Cain is the problem, the insipid skinnerbox Fallout 3 derived design was his input.
It is very common for people to review games and just give whole numbers, from my experience at least. Even then, it is common for people to not properly use the 0.1 increments. I avoid 0.1 increments for this very reason, as you go from having twenty to twenty-two possible ratings in my system, to having over a hundred when going by 0.1. You might as well just rate the game out of a hundred then, and that is avoided for the same reason 0.1 increments are either avoided or done poorly.
You are misconstruing fair, objective, and specific, with professional. Games, much like any other subjective thing, cannot be quantified/boiled down to checklists. A level of subjectivity is required, and good reviewers will not shy away form this but instead, embrace it. The rating system is merely there to easily communicate a reviewers oppinion without having to watch/read a lengthier explanation. Thus, I reject the assertion that TOW would end up 60+, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Reviews being shit and reviewers being lazy are two different things. In terms of reviews being shit, I disagree with your first reason. Serious reviews often require a good bit of time to properly detail what went right and wrong with a game. The average Darth Roxor review for example takes longer to read through than if you were to read the transcript of the average IGN review. If you meant bloated with shit that doesn't matter, while skimping out on the important shit, I might agree depending on the reviewer, but bloat is hardly what comes to mind when I try to think of reasons why most reviewers are shit.
Name something that TOW does which is a 6/10 (3/5).
Sorry, I meant to say 2.5/5 or 5/10. On that account I'd say everything. It's a mediocre 'shooter with stats'. It's a mediocre take on a corporate dystopia. It's graphics are mediocre. It's humor is too ambient. It's satire has no bite. It's art direction has highs and downs. And I'm not super stoked by the music either but I guess it's a 6+. There are only very specific moments in TOW I can glimpse a better game but they are few and far in between.
You actually consider the games combat to be a 5/10?
You think FO:NV is a great game. You should try thinking harder for a change.
Those are the things I expect from all mediocre shooters yes, which includes every 'shooter with stats' made by Obsidian and Bethesda so far.
Wow amazing it's almost like that's what my initial post was about.
A shooter so bad that doing nothing for an hour would be more enjoyable than actually playing the game is a good enough product to qualify as mediocre. Does someone need to come into the room and kick you in the nuts every fifteen minutes while you're playing a shooter for you to consider it shit?
I still disagree with the assertion that the game is filled with 2.5/5s but whatever. The important point is that the game is shit.
Yeah I find all these rpg shooters mediocre and boring. This one doesn't stand out from a pack that is below my notice. I don't really care if you think that's not a damning assertion. Skill issue.
I think it's pretty good. Not all it could be, but pretty good nonetheless. I had fun playing it, thus 4/5. Any rating system with more granularity is doomed to be useless to a large degree due to the subjectivity of such ratings.
This transition happened with Fallout 2, which is why he quit. Went back to Feargus thinking he had changed (he had not).
My statement was an ad hominem attack. The implication was that FO:NV is a bad game, and if you like it you than you are not very intelligent/have decline taste, and thus, your opinion is not worth considering. That being said, let's look at your post and give you the benefit of the doubt.
It is as I suspected, you are retarded.
A simple "I agree" would suffice, my dude.
I am aware, but I ignore such things in favour of actually discussing the matter at hand.
Except I don't agree with making a rating system from 1-5, because, as I said above, it is too simplistic.
Any more complicated model would require the reader to actually be familiar with your rating standards to be of any informational value. But you are just some guy on the internet, why on Earth would anyone wanna familiarize himself with your personal standards? Then you get a thread full of people saying shit like "Oh I think this game is 6.5" and "No way, it is an 8 for sure!" where they may agree on virtually every aspect of the game, but use different kind of scales (even if they all go from 1 to 10).
I quite literally considered putting in the disclaimer (going by your rating system), but I didn't add it in because the post was getting wordy enough as is. You can see as much here, where I went out of my way to address the poster instead of saying "when rating games".
If you hadn't jumped in mid conversation, you would have probably understood what I was referring to, but whatever.
The post you quoted has nothing to do with the differences between a five star rating system and a 0-10 rating scale. The statement you quoted is referring to the tendency to curve 0-10 rating scales, which is something I was discussing earlier in the thread. There are differences between a five star rating system, and a 0-10 rating system, and I obviously know those differences, so it's disingenuous of you to act like I'm contradicting myself for cheap internet points instead of actually giving the other poster the benefit of the doubt and trying to understand what they're trying to say.
Only low effort and half baked are synonyms. Shit (bad) and smooth brained (unintelligent) are two different adjectives.
I agree with everything you said here. Still, it's important to note that just because how the 0-10 scale is used doesn't mean the scale is bad, it just means the people using it are using it incorrectly.
Again, I agree with most everything you said. Please find the post where I am shitting on 5-star rating systems. I think five star rating systems are often used far better than 0-10 systems due to aforementioned curving issue.
1-10 is not sub optimal if implemented correctly. Also, I wasn't upset over a misunderstanding, I wasn't upset at all. I was just exercising my Codexian right to shit on someone who made a bad post and has shit taste in video games.
List of great RPGs that aren't Underrail off the top of my head.
I crusade against shit RPGs. You will not find a single post where I am saying anything but praise for the RPGs listed above.
