Thanks for doing this! Might be a minor nitpick on my part, but why convert the aggregate 5-star ratings into a 100-point scale instead of just giving the results as a 5-star rating as well (with decimals obviously)? The consistency is one thing, but also people tend to have different expectations for how they read these different formats, as illogical as it can be.
TOTK: 5 Stars
Two reasons:
I enjoyed it! I wish real life stuff didn't take up too much time haha
What about the lore? The lore doesn't deserve six stars. Biased reviewer due to your username and avatar? Questionable ethics? Abuse of the thread? Corruption of The Process?Metroid Dread
Watching that reveal trailer made me almost scream and cry in at my old job's break room. Playing the game did the same thing for the entire run as long as I wasn't paying attention to the music which was very easy!
Yes it does, also I live for the Corruption of the Process, thank you
Conflict of interest? Review sabotage? Hypocrisy? Energy draining?
Not sure about albums but I'm not sure I've ever really seen people talk about a film's metascore like ever.
I guess that for some people FR counts as part of 3 and/or FR improved their view of 3, but personally speaking I consider the two separate titles and FR didn't really impact my view of the base game of 3 at all
I think we’re all thinking along the same lines. I like the idea of having genre of the fortnight /indie/retro picks etc, just so there’s as much chance as possible of people having played stuff, and sheer variety makes for interesting discussion
Interesting results. I wonder if we’ll see over time that Famicritic tends to average out away from extremes, especially away from the review/hype cycle where it’s largely members who’ve played the game and had time for their thoughts to coalesce. Put your favourites up for famicritical reception at your own risk
It's an interesting disparity - I do think time away from initial release and an enforced 1-5 system may move us away from the extreme high end. I see 90s becoming a lot rarer than on OC/MCInteresting results. I wonder if we’ll see over time that Famicritic tends to average out away from extremes, especially away from the review/hype cycle where it’s largely members who’ve played the game and had time for their thoughts to coalesce. Put your favourites up for famicritical reception at your own risk
Oh likewise, mildly interesting indeedIt's an interesting disparity - I do think time away from initial release and an enforced 1-5 system may move us away from the extreme high end. I see 90s becoming a lot rarer than on OC/MC
At the same time, the majority of those who review the game here are going to be those who wanted the game beforehand, fans of a particular genre/series or were convinced by other reviews around the time of release. They're also very likely to be people who put down money on the game - in that regard, we could see fewer lower end scores too (the old 'sunk cost' argument).
Of course that's all hypothetical, just some random musings. Nothing to take too seriously just mildly interesting to geeks like me
Truthfully, the "would you recommend this" part was more pointed towards the lower end of the scale. Reviews should be the opinion of the reviewer, but they still should be written for a general audience; a one-star review which discusses only how the narrative themes weren't well-executed and doesn't talk about gameplay isn't really that helpful as a review. Of course, it isn't exclusively relevant to negative reviews - there was one review in the first batch which read quite negative, but ended with "but I still loved the game so 5/5", which I also don't think is super helpful - but I do think people tend to have these hang-ups more when they have negative opinions than when they have positive opinions. So overall, I think if your review is very glowing and you have minimal complaints, a high score is warranted even if you feel the game might be a bit niche.
Agreed. My hope is that people get better at writing reviews as they get more practice, but I also encourage constructive feedback of reviews (e.g. "hey I'm not sure the score you gave really matches your review") and will probably start doing some of that myself. I figured I wouldn't for the first batch though, since I wanted to turn people off right away haha
Good idea! Noted!
Maybe this is something we can do down the line, but I'm a little hesitant to do so at this point. We ended up getting a last-minute rush of reviews for Mario 64, but there were very few at the start, and I'm wary of having too many "classics" that might attract fewer reviews in a single batch
I think the time frame and game selection were good.
Maybe another game or two to spruce up the discussions. Beyond that, no complaints
Scale was good even if I would have preferred either a 10 point scale or half stars to be allowed
Future Redeemed is arguably* the best-paced and designed piece of Xenoblade content there is. It's also, like, less than 20% of the overall package and doesn't actually add anything to the main game (more on that in a sec) other than some of the DLC story beats retroactively improving beats from the main story, so ultimately it's not going to add much to a score of the overall game.
This is ultimately where you have to trust the aggregate to do its job, and understand that no, a three star review isn't intended to be interpreted as a 60/100. It's three stars out of five stars. Hologram seems to be saying the scales are different precisely to discourage this line of thought.
I think the issue is with thinking 60/100 is a bad score. We're so used to interpreting 90+ as amazing, 80-89 as good, 70-79 as okay but with glaring issues, and anything below 70 as not worth playing. But that's a bad scale! There are only two institutions I know of that use such a scale: American college grades and videogame reviews. I'm doing what I can about one of those, lmao
I like this idea. If the thread remains popular, I'll definitely try to do something like this!
️ star emojis for your review scores, rather than numerically writing the score. This is for visibility when I'm collating. Also, please don't include ️ star emojis anywhere else in your review, such as giving additional ratings to DLC. It just makes it confusing.
Kirby and he forgor place: 5/5 stars, holy moly this game slaps (
️️️️️)️️️️)
You might want to check through the OP/threadmarks again if you want your reviews to count towards the aggregate.
I keep forgetting about that, well thanks for the reminder
(A) (S-)
Just an FYI you might want to take a quick look at the rules.
- Well I like 3D platformers so I had to get it. I haven't felt compelled to finish it but it's good. Good enough, rather. I find myself going through the motions of playing levels though. Did any of you play Super Lucky Tale or whatever that game is called? Kirby's like that. Both games are so slow to play through. I'd bump this to 3 stars if it played faster - Everyone bitches about the performance issues I couldn't give less of a fuck though. The core Pokémon gameplay is intact and it's all I want now and forever and the game delivers. They got rid of the linear aspect of journeying through each city and collect badges but no, I won't give bonus points for changing some of the formula. The game is still easy but that's okay I like easy. I like being able to catch anything in the wild that looks cool and and it's viable fast because exp gain is crazy high. Game Freak continues to create Pokemon games that appeal to me. No complaints. Hope they keep it up.- I skipped World so the last MH I played before this is Generations Ultimate. I think I'm liable to continue giving MH games a 5 star rating. A lot of the boss monsters both new and old feel good to fight. The weapons I like to use feel good. The combat is a bit faster paced. That's not really a positive but it doesn't detract from the experience. So from the core gameplay of MH that's where the 5 stars come from. I do want zones back though but adding fast traversal options like the wirebug and doggo mitigate my issues with big areas. I think it's a cardinal sin for a game to feature worlds without fast methods of navigating through it. I hate the bug collecting. NGL I think some of these changes are carried from World so yeah I hate having to collect the bugs for stats, the loss of zones, way too easy to collect mats for weapons and armor, this has to be World's fault. Plus I don't know what the hell Master Rank is. Fuck you it's called G rank -I actually only did Edelgard's route because I'm way too lazy to deal with the monastery to play the other endings that shit sucks very much. I don't remember much actually. The core Fire Emblem gameplay is present from what I remember. That's good enough for a 5 rating normally but the monastery brings that rating down a lot. A lot of people's love for TH seems predicated on how there are factions and how cool the leaders are or story but yeah I don't give that much of a fuck for that lol. Well I mention this now because Engage has sold poorly relative to TH and it's disheartening to read people say they skipped Engage because of a poor story or characters but when it comes to SRPG gameplay it's easily among the best. I love the break feature the devs added, the map design and flow of combat are the fucking best, Engage is an easy 5 star for its SRPG aspects yeah it does have a monastery-like hub but it's smaller. Yeah if you haven't clued in I basically weigh gameplay a lot more than stuff that shouldn't matter as much like story or characters. Oh if you're thinking I gave TH a lower score for Engage's sake that's not true. I haven't been receptive of TH since its release and actually I'm proud for IS for rebounding back with such a banger like Engage after an ok/good game like TH.- Dude I don't even know. After Ultimate I don't know if I care much for Smash at all. Yeah they're great games but they ain't for me anymore. This rating is mostly from the challenge mode I forget what it's called. It had like 52 events to do. That was fun. I also liked adventure mode more than classic, that was good too. You punch and kick shit. Don't know what else to say lol. This was the only game where I had people physically come and share the same screen to play. That was a lot of fun. By the time Brawl came out it got harder for people to come over. I never cared for playing Smash online. It was share the same couch with me or bust.
