews just that if there is little opposition in niche web-sites then there's little point to them doing reviews - because what are they then offering really?

woges said:

I'm not singling KG out as a bad man fallacy either, or that I disagree with all his opinions/reviews just that if there is little opposition in niche web-sites then there's little point to them doing reviews - because what are they then offering really?

Click to expand...

GB can be pretty close to mainstream sites when it comes to mainstream games. But we cover and support indie games where we can (Buck always has, I just added to that), and give a more fair ear to European titles, I'd say. I don't think being close to mainstream sites is a huge problem...

What I do agree is a problem is our ratings, and I've complained about that before (in this thread, no?), but that's of course an internal issue and I don't want to hang out all our dirty laundry. Suffice to say I'm often a bigger fan of Steve Carter's text reviews than his final ratings, and if you read stuff like GB's Oblivion, Mass Effect or Fallout 3 review you'll see where and how it separates from the mainstream.

Everybody moans about ratings that's the best part of em. I'm not meaning to single out GB or anything either just pointing out that scores are definitely a problem. I don't think it's all that simple for the major sites either. More money, more pressure, goes without saying but don't think that the old mags were any different. In the context of expansion packs though I'd have no problem giving a high recommendation to MotB even though I found it a bit 'emo' at times.