Lair gets pwnd by EGM

[sikkinixx]

*snip*

This is all just a matter of semantics but I've always considered 10/10, 100%, 1/1 1093903/1093903, etc to be perfect, I guess thats just me. 100% means nothing is wrong at all and that is never the case (unless its a calculus test). You are right that scoring against different genres throws the whole thing out the window though. But that doesn't mean the scale shouldn't go up to 10, a game can get a 9.6 or whatever meaning it's damn near perfect but little issues take a down a notch. A professor of mine told me you should never get 100% on a paper because you can always do something better and I believe the same with anything that is subjective. But I suppose thats up to the creator of the scale to decide what a 10 means, awesome or perfection.


*feels like Bill Clinton debating the word 'is'*

 

[zero2dash]

Metroid Prime isn't an FPS, in the same way Zelda II isn't Contra.

It's in first person...and you shoot. That is the definition of a first person shooter Jimmi.

It does have exploration, sure. So did Half-Life. Bosses? Check. Different weapons? Check. Story? Check.

Prime is an FPS. Prime 2 is an FPS, Prime 3 is an FPS. (Hell, they finally admitted it to themselves with Prime 3 by giving it FPS controls.)

FPS doesn't mean "deathmatch", if that's what you're getting at (or think I'm getting at).



Zelda II and Contra are both side scrollers, but one is an adventure game [with some rpg-ish leveling up] (Zelda II), the other is an action/shooter (Contra).

 

[GFLPraxis]

It's in first person...and you shoot. That is the definition of a first person shooter Jimmi.

It does have exploration, sure. So did Half-Life. Bosses? Check. Different weapons? Check. Story? Check.

Prime is an FPS. Prime 2 is an FPS, Prime 3 is an FPS. (Hell, they finally admitted it to themselves with Prime 3 by giving it FPS controls.)

FPS doesn't mean "deathmatch", if that's what you're getting at (or think I'm getting at).



Zelda II and Contra are both side scrollers, but one is an adventure game [with some rpg-ish leveling up] (Zelda II), the other is an action/shooter (Contra).

But that is precisely the difference. Metroid Prime is an adventure game with FPS-styled combat on the surface. You don't progress in stages, and your goal is not combat, but rather exploration.


In an FPS one of the assumptions about the genre (I'm assuming we're talking about FPS as a genre, and not FPS as a generic label for anything in the first person view with a gun) is that the goal in the game is to kill. Metroid Prime fits the Adventure genre far, far better than it fits the FPS genre, especially since the entire point in getting new weapons is actually to use them to reach new environments instead of using them to kill people.


Yes, it fits the basic definition of the term FPS, but it does not match up with any other game in the FPS genre. On the other hand, it is very similar to many Adventure games, it just as an FPS face on it.

Just like Kingdom Hearts has a combat engine actually similar to a lot of straight-up button-mashing-brawlers, but it is classified as a Adventure game, not an Action game or a brawler or button-masher.

 

[GFLPraxis]

This is all just a matter of semantics but I've always considered 10/10, 100%, 1/1 1093903/1093903, etc to be perfect, I guess thats just me. 100% means nothing is wrong at all and that is never the case (unless its a calculus test). You are right that scoring against different genres throws the whole thing out the window though. But that doesn't mean the scale shouldn't go up to 10, a game can get a 9.6 or whatever meaning it's damn near perfect but little issues take a down a notch. A professor of mine told me you should never get 100% on a paper because you can always do something better and I believe the same with anything that is subjective. But I suppose thats up to the creator of the scale to decide what a 10 means, awesome or perfection.


*feels like Bill Clinton debating the word 'is'*

I consider 10/10 to be when a game is so near to perfection that it is difficult (not impossible) to easily think of improvements and it achieves a classic status, clearly significantly better than any other game in its genre.

If the game is clearly superior to any prior game in its genre, it is worthy of a 10/10.

I would give Zelda: Ocarina of Time a 10/10 for example. Not Majora's Mask or Wind Waker or Twilight Princess though, as they really just built on the existing concept without any radical changes (nothing bars a very high 9 though).

 

[Coded-Dude]

In a complete wrong move on EGM's part, 1UP reports that the reviewers over at the magazine have had little notes posted onto their Warhawk reviews stating, in some form or another, that the review "score should be dropped a whole point if the price was announced above $30." Sure, Sony hasn't officially announced a Warhawk price for the downloadable version and that's a little odd, but I've got problem with this bit of news.

An unannounced price shouldn't affect a game's review score by such a significant margin. It's tough to grasp what the point of dropping a review score is because of a game possibly being priced above the rumored price created by the media. Does it make you enjoy it less? Does it make the graphics worse? Does it hinder the framerate? It might dissuade people from buying the downloadable version if it were, say, $50, but if that's the case, the retail version is a great deal. If the downloadable version is $30, that's a budget title and a great deal.

It's a bit difficult to explain, which is exactly why the EGM staff are concerned about how to review the game. I'd like your take on the situation, in that case! Is there a difference between buying a game due to price and buying a game due to quality? Price does affect many people's willingness to buy, but should it necessarily affect the score given to a game by reviewers getting the game for little or no cost?

EGM To Lower Warhawk Review Score Depending on Price....wtf?

 

[0098386]

I must have missed the part where Metroid Prime removed FPS gameplay mechanics like you know, didn't require precise aiming (hence the lack of dual analogue movement), had locking on, no abundant selection of weapons. It's a first person adventure game, think Tomb Raider, that just happens to take place in both first and 3rd person perspectives.
Metroid Prime never relies on strict FPS mechanics... if you hadn't noticed. It's FPA, if you haven't heard of them. Or is Thief also an FPS rofl

MGS:Twin Snakes had the ability to jump into the first person and shoot. FPS MGS
Would you call Castlevania DS games an outright "RPG" just because they have character development and levelling up?
Is Tomb Raider just a 3rd person shooter?
SotC a horse riding simulator?
Is Mario 64 DS defined by it's minigame extras?

The only Metroid game that comes close to using FPS mechanics is Metroid Prime Hunter's multiplayer.

 

[gloss]

EGM To Lower Warhawk Review Score Depending on Price....wtf?

Maybe I'm jaded, but that makes sense to me.

 

[2nyRiggz]

Maybe I'm jaded, but that makes sense to me.

No it doesn't...lowering the review of the game because of a "rumored" price which has nothing to do with the actual game...no.

If it was like that then game reviewers could start reviewing and deducting points from the game because of its box art and the way the plasic is wrap around the box.....this should not affect the game within.


MP is a first person adventure which is in the same boat as FPS.....the focus is exploration but its basically the same for me.

If a game is rated 10/10 then thats a perfect game...no flaws which is bogus because every game past and present has flaws.


Bless

 

[Coded-Dude]

also...if thats the case then every game that eventually drops in price that got a 9 rating is now considered a 10.
That would put a lot of games that got 8 or 9's into the nearly perfect category

(and what about game delays, may as well drop a point for that too)

 

[0098386]

Maybe I'm jaded, but that makes sense to me.

I agree, unless games are free then price comes into it. If I paid less for a good game I'd rate it higher. Not as much as the important things like gameplay, but it'd certainly come into account.

 

[gloss]

I agree, unless games are free then price comes into it. If I paid less for a good game I'd rate it higher. Not as much as the important things like gameplay, but it'd certainly come into account.

Exactly. Super Stardust HD at $30? Not so hot. At $8? Awesome.

Price matters. More specifically, price to content matters.

 

[Coded-Dude]

then that would give Zelda:TP a pretty low rating, considering all those people who kept getting let down by delay after delay after delay after delay.
(to a 7 or 8)

 

[0098386]

Zelda got a low rating? I thought it was the highest rated game this gen... And what has Zelda got to do with the price of Warhawk, or even for the topic?

 

[Haoshiro]

Price should not effect a games overall score!

Come on people, prices change. You might pick a game up used, or get a good deal on it.

The review of the game should be a review of the game, plain and simple. Not the marketting, pricing, packaging, support, or anything else.

I wouldn't mind them adding a special score for "Value" that was based on release price at the time, but it should not effect a games overall/total score.

---

As for the scoring a game a "10" debate, I think people will probably never agree on this. Reviews and scores will always be relative to what someone has played and the fun they have - as well as based on what is out for the time.

A game that gets a "Perfect 10" does not have to be 100% flawless, imo.

That sounds like a contradiction, which is what is getting some people frustrated - but it's all perception.

For me, the idea is that:

1) People should take extremely special notice of this game

and

2) It sets a standard for it's genre and has no major flaws

So it might have a few minor flaws or something that could have been tweaked more or slightly improved, but none of it brings the game down - nothing to make you really care if that "issue" is even there.

Besides, a lot of minor things (that aren't actual bugs) are a matter of opinion. Maybe the reviewer thought the UI was perfect in everyway, but you feel differently because you'd like "this" moved here, or "that" added there.

At that point your knock the score just because of your own nit picking tastes that 99% of consumers won't even care about.

 

[zero2dash]

But that is precisely the difference. Metroid Prime is an adventure game with FPS-styled combat on the surface. You don't progress in stages, and your goal is not combat, but rather exploration.

In an FPS one of the assumptions about the genre (I'm assuming we're talking about FPS as a genre, and not FPS as a generic label for anything in the first person view with a gun) is that the goal in the game is to kill.

Half-Life had exploration as well. Maybe not as deep or complex as Prime's, but exploration nonetheless. Trying to figure out what was going on at Black Mesa.

I must have missed the part where Metroid Prime removed FPS gameplay mechanics like you know, didn't require precise aiming (hence the lack of dual analogue movement), had locking on, no abundant selection of weapons. It's a first person adventure game, think Tomb Raider, that just happens to take place in both first and 3rd person perspectives.
Metroid Prime never relies on strict FPS mechanics... if you hadn't noticed. It's FPA, if you haven't heard of them.

Just because they decided to remove dual stick movement or added lock on doesn't mean the game couldn't have benefitted from them. That's absurd. It's easier to run around and freely aim with a 2nd stick than it is to move around and hold a trigger down to force-lock on to something. If they wanted to dumb down the game so n00bs and scrubs could play it, they could've had auto aiming but left it as a dual stick game.

As for 3rd person perspectives in the game, give me a break. 99% of the time it's a 1st person game. The only time it switches is when you use the Morph Ball or get into an elevator.

MGS:Twin Snakes had the ability to jump into the first person and shoot. FPS MGS

Did MGS rely on 1st person or 3rd person the majority of the time? Right, 3rd person. Don't be ridiculous.

Would you call Castlevania DS games an outright "RPG" just because they have character development and levelling up?

No. Did you even bother reading my initial response before going off on your tirade [here and as follows]?

I said Zelda II had rpg-ish leveling up, I never called it an RPG. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Castlevania has always been action/adventure...all of em (even the crappy 3d ones on the N64).

Is Tomb Raider just a 3rd person shooter?
SotC a horse riding simulator?
Is Mario 64 DS defined by it's minigame extras?

No, no, and no.
Please though, feel free to assume otherwise, misread what I said and stick more words in my mouth. It is nearing lunchtime in my neck of the woods and I am quite hungry.

 

[gloss]

Considering that the purpose of a review is to tell the reader whether the game is worthy of time and purchase, yes, price should be taken into account. Whether something is a great game at $10 or a great game at $60 is something that I, as a consumer, want to know.

So, if Warhawk is, say, an 8 out of 10 on average, but they feel that it's overpriced at more than $30 because of dearth of content for that price point, it should be worked into the OVERALL score of the game.

 

[Coded-Dude]

yes, I agree that there is a difference between a $10 game and a $60 game......but we are not talking about a $50 difference in price! Warhawk is a full blown war game, and the difference in alleged price and final price is probably within $10. That deserves an entire point demerit? GTFOH! How much was Battlefield 2(got a 9 and single player SUCKS!) when first released?

 

[takao]

oblivion is controlled in first person most of the time and you can shoot arrows and magic spells
is it now a FPS ?

on topic: was kinda expected and i doubt it's gonna be the last bad rating for lair, after all much of the things which made rouge squadron fun was the great use of the star wars license...


that said i doubt it's gonna be the last game going down in the hype-destroying flames .. after all 360 blue dragon didn't get great scores either from EGM and Edge(6/10) simply because it's too old fashioned JPRG and too much "cliche" stock characters and story
and here some rumours are going around that some magazines are considering even straight 5s for either title

 

[0098386]

Did MGS rely on 1st person or 3rd person the majority of the time? Right, 3rd person. Don't be ridiculous.

Metroid Prime never relies on strict FPS mechanics

Backtracking, no precise aiming, lock on straffing, emphasis on platforming. The gun isn't the primary cause of events in the game, it's secondary to exploration and isn't the motivation. That isn't relying on FPS mechanics. Other than it being in first person and having a gun what puts it alongside a proper FPS?

As I said - is Thief an FPS? Doom, Half Life etc are examples of FPS, Strife is an example of a FPS adventure, Metroid/Thief and friends are FPA.

99% of Prime is in 1st person? Funny - the majority of puzzles are morph ball based...

 

[GFLPraxis]

then that would give Zelda:TP a pretty low rating, considering all those people who kept getting let down by delay after delay after delay after delay.
(to a 7 or 8)

Nobody said delays should affect score...where are you getting that from? We said price.


I actually agree that price should be taken into account. Frankly, if I paid $50 for Wii Play and finished it in 30 minutes, I'd be extremely ticked. I really only paid $10 for it. Thus, I'll review it in the context of what I would expect out of a $10 title.


If price is to be ignored, then we should rate all VC games equally, right? So...The Legend of Zelda sucks compared to Ocarina of Time. Since we're ignoring the fact that the NES titles are budget titles while N64 cost more, we should rate them on an even playing field; thus, all NES games should get lower scores than N64 games.

 

[Haoshiro]

Considering that the purpose of a review is to tell the reader whether the game is worthy of time and purchase, yes, price should be taken into account. Whether something is a great game at $10 or a great game at $60 is something that I, as a consumer, want to know.

So, if Warhawk is, say, an 8 out of 10 on average, but they feel that it's overpriced at more than $30 because of dearth of content for that price point, it should be worked into the OVERALL score of the game.

But all they have to base that on is MSRP.

Point is, reviews shouldn't need rewritten or scores updated every time there is a price change.

If you roll price into the overall score, then you've made your score POINTLESS. A game could get a 5/10 because it was priced at $150 at launch, but someone could walk into a store and grab it for $5 later. The scores that factored price into overall score become worthless.

That's why, like I said, it would be good for them to use some sort of "Value" score that was separate, this could break down what they think the game is worth, and give it a value rating.

So you could have an overpriced game that scored 9/10 because it was a great game - and a Value score of something like "Poor" because the MSRP at review time was too high. A note of "This game would be excellent value at $30" or something would help anchor that rating.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Just because they decided to remove dual stick movement or added lock on doesn't mean the game couldn't have benefitted from them. That's absurd. It's easier to run around and freely aim with a 2nd stick than it is to move around and hold a trigger down to force-lock on to something. If they wanted to dumb down the game so n00bs and scrubs could play it, they could've had auto aiming but left it as a dual stick game.

Actually...I understand the decision. You're thinking from a shooter standpoint. How far did you get in the game?

Once you get the ability to double jump and all kinds of other tricks, you should be able to appreciate the control scheme a little more. They did a really good job of making a first-person game that is a decent platformer. You consistently have to jump around on platforms.

Let's be honest here; how many FPS do you know with good platforming segments? Platforming and FPS usually does not go well together; the platforming segments are usually tedious.

Nintendo came up with a control scheme that would allow for a first person perspective while allowing someone to perform platforming action with only a single joystick. I felt it worked very well for the purpose; that purpose not being combat, but free motion as you jumped through the air or water landing on platforms.

 

[LethalWolfe]

IMO, price of the game should be mentioned in the conclusion of the review, but it shouldn't be part of the score. Simple one-liners like "This game is a rental" or "wait until you can get it used" conveniently show that the value of the game doesn't warrant paying full price for it.

How good a game is is different then how good of a value a game is. A bad game that costs $10 is still a bad game and a great game that costs $100 is still a great game but most people would probably see the $10 game as being a better value because of the price point even though it's an inferior game.


Lethal

 

[GFLPraxis]

IMO, price of the game should be mentioned in the conclusion of the review, but it shouldn't be part of the score. Simple one-liners like "This game is a rental" or "wait until you can get it used" conveniently show that the value of the game doesn't warrant paying full price for it.

How good a game is is different then how good of a value a game is. A bad game that costs $10 is still a bad game and a great game that costs $100 is still a great game but most people would probably see the $10 game as being a better value because of the price point even though it's an inferior game.


Lethal

To be honest I don't give score much weight when I read reviews; it's all about the text. And I don't think it should be a make-or-break thing; a 10/10 game is still a 10/10 game regardless of price, and a sucky game still sucks.

But a fun game lacking in content? I can see price having a big effect on the score. If the game only takes an hour to complete, but it only costs $20, one is inclined to overlook the fact that it's short because you didn't invest much in it.

There is something to be said about dollar/hour ratios. A two-hour long game you pay $10 can be compared to a 10-hour game you paid $50 for on the same scoring scale, but if a two-hour long game cost $50 it would probably lose points.

Losing half to a full point based on price is not so unreasonable, depending on the situation. If Nintendo released an NES game on the VC for $15 where all the others are $5, I'd probably dock points if the game wasn't ridiculously good.

 

[LethalWolfe]

To be honest I don't give score much weight when I read reviews; it's all about the text. And I don't think it should be a make-or-break thing; a 10/10 game is still a 10/10 game regardless of price, and a sucky game still sucks.

But a fun game lacking in content? I can see price having a big effect on the score. If the game only takes an hour to complete, but it only costs $20, one is inclined to overlook the fact that it's short because you didn't invest much in it.

There is something to be said about dollar/hour ratios. A two-hour long game you pay $10 can be compared to a 10-hour game you paid $50 for on the same scoring scale, but if a two-hour long game cost $50 it would probably lose points.

Losing half to a full point based on price is not so unreasonable, depending on the situation. If Nintendo released an NES game on the VC for $15 where all the others are $5, I'd probably dock points if the game wasn't ridiculously good.

My point is that "A good value" and "A good game" aren't the same thing so a rating/score based on gameplay, graphics, sound, etc., shouldn't take into consideration how much the game costs, IMO. That is a separate consideration. For example, overall All Pro Football 2k8 is an average game and it costs $60 (not a very good value IMO). If it was being sold for $20 it would still be an average game but it would be $40 cheaper and thus a better value. The "quality" of the game stays the same, but the "value" can change based on price.


Lethal