Escapist does it again - 100% to Overwatch

Okay let's sum it up.
Every single pro reviewer is right with their 100% on metacritic. The game is 100% and that's it.
The only person wrong in this matter is some troll with nick "JoxerTM" who is not happy just because it's his bad hairday. There is absolutelly no other reason he has to protest on such, according to critics, superb game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the game to put even 1 permille below 100%.

Well, I'm not sure what you're summing up there, Joxer, but it's got nothing to do with what I just said.

With Blizzard I'm more than usually sceptical with scores...at release DIII was a mess, which they patched to Oblivion, despite how "perfect" it was judging by metacritic.
But in last few year or two I think ratings have dropped down quite a bit, 93 today->( where is that equal sign on my keyboard?) 97 five years ago.

The thing is that with a 0..100% rating scale, you have 100 possible ratings, so a really good, but not perfect game could be awarded, say, 93% (and for once, let's assume that it actually deserved that) On a 10/10 scale you have 10 ratings and your choices would be, converted to a % scale, 90% or 100%. And with a 5/5 scale it would be 80% or 100%.

Thus it doesn't make much sense to require perfection for a top grade using a 5/5 scale, the resolution is to small. It does make sense using 0..100%, and maybe/maybe not on a 10/10 scale.

Sometimes you see 0.5 grade steps: 4, 4.5, 5, but that only transform it to a 10/10, and is not used everywhere.

Pibbur, 61%

joxer said:

True, there isn't a purchase with exactly those words.
https://playoverwatch.com/en-us/buy/#origins-edition

Standard edition without skins $40; edition with skins (origins edition) $60.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. Is was somewhat misleading though as the origins edition contains 5 skins and various items in other blizzard titles. It's not like they are selling single skins for that price.
The origin edition is just the Digital Deluxe / (digital) Collectors Edition.

Btw: If you buy the boxed version the "normal" version is 55€ and already contains all these bonuses. So you could also argue that these is a "cheap" versions for those who don't care about this stuff.

Now you might like or dislike the game itself. I am not arguing about that.

But I don't think that the DLC policy is so specially bad that there should be a deduction in rating - which in a 5 star system would mean 20% difference in rating.

Rating systems are a very interesting topic in general and I made my own experiences with it.

I mean in normal test ratings from 0 to 100 you can normally say that everything below 70% is a bad game. 70-79% is a decent game and then the top games come.
But the area below 70% is just random. One test might give a 40% another a 65%. Really no differnece at that point.

So when I did my reviews I thought "I dont want to be that nitpicky and use the full range". But it's actually hard to do it and to explain the system to the viewer/reader so that he knows immediately what it's about.

In an old german gaming magazine they did the following instead:


So you could give the middle rating without saying the game sucks and you dont be too nitpicky.

First I wanted to go even further and use the system of an rating system of the TV magazine. They are only using 3 thumbs:

Everyone who sees the thumb immediately knows what the game is like.

But after a short while I saw that this really isn't working out. There are games which are great but still have some major flaws where I just cant give them the top rating. But I also don't want to give them just an average rating because they are too good for that.
Same for games which have some nice ideas but are poorly executed. I just don't want to give a game a thumbs down if I somehow like some aspects of the game but still wouldn't recommed it. So I added 45 Degree steps. But while it's easy to say "Thumbs up, or thumbs down" saying thumbs up by 45° sounds rather stupid. It only makes sense if you actually show a thumb.

But even then I often think like…I gave this a "thumbs up" and this a "almost thumbs up", but this one is somewhere in between. Sometimes a 0-100% Rating system is just easier.

joxer said:

Okay let's sum it up.
Every single pro reviewer is right with their 100% on metacritic. The game is 100% and that's it.
The only person wrong in this matter is some troll with nick "JoxerTM" who is not happy just because it's his bad hairday. There is absolutelly no other reason he has to protest on such, according to critics, superb game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the game to put even 1 permille below 100%.

Click to expand...

Joxer, I've got to say RPGwatch has a 5 star scale and that's nothing like a 100% scale. I've given a game 5 stars, and I'd say I'd probably have given it 90%, had I 100% points to work with. If I don't give anything 1 or 5 stars because they are not utterly perfect or utter garbage, than I'm really only working with a 3 point scale, and isn't that boring?

In my mind, the numbered score is just the cherry on top, but the real ice cream sundae is the written review itself.

I often try to cover as many things as I can in a review to give you an idea of the features of the game, how they are applied, etc.

So, I start by looking at the overall rating, but then reading the actual review. Words in this case are much more important than simply a numbered score.

joxer said:

Well, they're back on track, and this time, it's the new Blizzard's MMO:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...watch-Review-Blizzard#&gid=gallery_6249&pid=1

I just can't believe it. That's a fullpriced MMO that sells skin DLC for $20.
How can such thing come even close to 10/10?
While MMO, the game has no PvE just PvP.
To make things worse, lootbox scam aka gambling already seen in PVE's Star Wars Online is inside Overwatch. At least STO is free2play which means pay2win.

Are those people at Escapist blind or are they usually buying glass paying the price of diamonds?
Is there a gaming site not blind lately?

Click to expand...

Already written on this in a Blizzard related thread (in which the claim that Warcraft 4 was being prepared by Blizzard was made)

Summary: Blizzard has taken the turn of new ways in playing video games. Players are less and less interested in gaming.
Players are more and more interested in making money off playing video products.

Blizzard market is now oriented toward providing products for a competitive scene.

In a nutshell, a competitive scene is funded by all the players who wont make it up to the professional status.
It is then necessary to design the product in such a way that it provides all time available lines of revenues.

This is one of the main issues with SC2. This product is not properly designed. It generates bursts of cash as the competitive scene is funded by the single player campaign feature. Beside that, no revenue.

Overwatch is meant to be a product that supports a competitive scene. Hence the schemes to generate lines of revenues, all time available.

As to pay to win, Overwatch is not that.

In Overwatch, players who win are paid to win. Players who win will turn professional players (either in a professional team or as professional streamers)
And they are paid by players who are going to buy skins or other stuff.

Overwatch has its qualities. Denying them because the design includes schemes to fund a professional scene makes no sense.

That's players who want to make money off playing video products. Blizzard provides a suitable product that is intended to generate revenues to fund the scene.

That is exactly what players desire.

Just for that point, it must 100 %.

ChienAboyeur said:

In Overwatch, players who win are paid to win. Players who win will turn professional players (either in a professional team or as professional streamers)
And they are paid by players who are going to buy skins or other stuff.

Click to expand...

Interesting point of view. I was never interested in Overwatch, so, everything about it is new for me.

forgottenlor said:

Joxer, I've got to say RPGwatch has a 5 star scale and that's nothing like a 100% scale.

Click to expand...

RPGwatch's scale is different from Metacritic submitters. It's just not the same thing.
Metacritic "translated" Escapist's score into 100%, not me. Reworking RPGwatch's scores onto metacritic scale is not possible.

Kordanor said:

In an old german gaming magazine they did the following instead:

Click to expand...

5th pic in upper row is me spotting that Escapist's 100%.
5th pic in lower row is me stumbling upon yet another bear in DA:I.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Interesting point of view. I was never interested in Overwatch, so, everything about it is new for me.

Click to expand...

Better to get used to it because it is the ongoing, ever expanding model.

Additionnally, Blizzard kickstarted the competitive scene around the day of release.

The involved teams did not come from nowhere. They were composed with talents who have been practising OW for six or eight months now. Right now, it is common for studios involved in a competitive scene to take charge of a salary paid to professional players. These guys were on Blizzard payroll for nearly one year to ensure that the competitive scene could be launched from day one.

Paying professional players, hosting events, the cash prize and more, all this adds up. Funding lines of revenues are required.

I made a spreadsheet that finds publications with same tastes as the user then averages their review scores into a personalized meta-score. Technical name Collaborative_filtering. People usually listen to sources of info that have been honest or useful because those sources usually continue to be useful. This sheet just speeds up the process. If publications rate relatively objectively, using this sheet will punish hype and selling out. Bad publications don't matter if no one sees them. This approach should also solve all the metacritic, rating and belly flop controversy.

Sheet: https://mega.nz/#!AEBXTD7L!xUHzf4Xhp_Xt-kUlh_4oW1YXxRE1kK84BPFXzB6zD90
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZe7sKGvdY

I made a spreadsheet that finds publications with same tastes as the user then averages their review scores into a personalized meta-score. Technical name Collaborative_filtering. People usually listen to sources of info that have been honest or useful because those sources usually continue to be useful. This sheet just speeds up the process. If publications rate relatively objectively, using this sheet will punish hype and selling out. Bad publications don't matter if no one sees them. This approach should also solve all the metacritic, rating and belly flop controversy.

Here is a video.

Erm... But there is a certain problem with that logic.
Here is an example. Angry Joe. Honest totally. When it comes to technicalities, I just trust the guy, he doesn't hide annoying stuff mainstream media does.
But his taste? Totally opposite of mine.

If you input scores based on your taste you will get publications closest to your taste. If you input what you think are objective scores you will get publications that are more reliable. Consider games like RE5 Diablo3 maybe Simcity 'Reboot'. Or just long running series that get better scores cause of popularity of previous titles. There is LOTS of obvious BS and the sheet results are dramatic, immediately uncovering many more examples of such BS.

That's… really not going to work. You can't take a publication as a single entity. Each review is written by one person and it's that person's score that is going to pop up. If PC Gamer gives a score of 95 to game X, it's perfectly possible that another reviewer for the same magazine would have given it a score of 81. The only reason the game got a 95 instead of an 81 is because the guy that would have given it an 81 was on holiday.

I can't say I like the basic idea, either, I'm afraid. Review scores are about as useful as a headline. If you typically don't like a genre and you see a game rated 7/10 then you're pretty safe writing the game off without even reading the article. If it's scored 9.5/10, though, maybe you should give it a read to see if it might be something that "even you would like."

In general, though, you need to READ the article. If it's a good review, you'll be able to figure out if the game is one you'll like or not based on the facts presented along with the reviewer's opinions even if the opinions don't match up with your own, just like Joxer said. For instance, I like micro-management more than most. A poorly written review might just say "there's a lot of stupid micro-management" but a good review will say what is being micro-managed and how, which lets me figure out if I'll like it or not even if the reviewer personally hates micro-managing.

Still, there's some merit here. What if it were tied to the SteamAPI instead of publishers? If it were possible to hunt down somebody who's reviews almost always matched my reviews and is also buying and playing many of the same games, that might make for interesting information.

There are many things that make the rating system imperfect. Overtime the publication changes. What does each reviewer mean with each number or statement exactly. Etc. Most of those, including your own, apply to the written review. You will only know if a review was actually honest or good when you later play the game itself. The sheet is way faster than reading 100 reviews and checking off if they were good or not. Once a source can be trusted, its reviews should be read.

You could try listal/taste kid /criticker. Steam API does not seem to give out reviews. Anyway the point is to find honest publications specifically because finding them is useful for many other things.