You can't spell ignorance without...

[o.pwuaioc]

Numbers are good for quick checks. When I'm at a game store, I don't always have time to thoroughly check reviews. If the game has a low score, I'll probably skip it, but if it has a high score, I may get it after all. Then again, I also check at least two places to see if one of them is off.

[The Nihilist]

The IGN reviewers are inspiring me to start doing game reviews on some sort of medium, whether it be blog or youtube video.

Here's the thing that got me: Harvest Moon GB 1, 2, and 3.
I WANT to buy the 3 titles for GBC only so I can play them for myself and give them a decent review. Almost EVERY review of the Harvest Moon GB games consist of 'game is good, but no dating sim!' which makes me believe that a lot of the Harvest Moon players are not too bright (if you want a dating sim THAT BAD, go play the myriad of hentai dating sims that are all over the internet). So already, I am a bit disheartened and weary that I'm going to be shelling out 60 bucks for 3 games that I can't find an unbiased review for.
But IGN seems to be the place that has the most viewed and widely disseminated reviews of the games, and convinced me that if their writers are getting paid, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Here's some excerpts.

'The heart of Harvest Moon is still missing -- you still cannot fall in love in Harvest Moon 2, and the lack of that challenge again severely dampens the game. You're working towards a noble goal, but all the same, part of the charm of the series was it's combination of otaku Japanese concepts -- one was the niche RPG game, which is represented well in this version of the farming game, and the other is the equally idiosyncratic dating simulator game. '

You CAN'T rate a game on what it DOESN'T HAVE, only on what the game OFFERS. They're comparing an 8-bit GBC cart to it's 16 bit counterpart on the SNES. It's not a fair comparison.

'unfortunately, what's missing is the game's [Harvest Moon 2] dating sim, and I doubt new Harvesters will be able to fall in love with this version of the game if they can't fall in love while playing.'

New harvesters won't miss what they never knew existed. If Harvest Moon on the Game Boy are your first HM games (*raises hand*) you're obviously not going to miss the dating sim.

and

'I think the limitations imposed by the system's [Harvest Moon 3] design will prevent people from enjoying this game to the fullest, both in sound and extended game play, and unless you are a big fan of this series, or are really searching for something new in the simulation arena, most people are just not going to be jived about a faming sim for their Game Boy Color.'

He just blamed the developers for making the game on a platform that's half the size of the SNES counterpart. Again, you can't rate the game on what it DOESN'T HAVE. You're not going to get extended gameplay on a cart that's half the size of the SNES cart (I keep mentioning the SNES version because at the times of when these games were around, it was the only comparison to and the high-as-hell benchmark)

They might as well said:
'You know, I like Super Mario Brothers on the Nintendo. But Because it's not 3D and has a sandbox environment like it's Mario 64 counterpart, I can't figure out why they'd limit the game to just a 2d scroller with craptastic graphics. Game sucks, I give it a 2'

Can anyone fill me in here? Are the IGN reviews on some sort of payroll? Or are they just gamers who shouldn't be converting their thought-words into text?

I'm not the best or most proficient gamer out there (my collection and gaming experience, compared to some of you guys in GAME ROOMS & HOME THEATER, would be considered embarrassing, and I will take pictures), but I think I can do a better job than a good number of the IGN reviewers.

[Incognito D]

to be honest guys, I don't think we have to worry.
The general populace of this board don't really strike me as the kind of gamers that will dismiss games just because they get 6 or 7 out of 10 as opposed to 8 or 9.
I think we're all here because we like to dig a little deeper and take a few more risks with what we play. Hell, I don't really even read reviews any more! If I'm interested in a game, I'll take a chance on it and try it for myself. At least then, if I hate it, I'll have formed my own judgment - rather than relying on someone else's '5'

I do agree that it's lazy though, and bad journalism.

what were we arguing about again?

[noiseredux]

Numbers are good for quick checks. When I'm at a game store, I don't always have time to thoroughly check reviews. If the game has a low score, I'll probably skip it, but if it has a high score, I may get it after all. Then again, I also check at least two places to see if one of them is off.

this is I think where you and I are differ on the issue. I'd never use a number score as a means of checking if I should play or avoid a game. For instance didn't Deadly Premonition get like a 1/10 or something horribly low? Yet I adore that game. So I know (for my own taste) that checking metacritic isn't going to really guide me in a suitable direction toward games that I would personally enjoy.

[dsheinem]

Numbers are good for quick checks. When I'm at a game store, I don't always have time to thoroughly check reviews. If the game has a low score, I'll probably skip it, but if it has a high score, I may get it after all. Then again, I also check at least two places to see if one of them is off.

this is I think where you and I are differ on the issue. I'd never use a number score as a means of checking if I should play or avoid a game. For instance didn't Deadly Premonition get like a 1/10 or something horribly low? Yet I adore that game. So I know (for my own taste) that checking metacritic isn't going to really guide me in a suitable direction toward games that I would personally enjoy.

but that's in a genre that you know is maligned and misunderstood. I trust Metacritic and numbered scores to give me a good basic sense of the strength of "mainstream" games (e.g. Haze vs Resistance or MLB2k11 vs MLB The Show 2011) for the most part.

[noiseredux]

but that's in a genre that you know is maligned and misunderstood. I trust Metacritic and numbered scores to give me a good basic sense of the strength of "mainstream" games (e.g. Haze vs Resistance or MLB2k11 vs MLB The Show 2011) for the most part.

I suppose. But even in the case of sports games I've actually read multiple reviews to figure out like "which baseball game should I get?" based on the features mentioned and things like that rather than going on score. Perhaps I checked reviews of all the ones that got better scores more closely, though.

But we're straying from my main point which was if you're going to give a number score to something (and I understand that many publishers do) then the text should explain what the score means specifically. To beat this horse even more, if you give the music a 5/10, tell me WHY you gave it a 5/10 -- or at least mention the music in your review!

[dsheinem]

[Perhaps I checked reviews of all the ones that got better scores more closely, though.

This. If MLB2k11 is getting 5/10 average and The Show is getting 9/10, then I will probably not bother reading reviews for the former very much.

if you give the music a 5/10, tell me WHY you gave it a 5/10 -- or at least mention the music in your review!

Yes, of course. No argument from me on this, I am just suggesting that there is some value to sites that compile multiple review scores and produce averages.

[BoringSupreez]

Guys, can we please get back on this (interesting) topic, and stop arguing about whether number scores matter? If you think they don't matter, this thread is not meant for you.

Sonic CD has had haters since the beginning. Just look at this review on Gamestop for the PC version, written back in 1995. Granted, part of the low score was because it ran poorly on the average PC of the day despite the game's age, but the reviewer had multiple complaints about the gameplay itself. Many people, such as myself, see SCD as one of the best in the series (or even possibly #1), but there are some people who find it impossible to enjoy for one reason or another. In my experience, it's mainly people who discovered the Sonic series post-Dreamcast who expect Sonic games to be mainly focused on speed rather than platforming.

[noiseredux]

Guys, can we please get back on this (interesting) topic, and stop arguing about whether number scores matter? If you think they don't matter, this thread is not meant for you.

I'll see myself out then.

[lisalover1]

Giant Bomb gave Syndicate a 100/100 score, yet they mentioned the game's flaws in the freaking abstract for the review. Now, call me a stickler for detail, but doesn't a perfect score mean that there is no real way to fix or improve the game? Just saying. But, then again, this is the same guy that gave Catherine a 40/100, so I sense some possible bribery going on, something we all know EA isn't above doing.