View Poll Results: Does fun or design come first in regards to review scores?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Fun

    2 8.70%
  • Design

    0 0%
  • An equal mix of both

    16 69.57%
  • More fun but a bit of design

    4 17.39%
  • More design but a bit of fun

    1 4.35%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Your opinion on Game Review Scores...

  1. #1

    Default Your opinion on Game Review Scores...

    Well this in regards to scores but not in the usual scores are wrong topic.


    My question is do you think the amount of fun you had in a game should dictate the score, or should it's presentation/graphics/design decide it?


    For example let's say you had incredible fun with Raccoon City (haven't played it but I've seen everyone's reactions to it) would you give it a 10 because you couldn't have had any more reasonable amount of fun with it or would you give it a lower score because of it's (what I've heard) poor design/story/characters?


    What comes first in your opinion for game review scores?

    Fun?

    Or technical achievement/design?


    Thanks for any replies given. I'm a bit of a novice games reviewer so I'm wondering what everyone's opinion on this is...

  2. #2
    Techead

    Default

    I personaly think that there should be an equal mix of fun and design. That makes it soit is still fun while being intersting to play.

  3. #3

    Default

    None of these are mutually exclusive. An ugly game is inherently less fun than a good looking one simply due to the fact that it looks ugly. Similarly, a beautiful game with a god-awful story is also less fun than a game with a good story. I don't believe in giving games a numbered score, partially because a truly horrendous game manages to get 6.0, and every AAA game gets either a 9.5 or 10.0 nowadays, so the scoring is more just how much it costs to make the game.

    Truly, a game should be judged on an amalgamation of things, including plot and character development (if relevant, e.g. Tetris could ignore these), visuals (art style, character design, etc), and gameplay. The numbered score should reflect how much enjoyment a person can have by playing the game, but good design is PART of the game being fun. Lots of games with good plots and gameplay are ruined by poor design and graphics.

    Your question seems to be more accurately put as "do you believe gameplay or visuals to be more important to the enjoyment of a game?". If I had to pick one over the other, then "gameplay" comes before "visuals". If I cared more about visuals, I'd watch a movie.

  4. #4

    Default

    A poor design can make the game less fun in a lot of cases.
    Fun is the main point but without some good design it all just falls apart.

  5. #5
    Darkassassin

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Wazzle View Post
    A poor design can make the game less fun in a lot of cases.
    Fun is the main point but without some good design it all just falls apart.
    Agreed completely, they compliment each other. Look at Skyrim or any of the Elder Scrolls series, All of them had amazing design for their time, and all of them have had very good reviews because they are insanely fun RPGs. There are multiple other examples, but keep in mind the design factor has to be with the time period the game was released, you can't compare "Zelda: Ocorina of Time" (one of my favorite games of all time) which had amazing design and was a blast, but it was from the 90's. Therefore you can't judge the gameplay based on a more recent game. Sorry this is so long xD I'm a bit of a hardcore gamer and have been since birth.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Zephy View Post
    None of these are mutually exclusive. An ugly game is inherently less fun than a good looking one simply due to the fact that it looks ugly.
    I disagree. Graphics are nothing when it comes to how good a game is. If I had to rank which is more important, graphics would be at the bottom. I like my games to look good, but it's not important in the slightest.


    And review scores have changed. If it's anticipated, it's an instant 9.0+. If it's unknown, instant 7.0 and below. Back in the day, a 5-7 meant it was average. Today, a 7 means it's not worth playing. Every game gets a 9.0+ if people are excited for it. A 9.0+ should mean that the game is a masterpiece, and when every Elder Scrolls, Call of Duty, Zelda, Mario, and so on are all labeled masterpieces, there's a problem.

  7. #7
    Darkassassin

    Default

    Not every "anticipated game" gets a 9, i pay attention to IGN. IGN knows what they are talking about, and have only ever given away a 10 in all of their career. zelda ocorina of time was one of them. Anticipation of a game has nothing to do with how well it does, look at dead island for example, it was super hyped because it was a zombie RPG pretty much, then got just average scores.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Darkassassin View Post
    Anticipation of a game has nothing to do with how well it does, look at dead island for example, it was super hyped because it was a zombie RPG pretty much, then got just average scores.
    Skyrim and Mass Effect 3 are rated mediocre by a large part of the player base, but both of them still got a high score. Dead Island wasn't part of any series, nor was it developed by a big name company. Every Call of Duty game, regardless of how bad it is, will get a high score.

  9. #9
    Darkassassin

    Default

    Multiple holes in your therory, Mass effect 3 was an amazing game, people were just pissed off at the endings that they couldnt piece together that they were not infact the real endings. Skryim was also very widely liked and have only heard of a few people not liking it, and they are CoD fans who are just ALL ACTION FPS SHOOTERS!!!!!!! and don't understand RPG's in the least. And finally CoD, the bane of all gaming. It got a decent score from IGN but compared to battlefield 3 it didn't hold a candle, the hardcore gamers agreed and so did IGN. Only reason CoD got more votes over battlefield on spike's video game awards is because half of the people who voted for it were mindless middleschoolers who scream into the mic and only play shooters. CoD players are not hardcore gamers and i could rant on about this all day, but they simply have more numbers than the hardcore audience. Therefore IGN showed that just because CoD was more anticipated by non hardcore fans, battlefield was rated better, and IGN's hardcore gamer group agreed with them. If you dont believe me check out gametrailer's comparison of the two and how everyone voted that battlefield was the better of the games even though CoD had a wider fan base. Therefore it is very rash to say that all games are rated unfairly because of anticipation, IGN is a fair source of information without the screaming fan boys who don't know what an RTS or a MMORPG is.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by KuroCat View Post
    I disagree. Graphics are nothing when it comes to how good a game is. If I had to rank which is more important, graphics would be at the bottom. I like my games to look good, but it's not important in the slightest.
    You say they're at the bottom, which I agree with, but I don't agree they are nothing. Really good gameplay or story can redeem bad graphics for me, but on the other hand, really BAD graphics can push the game from mediocre, to just not liking it, so it must matter, on some level. Designers need to take things into account, like colour theory, in order for the game to be visually appealing, or there's almost no reason to buy the game, initially. You might not personally care what a game looks like, but the vast majority of people think that the looks matter.

    Case in point, my brother likes the gameplay for Tales games, but after trying it he said he'd never play it again, because the graphics are "too cartoony" and it ruins it for him. He would play it if it looked more like Final Fantasy.

    There are a few games that I don't play because I don't like what they look like. I don't like the character designs for Tales of Graces F, so I'm not bothering to play it. I prefer playing the Left 4 Dead maps on Left 4 Dead 2 because I prefer the blue filter in the first over the orange one in the second. I like Left 4 Dead 2, but the overall look of the levels definitely makes it less fun than the original, even if everything else is better.

    You might not avoid playing a game if you don't like the way it looks, but I'm sure you can think of a game that you found less fun solely because of something visual. Or, conversely, think of it as "that would have been better if this guy looked like this, instead", or something similar.

Similar Threads

  1. ACT scores
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-Apr-2009, 12:04

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.