This RPG is a bit crap isn't it...

I know the current zeitgeist in philosophy is to permanently exude positivity and to always try to look on the bright side, the notion that "at least it tried" is better than not trying at all... but...

Under what circumstances would you be happy to freely come to the conclusion that the RPG you just tried to play was actually pretty crap?

Exactly what does an RPG need to do in order for you to consider giving it a worse score than 6/10?

I can't but help get the feeling sometimes that, as long as a game is finishable, it wont ever get less than 6/10 by pretty much any of the vocal persistent personal game graders on here.

Surely the entire range of 0/10 to 5.9/10 isn't one cohesive lump of "game breaking bugs left it incompleteable".

What would a 4/10 actually be like?

That is a very good question. I think M&M 9 is more or less a 4/10 game for me, but I can't think of many others. None that are lower than that.

The reason why is actually quite simple: I can identify the worst crap from far off, and as a result I stay away from it. It's rare that I get tricked into playing something that seems good, but is actually quite bad. I think this goes for a lot of gamers, especially as they get older and more experienced, as it gets easier to identify the games that would be enjoyable.

A good question, and a bit hard to answer?

Personally, I would give MM9 around 3-4/10. I did complete it, but it was released in an unfinished game, and by unfinished, I mean UNFINISHED. Lots and lots and … lots of bugs and inconsistencies!!!

There is also the infamous "Plumbers don't Wear Ties" game (Wikipedia). PC Gamer gave it 3%, saying it was funny for 30 seconds.

pibbur who has decided not to score himself. And who swears that he and the maylander did not cooperate on this.

I don't score games until I finish them.
Can't remember which games I did put 4/10 except one: The Last Remnant. From my (failing) memory reasons why the game is below average:
1. Checkpoints
2. Trashmob respawns, grind2win
3. Stupid roguelike driller NPC that adds even more grinding
4. Pisspoor port where you use WASD on map, generally horrible UI
5. Original (japanese) VO with local (eng.) subtitles not set as default
6. Interesting story beginning that drops to irrelevance in the middle of the game, ending is okay

So, why not 0-3/10 you might ask?
1. Not bad graphically considereing it's release year
2. Music not awsome but not bad either
3. No critical bugs
4. Unique and fun TB combat idea

Nice topic!
Anything below 8 was a waste of my time, so… basically, crap.

Bugs. Lousy finaly (tedious boss fights). Predictability. Far-fetched events, improbable dialogue. Dito and equally annoying decicisions I am forced in to. Working towards what later appears to be anti climaxes.

Lucky me: my memory for these kind of experiences is crap too. I tend to remember only the good stuff. Like Gothic 1. Or Gothic 2. Or... em...

I'd echo some of the comments above: I typically stay away from the real crap that would likely score below a 6. Most games that I play will have at least some good elements to them.

In addition, I only give reviews to games I have completely finished. If I don't enjoy a game, there is very little chance I see it through to the end. Without doing that, I don't think I can properly score the game.

I tend to be more conservative with my scores than most.

But there's not much reason to spend significant time with a game that's average or below average these days, which is why a game can be average - or even slightly above average and yet not be able to hold your interest when faced with so many titles released every day. I mean, you can always find a better game if you really want to.

That said, I've completed a few modern games that I would consider average or below average. Usually, that's because it has something unique about it that's hard to find anywhere else - or it's of a subgenre that I really enjoy and the alternatives are exhausted.

A couple of examples:

Aliene Colonial Marines (~3/10)
Grim Dawn (~5/10)

Ok, ACM isn't an RPG - but that's not really relevant to the question.

lackblogger said:

I can't but help get the feeling sometimes that, as long as a game is finishable, it wont ever get less than 6/10 by pretty much any of the vocal persistent personal game graders on here.

Click to expand...

If you finish a game then it has to be good or decent right? Even if a game is full of bugs but it made me play it to the end, then the game has something going for it? Otherwise why would someone spend good 30 - 60+ hours on crap?

pibbur who said:

A good question, and a bit hard to answer?

Personally, I would give MM9 around 3-4/10. I did complete it, but it was released in an unfinished game, and by unfinished, I mean UNFINISHED. Lots and lots and … lots of bugs and inconsistencies!!!

There is also the infamous "Plumbers don't Wear Ties" game (Wikipedia). PC Gamer gave it 3%, saying it was funny for 30 seconds.

pibbur who has decided not to score himself. And who swears that he and the maylander did not cooperate on this.

Click to expand...

If it the bugs are so bad, what made you play it to the end? Was it the only game released that year?

For me, in the case of MM9 specifically, I finished it because I had played and finished all the rest. I would rate it a 6/10. Games below this rating get uninstalled before finishing.

There are tons of enjoyable games that would also get a 6. Most of the time, these games get a lower rating because they replace meaningful content with filler (respawns, repetitive quests, etc). Games that aren't in my exact genre preferences will score this way too. For instance, Expeditions will likely be a 6 or so for me, even though it's a great game for someone who enjoys party-based combat. I prefer to control one character only.

Good thread lb.

You are right that games rarely receive low scores. I think this is largely due to games having some redeemable qualities for some people. For example, Joxer would score all phone/tablet games as 0, but some may actually be really fun to play.

I think, for me, games are all about entertainment and fun. IF a game is fun and provides enjoyment for a multitude of hours, then I would score it much higher than others, which might be both technically more competent and looking fancier.

As such, it is very dependent on the game itself and less about the genre usually and whether it is indie or AAA.

For example, The Witcher 1 for me would be below 5, for the reasons above. The game contains a lot of combat and I find the combat really horrible. Additionally, I have a hard time enjoying playing a horny old guy. I did try it twice and I must have spend 20+ hours on it. It has a lot of plusses, but me not being able to even continue it due to the above issues means I end up scoring it low.

On the other hand, a game like Shadowrun HK, which provided me with fun combat, a relatively interesting story and a fun character system meant that I would score it above 7.

I guess it is very subjective to me and I wouldn't call any game objectively amazing.

I rarely look at user scores and usually even after playing a game to understand how my view compares to others.

Good point though lb.

lostforever said:

If it the bugs are so bad, what made you play it to the end? Was it the only game released that?

Click to expand...

Another good question. There was something about it. I used to say that below all it's failures there was a hidden gem, so I managed to disregard the problems and enjoy it. Without them I might give it around 8. But taking everything into account, it's 4 from the Norwegian jury.

pibbur who hopes he makes sense.

lostforever said:

If you finish a game then it has to be good or decent right? Even if a game is full of bugs but it made me play it to the end, then the game has something going for it? Otherwise why would someone spend good 30 - 60+ hours on crap?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't have to be good or decent.
When you watch a movie to it's end it doesn't have to be good or decent. When you listen to Bieber's latest album…

Why would someone spend hours on a disappointing product (to them) dunno.
Why would I spend hours on a disappointing product (to me) is because there is always a chance the second half of a game or at least it's ending redeems it. Partially ofc.
In rare cases the game is insulting so hard I can't force myself on playing it till the end. For example Neptunia on PC. That one, and similar ports, can only get 1/10 from me.

Shortening up Joxers list is pretty much my list for all poor RPG's.

joxer said:

1. Checkpoints
4. Pisspoor port, generally horrible UI
6. Interesting story beginning that drops to irrelevance.

Click to expand...

pibbur who said:

Another good question. There was something about it. I used to say that below all it's failures there was a hidden gem, so I managed to disregard the problems and enjoy it. Without them I might give it around 8. But taking everything into account, it's 4 from the Norwegian jury.

pibbur who hopes he makes sense.

Click to expand...

I believe the Norwegian jury will need to reevaluate their scoring criteria! You can't say something is crap and then say the bolded bits about it! That defy any logic!

Will let ask a different question, will you recommend the game to anyone since you say its "hidden gem"?

joxer said:

No it doesn't have to be good or decent.
When you watch a movie to it's end it doesn't have to be good or decent. When you listen to Bieber's latest album…

Why would someone spend hours on a disappointing product (to them) dunno.
Why would I spend hours on a disappointing product (to me) is because there is always a chance the second half of a game or at least it's ending redeems it. Partially ofc.
In rare cases the game is insulting so hard I can't force myself on playing it till the end. For example Neptunia on PC. That one, and similar ports, can only get 1/10 from me.

Click to expand...

Your comparison isn't valid. A movie is is 2/3 hours long. Bieber's album is what 30 min max? How can you compare that to 30+ hour game?

I think if someone spend well over 30+ hours on game then it can't be "crap"! Unless of course they have nothing else to do!

So to answer the original question "What would a 4/10 actually be like?", any game where I spend less than 20 hours where the average completion time is about 50 or 60 hours.

lostforever said:

I think if someone spend well over 30+ hours on game then it can't be "crap"! Unless of course they have nothing else to do!

Click to expand...

I read a lot of books every year. I can assure you that its possible to spend 30 hours on crap. Every chapter you think it will change and it doesn't. Not quite enough to put down and never pick up again, but still crap.

I think this really depends on a person's preference and expectations. I would give E.Y.E. for example a 4/10. I played it 6 hours and just couldn't enjoy it on any level. Its on the Watch's recommend list. I'd also give Jagged Alliance Flashback 4/10 its good gameplay is ruined by many minor bugs and poor presentation.

lostforever said:

Your comparison isn't valid. A movie is is 2/3 hours long. Bieber's album is what 30 min max? How can you compare that to 30+ hour game?

Click to expand...

I should have probably mentioned bore-drag-o-rama Walking Dead. Or 2000+ episodes big Santa Barbara.

Then you'd say it's not valid as it's not 30, not even hundreds but thousands of hours. Wasted?

The point is there however. One can spend a thousand of hours on Candy Crush Saga. For variety of reasons. Does that make it "not crap" game?

lostforever said:

So to answer the original question "What would a 4/10 actually be like?", any game where I spend less than 20 hours where the average completion time is about 50 or 60 hours.

Click to expand...

By that logic dartagnan should put 4/10 on Prey. I passed 40 hours and am not near it's end, yet he finished it in 20 hours. But I don't think he'll put just 4 based on his excitment.
I may generally disagree with him on stuff but in this case I have to disagree with you.

joxer said:

I should have probably mentioned bore-drag-o-rama Walking Dead. Or 2000+ episodes big Santa Barbara.

Then you'd say it's not valid as it's not 30, not even hundreds but thousands of hours. Wasted?

The point is there however. One can spend a thousand of hours on Candy Crush Saga. For variety of reasons. Does that make it "not crap" game?

Click to expand...

May be we have different definition of "crap"? If I am spending 100s or 1000s of hours into Candy Crush Saga I won't call it crap...