That was always the hardest part for me. I would always write everything out and then be forced to slap a number on it. But there's so much behind that number that you can't see from a distance.
A racing game that's rated an 8/10 might not be the best game that year, but is a phenomenal racing game and a great one in that series. An action game that's a 7/10 could be a better overall game, but has to have a lower score due to retreading a lot of familiar ground and being the millionth sequel for it.
The number system (as well as the review system as a whole: see my thoughts on MP earlier in this thread) is inherently flawed but due to the way people work is necessary. We all bitch at the people who instantly scroll down to read a number and THEN read the review (if they even do), but they make up the majority of readers sadly.
I totally agree that we need reviews like that. It's what initially led me to Sterling's reviews, because I thought Ass Creed games were shit as well and I was starting to think that I was the only one who thought so.
I read some of Tom Chick's other reviews and it's clear that his schtick is to go after the big games. Some of it does strike me as lazy, especially when he gives Catherine a 2/5 because he couldn't beat the third level, or giving Shadows of the Damned a 2/5 because he was bored after playing three levels. I'm noticing a pattern there.
I just got back from Gamestop and the dude at the counter said they have 500+ reservations for tonight. This is going to be a treat.
To be perfectly honestly I could give two shits about Firefight and campaign scoring being removed. I barely ever played Firefight and even then I only really played it in short spurts to break up sessions of multi-player. Firefight for me was in the same vein as mindless shooting galleries like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor in that it got boring for me quickly. Campaign scoring I never got the point (haha, puns) of in the first place.
Oh well thanks to seph's personal conflict of finding videogames boring yet still playing them I have changed my mind on nothing at all.
Torchlight 2: 4/5
Diablo 3: 4/5
Guild Wars 2: 5/5
Mass Effect 3: 4/5
I think the guy is just giving his honest, subjective opinion on things, mostly because he says so right in this FAQ: http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/201...ey-review-faq/
I've never even heard of this dude until right now, but I see no reason to question his sincerity.
@BadStar: Same. Fuck AssCreed.
Firefight is no big loss, but campaign scoring was fun if you were meh about Halo's story but liked playing the game. With skulls added and points it was more fun than just playing the game for the hell of it. I liked being virtually rewarded for my time.
And it was great fodder for shitting on your teammates.
Campaign scoring assisted playing on harder difficulties with confirming kills you could not see too.
"Quarter to Three uses a five star scale. One of the reasons I avoid percentage ratings is that too many people associate it with grade school, where anything below a 70% is a failing grade. Any scale where only the top third of the ratings is considered acceptable is a broken scale. Which is fine for children doing multiple choice questions about The Scarlet Letter, isosceles triangles, or the capital of France. But adults evaluating entertainment should be afforded the full range of any ratings scale."
Bookmarking this dude.
Tabe is commenting on the review as Durrr it seems.
I haven't but now I gotta see what I'm being compared to.
*EDIT* Wasn't in the first batch that's visible so I have no clue. Not gonna search for it. Hopefully this person is defending the reviewer or shitting on Jews, or both.
Going to the midnight release so I can play it for an hour before I need to sleep to wake up for midterms in the morning. The real world is awesome
I liked campaign scoring because it gave the campaign an added level of replay value. You could choose to ignore it but it was there if you wanted it. It seems like a pretty easy thing to implement, so I'm curious as to why 343 decided to get rid of it. Not a huge loss, but it does mean that I'll play the campaign less.
Is it bad if I stopped reading that one guys review when he basically made "playing a little Halo" sound like the bad part? You play Halo...to play Halo. Would it be cool to have the Mammoth shoot? Sure, set-pieces and flashy lights and all that jazz but I wouldn't exactly make "playing a little Halo" out to be the last in the order of things to enjoy in a Halo game.
Yes, it would be bad, because you missed his point.
Except I just read the review to see how it panned out and it read like "But mommy! The other one has this! I want that one instead!". It may have read like he was sincere in meaning what he said, but none of that seemed to come from an objective stance. That sounded like butthurt about the exclusion of some modes, which then bled into the rest of his "enjoyment" of the game.