Dragon Age 2 - Not As Dumbed Down As Mass Effect

GhanBuriGhan said:

This has been said a million times over, so I'll keep it short:
10/10 != perfect

Click to expand...

What exactly does it mean, then?

The best it can be? No, because everything can always be better.

So, please explain to me what 10/10 or 100% means.

DArtagnan said:

What exactly does it mean, then?

The best it can be? No, because everything can always be better.

So, please explain to me what 10/10 or 100% means.

Click to expand...

Just ignore numbers and read the text, you'll get a hell of a lot more out of reviews that way.

DoctorNarrative said:

Just ignore numbers and read the text, you'll get a hell of a lot more out of reviews that way.

Click to expand...

I stopped reading official reviews a long time ago.

10/10! Game of the Year!

=

"EA/Bioware just walked in with an oversized check with a lot of zeros on it. They also mentioned something about hookers."

It's a business, and it should come as no surprise that mainstream videogame magazines are going to fawn all over the big titles. If you look past what the industry and fanboys are saying, then you get a much more accurate picture of the strengths and weaknesses of all games. Don't tell me that Bioware sucks because the industry is constantly slobbering all over them: I already know that. That's not an accurate reason for Why Bioware Sucks.

For the record, my previous critique of Bioware notwithstanding, their games are fluff, to be enjoyed as such. Bioware is the mainstream, and the mainstream is there to cater to the lowest common denominator, not to innovate to any large degree. I don't hold anything against Bioware or it's fans, and any review of the game that sounds suspiciously like fellatio, I take with several grains of salt. That being said, I do enjoy me some Bioware games from time to time, for the same reason I enjoy "The Expendables," "Jackass," or "Predator." Sometimes I'm just in the mood for shiny things that blow up, toilet humor, and gratuitous nudity.

DArtagnan said:

What exactly does it mean, then?

The best it can be? No, because everything can always be better.

So, please explain to me what 10/10 or 100% means.

Click to expand...

Lol why you don't ask this for 90% or 9/10? Perhaps you can explain 90%?

Let say 90% is almost perfect, so let work on this 90% game, and solve some flaws.... Now we get a new game... still 90%? Two games, one is better and both get 90%, you find any logic here?

What is frustrating about Bioware is that the industry or the game market looks at the numbers that Bioware is making and thinks that this formula is the only way for an RPG to be success and there for defines what is wanted. And anyone that has been gaming more than ten years doesnt want ACTION in all their RPGs. Why cant Biowares next game be BG style and action to cater to both hardcore fans and casual gamers .

rich ruffo said:

What is frustrating about Bioware is that the industry or the game market looks at the numbers that Bioware is making and thinks that this formula is the only way for an RPG to be success and there for defines what is wanted.

Click to expand...

Not only Bioware !

ALL bigger companies !

rich ruffo said:

What is frustrating about Bioware is that the industry or the game market looks at the numbers that Bioware is making and thinks that this formula is the only way for an RPG to be success and there for defines what is wanted. And anyone that has been gaming more than ten years doesnt want ACTION in all their RPGs. Why cant Biowares next game be BG style and action to cater to both hardcore fans and casual gamers .

Click to expand...

Bioware wants to make mainstream games though, that is their goal as a company. Mainstream gamers want action and real-time skill-based combat... well, mainstream "core" gamers anyway, and now we're using too many marketing terms. What I mean is basically the 10 million people that buy Call of Duty on Xbox, not the millions who play Facebook games.

In any event, my opinion is that there is room for both. I like Bioware's cinematic RPGs, be it a shooter like Mass Effect or a tactical RPG like Dragon Age, and then I also like turn-based RPGs and open-world RPGs and whatever else. I don't understand why people can't like something like Gothic 2 AND something like Mass Effect 2... they're both great games and variety is the spice of life, as they say.

booboo said:

The problem is that in my mind, and I'm sure many others - I spend a lot of time marking papers - 10/10 *is* perfect/with no flaws/no errors.

Click to expand...

No it is not, and you should know, if you are marking papers or tests. For one, usually the best grade will still be given for less than a perfect point score. Secondly, I assume you don't consider your A students perfect either. The tests or your expectations are probably designed so that maybe 5-10% of students will achieve an "A" or a "10/10". It does not mean that the student that gets it has an IQ of 170 and is Einstein reincarnate (at least I hope so, for those whose papers you are marking).

The game industry reviewers may have redefined it to mean something else, but obviously this not widely understood/accepted. If a game couldn't (reasonably) have done anything better, then sure, give it 10/10. I have yet to play such a game however, by a long shot - even games I really like. When you read reviews, the reviewers gripe about this or that aspect, and then proceed to ignore that when assigning a score. Then you get all sorts of different scoring systems - its a mess. I wish they'd throw away numbers and give games some overall thumbs up/thumbs down type rating with a detailed list of pros/cons and "if you like X… you will like this", "if you didn't enjoy Y", you will not enjoy this" and so on etc.

Click to expand...

So likewise a 10/10 score means (or should mean, IMHO) that this game is judged to be among the top 5 to 10% of the current generation of games (in the view of the reviewer, and of course who that reviewer is is decisive to what the score means to me).

Games are fortunately a good mix of artistry and technical achievements and there are now correct answers to judge against against say math/engineering exams. For this reason I only use scores to help determine the level of investigation I do on a game. 10/10 would generally mean I read reviews even if I dont care about the game at first glance because it may be just that good. 7/10 means I need to be careful and only buy if I'm reasonably certain I would like it based on reviewer comments.

SideNote: My Physics 101 course was taught by a new professor with extreme standards. None of the material was actually covered in the course but the underlying concepts were. The highest score was 64% or so and average score near 30%. To avoid failing all but one student who would have gotten a D-. He did what most teachers do and adjusted the scores to a match some distribution curve he felt was fair.

I have no problems with games being judged the same way with top 5% getting 10/10 or so. What I would like more of if we insist on giving numerical scores is descriptions of what the score means. And of course some games go to 11 dont they.

DArtagnan said:

What exactly does it mean, then?

The best it can be? No, because everything can always be better.

Click to expand...

You might try checking some websites - it's usually explained. Our own scoring explanation:

5/5 – 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.

Click to expand...

IGN:

10.0 - Masterpiece
The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected.

Click to expand...

You get the idea.

So, please explain to me what 10/10 or 100% means.

Click to expand...

There's the problem. 10/10 does not mean "100%". Does 5 stars represent 100%? An "A"? A "buy" in "buy / don't buy"?

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Not only Bioware !

ALL bigger companies !

Click to expand...

Truer words never spoken but hey I hate bioware regardless so I must be in the minority.So my comments and opinions are void to others. I want variety and not just action rpgs.

Dhruin said:

There's the problem. 10/10 does not mean "100%". Does 5 stars represent 100%? An "A"? A "buy" in "buy / don't buy"?

Click to expand...

Kinda reminded me of Prime Junta´s wonderful review of The Witcher where he´s basically given the game 16/5 .

Dhruin said:

You might try checking some websites - it's usually explained. Our own scoring explanation:



IGN:



You get the idea.



There's the problem. 10/10 does not mean "100%". Does 5 stars represent 100%? An "A"? A "buy" in "buy / don't buy"?

Click to expand...

I know what sites and people generally think they mean, but it differs. I wanted Ghan's opinion on the matter.

The thing is that if you're going to use numbers, I'd like for them to make sense.

Personally, I see no point in ever awarding 10/10 except if it's a true revolution - because 9/10 would accomplish exactly the same AND it would make sense at the same time.

It has to do with how scores are inflated across the board, and 9/10 just isn't good enough - even for games that are - in my opinion - CLEARLY not 10/10.

So, while I do understand the need to give something 10/10 - I don't think it's a good system, and I think it's counterproductive to useful information about the quality of a game.

Then again, the entire scoring system is completely fucked in general - so I guess it makes no difference.

I just think it's sad that 10/10 is the only way the media can communicate that something is great.

GhanBuriGhan said:

No it is not, and you should know, if you are marking papers or tests. For one, usually the best grade will still be given for less than a perfect point score. Secondly, I assume you don't consider your A students perfect either. The tests or your expectations are probably designed so that maybe 5-10% of students will achieve an "A" or a "10/10". It does not mean that the student that gets it has an IQ of 170 and is Einstein reincarnate (at least I hope so, for those whose papers you are marking).


So likewise a 10/10 score means (or should mean, IMHO) that this game is judged to be among the top 5 to 10% of the current generation of games (in the view of the reviewer, and of course who that reviewer is is decisive to what the score means to me).

Click to expand...

Marking mathematics, for example, does admit a perfect score - and I mark such papers too. Of course for other subjects this is not the case- that said, an A (at least here) is 80% plus or 8/10. To get 100% (A+/++) you need to provide an answer that is either entirely correct (as in maths) or an answer which demonstrates your mastery so completely that, given you level of study, you could not reasonably be expected to do better. Getting 100% (at least at university level is a *big deal* - only a small percentage manage this consistently. And yes, there are such people - I have met with/worked with/supervised them. They do not produce 8/10 work, they produce 10/10 work - is is unfair to then to lump them in the same category as someone who does "good" work. By your argument if any game is "good" it should also get the same "good" category score - there is no room for truly superlative games because they'll be given essentially the same score as games that are "merely" good. My point is that you have to allow real differentiation at the top if you really want to reward games (or students) by a points system. 10/10 may not be perfect, but if its exceptional/genre setting, then it deserves 10/10. The game reviews scores have all been squeezed into a narrow band at the top of the scale because reviewers feel the need to give all AAA games (from well known companies) a good score (maybe they lose their freebies if they don't). I'll say again that I think the scoring systems used are too crude and open to misinterpretation.

booboo said:

... could not reasonably be expected to do better.

Click to expand...

You said it yourself - but "could not reasonably be expected to do better" is not the same as perfect, which is what Ghan said and you responded to. If you reserve 10 as being unattainable, then 9/10 is, in fact, the de facto "perfect" because it isn't possible to get higher. That is patently silly.

That poor quality reviews might abuse 10/10 scores is a completely different subject.

DArtagnan said:

So, please explain to me what 10/10 or 100% means.

Click to expand...

I remember a famous computer magazine in Sweden during the 80'ies and early 90'ies. They gave 100% only once during their entire life. The game? Civilization.

Dhruin said:

You said it yourself - but "could not reasonably be expected to do better" is not the same as perfect, which is what Ghan said and you responded to. If you reserve 10 as being unattainable, then 9/10 is, in fact, the de facto "perfect" because it isn't possible to get higher. That is patently silly.

That poor quality reviews might abuse 10/10 scores is a completely different subject.

Click to expand...

No, 9/10 would not be perfect - because 10/10 would be.

The fact that 10/10 isn't used (or is only reserved for true actual revolutions - which is of course subjective) doesn't mean it can't be part of the system.

In my opinion, ratings are crap in pretty much all cases - but I think when used they should at least make logical sense.

But, since so many people are fine with logical perfection meaning just fantastic or great - then there's not much point in debating it I suppose.

People are conditioned to it, and so it doesn't really matter.

JemyM said:

I remember a famous computer magazine in Sweden during the 80'ies and early 90'ies. They gave 100% only once during their entire life. The game? Civilization.

Click to expand...

Even in that case, it doesn't make sense - but if there was ever a game that deserved to be called revolutionary - Civilization is certainly a very strong contender.

I prefer the the five star scale rather than 1-10 or 1-100. The five star scale is just way more informative than the alternative methods. The best thing however is that it doesn't try to be scientifically accurate. It just indicates how the reviewer feels about the experience over all compared to other similar tittles. There is a reason why film critics use this scale. I can't understand why game reviewers don't.

1-10 would be more accurate if it was used better. But you all know the reality. Nowdays below 7 is a game which is likely unplayable due to bugs or design flaws. 1-100 is basicly the same. They use mostly the 70-100 scale to rate most games. And I can't really tell much difference between 88 and 89. or 93 and 95.