You can't spell ignorance without...

[Luke]

Reviews make up a number without supporting text, and readers tend to care far more about that made up number than what the review actually says.

This I completely agree with.

[noiseredux]

This I completely agree with.

8.

[Luke]

10.

[BoneSnapDeez]

Video game reviews generally should not have numerical scores. They're too arbitrary, especially in the case of retro games. I bet one of these IGN numbnuts would be inclined to slap a 3.0 score on a game like Adventure, without realizing how groundbreaking it was at the time of its release. That's why I prefer retrospective writings found at places like HG101, where the writers understand the medium and are capable of analyzing games within their historical context, while also commenting on the game's legacy and modern-day relevance.

In addition, I think many of us can agree that mainstream video game websites are terrible. They exist mainly to hype up sales for AAA titles, and most their positive reviews read like press releases for said games. Stick to the fansites and blogs if you want something worthwhile.

[Erik_Twice]

RARE ARCADE VIDEO GAMES ARE A WONDERFUL INVESTMENT

http://voices.yahoo.com/rare-arcade-vid ... tml?cat=15

No matter what Racketboy may say, used videogames are the perfect retirment plan. ANd how could they not with stuff like the amazing cocktail version of Pac-Man and the other 47 games that were "stored within the electronic components" and the rare arcade edition of Donkey Kong that "includes an extra level that was not incorporated into the exterior blue-painted version.

Like any good TOP 10 LIST, this groundbreaking article has a compelling narrative that is so precise that it's structure must be repeated across every single number of the ever-increasing saga.

The coverage of such expensive and hard to find titles as Turbo has completely changed my perspective in how I see videogames. I look foward to her other articles like "How to date your best friend without runing the friendship" and "How to put out a Frying Pan Fire".



I feel bad about mixing IGN with this kind of...people.

[ZeroAX]

I think people didn't understand the point of this thread......

[o.pwuaioc]

But I get your point, now you'd like me to state why Robocop is a ten. I get that. BUt even if I went on a diatribe on why Robocop should be a ten, you would still ifnd the numbered rating dumb, which I think is dumb.

no, you're not listening.

What I find dumb is that the guy in that review gave music a "5.5" but never once mentions the music in his review. Therefore, I have no idea what the 5.5 means... does he not like the genre? Was it poorly emulated? Is there no music at all? Is it the Japanese soundtrack and he prefers the American? There is no opinion/fact stated in the review to tell me what 5.5 means, or why it was rated as such.

To go a step further, IncognitoD then got pissed about the 5.5 rating... but again, without any explanation of the 5.5, what are we discussing? Just an arbitrary number.

5.5 out of 10. If 10 is a perfect soundtrack, and 1 is horrible, than 5.5 is barely better than average. This isn't hard to understand, although I do agree that if something is docked points, there ought to be an explanation. However, it's not a new thing, and you can find quick numbers for video game music going all the way back to the early Nintendo Power days in the late 80s, if not earlier.

I think people didn't understand the point of this thread......

There was a point?

[Lodestar]

I've never been one for Sonic games, but hasn't their layout traditionally been "careful platforming sequences rewarded by high-speed segments" and not the "GOTTA GO FAST!" that the modern games are?

Yep, and it has to be this way, or else you'll find yourself dying too much during the high speed segments. Some of the later games in the series forgot this careful balance and tried to mix them too much (Sonic 2006) and cheap deaths were in abundance.

[noiseredux]

5.5 out of 10. If 10 is a perfect soundtrack, and 1 is horrible, than 5.5 is barely better than average. This isn't hard to understand, although I do agree that if something is docked points, there ought to be an explanation. However, it's not a new thing, and you can find quick numbers for video game music going all the way back to the early Nintendo Power days in the late 80s, if not earlier.

yeah I'm sure lazy writing is a very age-old thing. What's your point? As I mentioned earlier I understood the concept that 5.5 or 6 or 7 is all "above average," but it doesn't explain anything to me. It's meaningless. And lazy.

[o.pwuaioc]

5.5 out of 10. If 10 is a perfect soundtrack, and 1 is horrible, than 5.5 is barely better than average. This isn't hard to understand, although I do agree that if something is docked points, there ought to be an explanation. However, it's not a new thing, and you can find quick numbers for video game music going all the way back to the early Nintendo Power days in the late 80s, if not earlier.

yeah I'm sure lazy writing is a very age-old thing. What's your point? As I mentioned earlier I understood the concept that 5.5 or 6 or 7 is all "above average," but it doesn't explain anything to me. It's meaningless. And lazy.

It explains one thing - the reviewer thinks that it's a mediocre soundtrack. Lazy? Yes. Meaningless? No.