Official feedback thread for Retro Gamer 79

[Timothy Lumsden]

I 997 marks out of 1000 agree with you craig about ACE (actually I liked ACE - but scoring was naff)

regarding ratings - it's not the upper end of scales that confuse me - its why the average in many mags seems to be 70% rather than a more logical 50%. How many times has the text said average and then awarded 70 percent? weird.

[TMR]

regarding ratings - it's not the upper end of scales that confuse me - its why the average in many mags seems to be 70% rather than a more logical 50%. How many times has the text said average and then awarded 70 percent? weird.

i suspect it's because giving a game 50% looks worse than average for some reason...?

[Timothy Lumsden]

i think it's an industry thing - no one wants to upset publishers -but 5/10 IS average - the maths is on my side

[TwoHeadedBoy]

Haven't got the mag yet (despite being a subscriber, oh the joys) but did they mention the GB and GBC versions?

Yep, the Game Boy and Game Boy Color versions are there, both classed as one game.

Regarding the Ratings thing... I'm still seeing 100% as "Perfect", but if a reviewer honestly can't fault a game, fair play.
Still think an "out-of-Ten" ratings system works better, and you could ban the usage of "7/10" - the ultimate chicken-score that one is.

Just remembered, the only other game I've seen score NEARLY this high is the Saturn version of WipEout, which Sonic The Comic gave 99%

[CraigGrannell]

regarding ratings - it's not the upper end of scales that confuse me - its why the average in many mags seems to be 70% rather than a more logical 50%. How many times has the text said average and then awarded 70 percent? weird.

There's a well-known industry in-joke, with 73% being considered the lowest mark that won't irk publishers, but that can enable a magazine to criticise a less-than-decent game. Ultimately, ratings are skewed in all publications (generally, I think Retro Gamer is quite generous, although sometimes the ratings baffle, such as with the iOS PMCE review), but when 70%+ is the 'average', you may as well stop bothering with the ratings.

The irritating thing is that 5/10 shouldn't be considered a bad score, because it's not. Indeed, there were plenty of times in the 1980s where you'd get a reasonably positive game review in an EMAP or Newsfield publication with that sort of score, and the game could be quite good. These days, 5/10 is the kiss of death. Even worse, games that are truly dreadful are almost never rated so. I did some work for a publication that shall remain nameless and one of the games I was asked to review was so terrible that I gave it the equivalent of 1/10. The editor was furious and thought me incompetent. I was told that he'd checked the game himself and it "worked fine", and therefore should get "at least 3 or 4". 2 and lower, it seems, were reserved for games that quite literally didn't work; never mind that the game in question was unplayable bollocks. I argued and lost (my review was edited) and, unsurprisingly, was never asked to do anything further.

[thevulture]

I'm trying to break the rating system.
I personally don't see 100% as equalling perfection (although Galaxy 2 certainly comes amazingly close) I just see it as being the highest score a game can achieve on a percentile rating. To me, Mario Galaxy 2 is the best platformer I've ever played, so in my eyes it deserved the best possible score I could award it, so I did. If you're going to use a scoring system and yet not use it in full then you may as well not bother using it.

Zzap 64 gave Paradroid 100% for Presentation did they not? Edge use similar stance to what Darren has said on handing out their 10/10 review scores.Whilst i`d welcome the day reviews abandon scoring altogether, untill that day? Happy to see great game design given the credit it desrves.

[TMR]

i think it's an industry thing - no one wants to upset publishers -but 5/10 IS average - the maths is on my side

i'm not disagreeing that 50% isn't average mathematically... personally, i've always used the 70% or thereabouts mark as "average" because it "feels" right after all these years rather than any desire to keep publishers happy.

[CraigGrannell]

@thevulture: My all-time favourite review system was the one Melody Maker had when I was at uni in the mid-1990s. No scores at all, but good stuff was badged 'recommended' and great stuff 'bloody essential'. Shockingly, this meant people actually had to read the reviews, rather than rely on a rating.

@TMR: Well, that certainly explains the review scores in your section, which I've always felt are extremely lenient. To me, 70% isn't 'average'—it's a good score.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Also, "The Definitive Centipede" missed out the game.com version, which is a shame, seeing as it's one of the game.com's only good games. The Definitive Frogger included the game.com version, why not Centipede? If a cartridge was required, it could've been provided.

I've got the game and played it for the feature, but unlike Game.com Frogger it has no uniquely noteworthy interesting qualities, which are the criteria for inclusion in The Definitive. The only thing it has that isn't present in arcade Centipede are occasional big mushrooms, which don't affect gameplay as they're just the same as two normal mushrooms beside each other.

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

@thevulture: My all-time favourite review system was the one Melody Maker had when I was at uni in the mid-1990s. No scores at all, but good stuff was badged 'recommended' and great stuff 'bloody essential'. Shockingly, this meant people actually had to read the reviews, rather than rely on a rating.

@TMR: Well, that certainly explains the review scores in your section, which I've always felt are extremely lenient. To me, 70% isn't 'average'—it's a good score.

Indeed. I'll have to start knocking 20% off each review from now on

[Timothy Lumsden]

Don Simpson apparently once asked a writer to make a film script 10% funnier...

(sorry, way off topic, but amusing)

[TMR]

@TMR: Well, that certainly explains the review scores in your section, which I've always felt are extremely lenient. To me, 70% isn't 'average'—it's a good score.

i was pretty much left to my own devices as to how review scoring works, so i reserved scores of under about 20% or thereabouts for stuff that isn't just bad as a game but can't run without causing the machine to crash and burn; even a stinker of a game can score above that 20% if it's not knocking the box over. i doubt that tallies with other reviews in the mag but i wasn't given any guidelines and just used one i was already employing elsewhere.

Indeed. I'll have to start knocking 20% off each review from now on

Oh great, thanks for getting me into trouble with the boss you lot!! [Comedy sulk!]

[thevulture]

Review scores were a bad enough thing before the internet, Now? with likes of Metacritic, i wanna curl up into the fetal position at times. Just seems to give the fanboys unlimited ammo..Ohh 360 ver.scored 3% higher than PS3 version (or vice versa) Yadda Yadda.IF a game is amazing/Pants/Alright...Tell me, but in the review text.I want to know wether a game is suited to my tastes, the flaws, what it pulls off, the VFM etc, IF it`s ALL about the score (Numerous friends of mine skip right to the score, turn noses up at anything under 80%), Ok, lets just have a juggling monkey and a big titted lass holding up a board with a number on it.(N.B:This IS NOT aimed at RG, just on subject of scoring in general), sod it, have some bloody theme music playing and a car on fire in the background. (Ohh and DON`T even 'Go There' on subject of likes of PSM3 reviewing RETRO.... )

[Timothy Lumsden]

for me, I always liked the idea of knowing the reviewers tastes as in the newsfield day - you could tell if they liked/disliked roughly what you liked and disliked and that gave the review great context.

If I open up - say - Edge magazine, the reviews feels written by a committee - but with RG at least we have that point of reference. The second opinion box - which was probably done initially as a retro nod to newsfield - is actually a good thing.

(I give my post 5/10 )

[thevulture]

for me, I always liked the idea of knowing the reviewers tastes as in the newsfield day - you could tell if they liked/disliked roughly what you liked and disliked and that gave the review great context.

If I open up - say - Edge magazine, the reviews feels written by a committee - but with RG at least we have that point of reference. The second opinion box - which was probably done initially as a retro nod to newsfield - is actually a good thing.

(I give my post 5/10 )

Edge winds me up by NOT naming reviewers, so a game can be condemend for being old school, or have gore, swearing, then 2 or 3 pages on? Another game congratulated for:Staying old school, having gore etc. Just which is it? These are good in games or bad?.