IGN reviews San Andreas: "9.9"

[Jake]

Nine point nine. NINE POINT NINE!

Okay clearly the game is good... but ... will the next GTA game get an 11.8, with a little picture of the review score busting out of the top of a thermometer?

A peek into the future?

Why not just come out and say "Okay 10. Yep." I mean, clearly 9.9 is not forbidden in that unspoken "no game is a 9.9" way anymore. I don't know why it was forbidden in the first place considering sites like IGN etc vehemently say things like the ratings scale is not an indicator from "shit game" to "perfect game" but more "worthless" to "buy this." When you start rating things 9.9, no matter what your system, though, I think it's time to abandon scores all together, re-evaluate what the heck you're talking about, or just start being arbitrary, "Whose Line is it Anyway" style ("Graphics? 2 billion!!!!!" "Sound? NEGATIVE FORTY - DOESNT INCLUDE 5.1 SURROUND!!!!" etc). Why not? You'll still get the same idea across.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

LOL!

[manny_c44]

I agree with your idea for arbitrary number assignments as ratings. Any sort of standard is obviously not going to be upheld between writers and between generations of writers for a large and constantly changing site, so throw it out the window and take this "mine is bigger than yours" mentality to the extreme.

And why even stop at numbers? Games should be likened to land masses and well known landmarks from now on:

Graphics: Syberia

Sound:Morroco

Gameplay:Gobi Desert in the fall

Value: Jersey City

Tilt: Pisa

etc.

That way anyone who reads can construe different deeper-meaning from the scores.

[Jaero]

Well said. But... the thing is, they are rating it arbitrarily. Look at the ratings system they have. The five factors they use to review are as follows (with the scores they gave the game in each category):

• Presentation (10)
• Graphics (8.5)
• Sound (9.5)
• Gameplay (10)
• Lasting Appeal (10)

You also have to consider this:

It's important to remember that the overall rating is not an average of the other five ratings. The overall score is left to the judgment of the reviewer. We believe this gives you a better sense of the reviewer's overall experience with the game rather than using some cut-and-dry formula to determine the final rating.

That being said, the true average of the scores in the 5 categories is not 9.9, but 9.6. That's a relatively small difference, but I think there's a principle they are not able to grasp - and that is the fact that when you have 5 distinct categories with very precise rules on what each of them means, you must be consistent and apply the same justification for an Overall score. If not, perhaps a reason why it got an extra .3 tacked on to the score. I don't care what it is, whether the author of the review felt it was deserved because the hookers looked especially clean and agreeable, or whether it was something a little more rational. There's also an icon there for the "IGN Editor's Choice Award" (though the Award page hasn't been updated with GTA: SA, so it could mean anything at this point).

I think it's mildly interesting that the author proclaims the game to be the best PS2 game ever made, which I'm not going to dispute, as I haven't gotten my hands on it myself - but closes the review saying he's only 50% through the game. We can all name games that have been great for the first 3/4ths of it, and have bombed at the end. Not to say San Andreas will do that, in fact I doubt that is the case, but it's a matter of principle and a mild lack of journalistic candor that a game would get such accolades when it's not been fully reviewed. It's like me proclaiming Star Wars Galaxies the best MMORPG after creating a character and running around one of the starting cities, or saying the plot of Knights of the Old Republic is repugnant before the plot actually takes off (for example, after you find out your player's identity).

[Fum]

That's a relatively small difference, but I think there's a principle they are not able to grasp - and that is the fact that when you have 5 distinct categories with very precise rules on what each of them means, you must be consistent and apply the same justification for an Overall score. If not, perhaps a reason why it got an extra .3 tacked on to the score.

I'd say the reasoning behind this method of scoring is pretty clear, which is, in certain games certain rating factors aren't as important as others. Like in this case, the reviewer felt 'Gameplay' and 'Lasting Appeal' were much more important then 'Graphics,' and that all these shouldn't be treated as equal factors in the overall score.

Or, another example, a great linear story driven adventure game shouldn't get low overall marks because of little to no 'Lasting Appeal.'

That's how I see it, anyways.

[manny_c44]

At the same time, if the "Reviewer's Tilt" is how the reviewer afctually feels about the game, why not just post that as a definitive score, rather than bogging the system down with categories that are often times meaningless.

[Jaero]

I was going to post this in the Bard's Tale thread of the Site Feedback forum, but this topic speaks more to my point... The big review sites have it all wrong. There is one that I know of which breaks off from the norm, and that is GamersInfo.net - though their format is alrogether inconsistant as well, and I don't much care for the staff, they do not abide rankings and arbitrary scores. And rightly so. They've gotten a lot of attention, including from groups such as Incan Monkey Gods Studios, which is responsible for writing quite a few game guides.

Still, there is a very obvious reason why many readers base their judgements of games around the rank and score of a game instead of the actual review (not just the fact that they are lazy, good for nothing, and always right). They want a summation. I find myself often even skipping to the conclusion of a review, to 'get to the point'. IdleThumbs doesn't do 'scores', and their reviews are honest, well written, educated... stellar all around. Perhaps we are on to something though? Arbitrary or not (or both), perhaps a review might have instead of a 'score', something akin to "Thumb! Thumb! Thumb!", where the pros and cons are laid out, a few good quips are made, that sort of thing.

What do ya think?

You're just full of good ideas, Mr. Cantankerous Thumb!

Jesus Tapdancing Christ?

Your time would be better spent teaching gramma to suck eggs.

[Roderick]

Up until I read the Thumb I never really thought about it, but I'm becoming more and more averse to scores. For all the reasons mentioned here, plus: how the heck could you fit something as big and complex as a game into one absolute score? That's like saying life itself in all its emotional complexity can be comprehended through abstract mathematics.

[jp-30]

Well, today my life was a 5.7 (bad weather, hangover, car trouble, job insecurity). Next week I'm shooting for an 7.3.

[Jaero]

Up until I read the Thumb I never really thought about it, but I'm becoming more and more averse to scores. For all the reasons mentioned here, plus: how the heck could you fit something as big and complex as a game into one absolute score? That's like saying life itself in all its emotional complexity can be comprehended through abstract mathematics.

Well said. I don't think it's very bad to have a score for a game, however I have yet to find a place that does it totally fair, honest, etc. That's not a bash to Thumb because they don't score games. In my opinion, you'd have to weigh the pros and cons, document every reason why the score for X is 9.7 instead of 9.5, etc. This makes for a lot more brainstorming and work for the author, so I suppose that's the reason right there. Opinion does factor in, so the Overall score really wouldn't be one number, it would be a range. San Andreas would be between 9.0 - 9.9 for example, with the author's personal score standing at the latter end of that spectrum.

Think about this - when a person writes a design document to sell it to a publisher, they must really sell it. Few publishers (in their right mind) would take on a project that is a clone of another (save maybe a start-up, or Electronic Arts). Even so, no game is a total separation from existing games. When writing that document, you compare your design to games that have been released, namely ones that are very successful. If I were the author of the design document for Mafia, I would like GTA III for example, and compare how my game is similar to it (though of course, not identical... Mafia actually had a story) - and how because of that, Mafia would do well. That's selling the game to the publisher.

Similarly, it's my opinion that the same could and should be done when reviewing a game. Were I to review Mafia, I might compare it to GTA III - a title in the same class, in this regard or that, but depending on how it holds up in that comparison, I would also illustrate how it was better or worse. These are things that would help solidify whatever score I might give it.

On a similar note, today my life was between 5.5 and 6.0 - tomorrow I expect to be better. I anticipate the graphics being more advanced, and my phone conversations less boring. That could bring it up to 7.2!

[Ryam BaCo]

reminds me to the guys @ gamestar when somebody asked if there ever will be a "100 %-game" (they review games "in percent" for ign it would be a 10.0 )

they answered that it would be a game

- where you'll always have fun to play (always!)

- which can play all day long, again and again and again

- which will have the best graphics/sound/design/blabla of all time

- which would be 100 % perfect

but this can't be, because games are made by stupid, imperfect humans...grmbl...

[Jayel]

Uh oh. looks like IGN needs to introduce an extra digit to their rating system.

For that special game in near future that's better than San Andreas, but still keeping the possibility open that even better games may come along.

Halo2 9.91!

HL2 9.93!

and so on

dumb

[Thrik]

I really have to agree with the whole score argument. I think that scoring games sucks, period. It encourages people to base their judgements of a game on a number, rather than giving their brains something to do and reading a carefully written and honest review.

This can make some really great games get hit undeservedly by a fairly average score, and thus get ignored by a lot of people. Let's take a game which is perfect in every way for example, but the graphics aren't top notch. Say, they released Grim Fandango as is right now for the first time.

Whilst it would score incredibly high in every category just like before, the chances are that it would get marked down for its graphics not being super high-poly and everything like today's grunts expect in a game. This mark-down would then result in the overall score being pulled down, and the game undeservedly getting an average score, rather than a brilliant one.

This would ultimately result in a lot of people (who, by principle, only go for games whch get above average scores - unfortunately a lot of people) simply sticking their noses up and not trying it out.

It's a tragic situation, but it's unfortunately going to take a near impossible amount of persuasion and effort to turn the gaming journalism industry around towards good old reviewing and simply not giving them a numerical score. It's like applying mathematics to literature - it shouldn't happen.

[Jake]

Uh oh. looks like IGN needs to introduce an extra digit to their rating system.

IGN: This one goes to eleven.™

[Jayel]

hey! don't tell me how to count numbers. I'm a mathematics major you know.

[Erwin_Br]

This can make some really great games get hit undeservedly by a fairly average score, and thus get ignored by a lot of people. Let's take a game which is perfect in every way for example, but the graphics aren't top notch. Say, they released Grim Fandango as is right now for the first time.

Whilst it would score incredibly high in every category just like before, the chances are that it would get marked down for its graphics not being super high-poly and everything like today's grunts expect in a game.

If you think about it, these ratings become obsolete quite quickly because they're a reflection of time.

--Erwin

[Erkki]

but closes the review saying he's only 50% through the game. We can all name games that have been great for the first 3/4ths of it, and have bombed at the end.

Read again:

And yet despite that fact, I'm only barely hovering over the 50% finished mark (which is all you really need to complete the story)

He has completed the story. The 100% finished means you have completed all the mini games and side quests and have found all the secrets. Playing GTA3 and Vice City, I had about 60% completion when the last story mission ended.

I assume that not many people will go for the 100% completion anyway.

[jp-30]

Read again:

I assume that not many people will go for the 100% completion anyway.

Correct. Once they've completed the main story, most gamers will be out on the streets stealing BMX's, bonking hookers and smashing peoples skulls open with crowbars.

[netmonkey]

* Presentation

* Graphics

* Sound

* Gameplay

* Lasting Appeal

With this rating system put into movies, Star Wars: Episode I, or The Day After Tomorrow, or anything endorsed by Fox really would get a perfect 10.

What's with the phallic reference in that thermometer?!

[Jaero]

He has completed the story. The 100% finished means you have completed all the mini games and side quests and have found all the secrets. Playing GTA3 and Vice City, I had about 60% completion when the last story mission ended.

I assume that not many people will go for the 100% completion anyway.

Point taken. I was speaking generally about games, not specifically about San Andreas.

[Kluf]

* Presentation

* Graphics

* Sound

* Gameplay

* Lasting Appeal

With this rating system put into movies, Star Wars: Episode I, or The Day After Tomorrow, or anything endorsed by Fox really would get a perfect 10.

What's with the phallic reference in that thermometer?!

When IGN would review it.....sure, it seems.

[Chris]

What's with the phallic reference in that thermometer?!

It'll be a wonderful fucking day when people get over the word "phallic".

[Sirus]

WTF? 9.9? No game is that good!

[manny_c44]

It'll be a wonderful fucking day when people get over the word "phallic".

No one can contain their excitement when using 'ph'-that-sound-like 'f' words. It's just contagious.

[Trithemius]

No one can contain their excitement when using 'ph'-that-sound-like 'f' words. It's just contagious.

It's just the way it rolls off the tongue.