Review Gamebanshee reviews Dragon Age

[Ogg]

We've thought about giving a "Gold Rating" to games that would have got/did get a 9+ rating in our old system, which is King's Bounty, Knights of the Old Republic, Baldur's Gate II, the Witcher and...dunno, think that's it. Meh. We'll see.

Some kind of "must play" or "gamebanshee approved". Why not? But You should also add a "don't play this shit" tag. Codex don't need that, since every game is banal shit boring anyway.

 

[Big Nose George]

But if you don't give scores, what will game publishers stick on the box art?!

GotY awards? GameBanshee's GotY is one the Witcher's Enhanced Edition box.

But are you a prestigious magazine yet?

 

[Zlaja]

Note to BioWare: good combat AI is a necessity in a game, not an in-game perk.

BAAM!!!

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The favorable or not rating sounds okay. The problem is that most people already have an opinion of sorts on the games and see the ratings as a competition - if their favrit gaem isn't a perfect 10, the rating becomes the center of the discussion. AND there are people who will bitch if the rating is higher than they think the game deserves.

Yes, but that is a problem even without a rating. I remember there were people here (including myself) who thought VaultDweller's review of DA:O was far too positive. Reviews inherently have a rating, and trying to hide it seems silly.

So there will always be butthurt on both sides because rarely will people agree on that 8.8 ("wtf, why not 9?" vs "wtf, why is it almost 9?").

Yes, this is why I think a discrete five star rating system is best. This gives reviewers five broad choices, and that is probably the maximum human reviewers can truly handle. Accurately ranking things on a decimal system or (*SHUDDER*) a percentile system is beyond the capabilities of humans beings.

I prefer favorable / neutral / unfavorable because then you don't have an exact number that people will bitch about, and he can get into specifics without rating each one. Also, while the reviewer's own rating might change over time, a simpler rating wouldn't.

Would you still give that game these 7.8 points / 3.5 stars one year from now?

vs

Would you still think favorably of that game one year from now?

Because while recent titles get great ratings - mostly because of hype - that tend to go down with time, people that liked these games on release usually still like those games after a while, only their thinking is "still favorable" instead of "still 8.7 / 4 stars". I believe that's the case with VD's review - it was positive, but that allowed us to focus on the text itself rather than a simple rating at the end. While it had a positive tone, it contained enough info to be considered a good review instead of the usual "itz heavan" slobbering.

 

[Ch1ef]

The game is smoothly executed. Everything fits together well. It looks good. The faces of the NPCs draw you in. The music stirs the heart. The voice actors are well chosen. The party dialog is vivid.

Bullshit.

 

[Wise Emperor]

After one run through both DA:O & ME2 I'm more eager to replay second game.

Conclusion: DA:O is only good for what it is.

 

[relootz]

After one run through both DA:O & ME2 I'm more eager to replay second game.

Conclusion: DA:O is only good for what it is.

You are not very wise, are you.

 

[dragonfk]

After one run through both DA:O & ME2 I'm more eager to replay second game.

Conclusion: DA:O is only good for what it is.

You are not very wise, are you.

Certainly wiser than you.