I really disagree with your opinion on mother 3 being better than Earthbound. I know it's a sequel, but it often felt like they were trying to do something different or original. They failed at this task tremendously. A lot of their music was completely ripped off of Earthbound, and then they made poor versions of those songs and sounds. I say poor as in, my opinion is that they aren't nearly as good as the original versions. In addition, the story line was -horrible-. Absolutely horrible, boxes with farts in them, the return of Porky and the idea that they were in a tiny pseudo civilization are a small number of examples of really poorly done things in mother 3. Something that really irritated me also was the aim to try to and do a quentin tarantino style story flow. Pulp fiction, this game is not.
Earthbound was something of an amazing masterpiece whos music is even something that you can listen to and cherish. Mother 3 was little more than a deformed clone who needed another 6 months in the pot and a new set of cloners. I could go on about things that bothered me about mother 3, but I won't. The game is really lacking in so many ways, but of all the ways it failed, the storyline was the greatest failure.
I love this game, but you really hit the nail on the head with this review. I find myself reluctant to replay it just because I don't want to go through the slow start. I don't think the game really gets going until after you gain full control of your shapeshifting. Still, I think it has the best final boss battle out of any of the Zelda games and, for my money, it ranks just behind LTTP as the second best game in the franchise.
I shelved the game for a few weeks after playing the first couple of hours. One of the slowest starts to a high-profile game ever.
For laughs, rename Link "you dick." I usually go with "Dude" but "you dick" resulted in quite a few humorous moments.
funny page. FUNNY GAME!
I guess I'll not be using your reviews to decide my purchases in the future. ;)
Actually, even within those bounds, I've found that as long as the reviewer recognizes the same things in the game as I do, I can decide if I'll like the game or not based on the review, regardless of whether their assessment is positive or negative. To be honest, I can read your review and tell that I might like the game even though you didn't, which is, to me, indicative of a solid review. In similar cases, I have read reviews of games that the reviewer loved, and because they did a really good job of describing the aspects of the game, I knew that I would not like it despite how much they did.
Reminds me of a movie reviewer in my old home town newspaper. It was a smaller town and only had 1 movie reviewer in the paper (this was before online review sites). This guy and I were polar opposites. I knew...........KNEW......that if he disliked a movie, I would like it and vice versa. I hated the guy, but loved his reviews because they were so helpful, in their own bizarre way. Now that I think about it, this "relationship" was probably somewhat foundational in my taste for video games. Ugg, I hate pop psychology, especially when it's right. Anyway, keep up the good work!
Yeah, it's clear that we played the same game and found the same strengths and weaknesses, the only difference is we have different priorities and/or expectations. That's why I think it's important to find a critic that shares your views when using reviews to trigger your purchase intent.
Reading your review and re-reading mine, they are very close in a lot of respects. But the end result was positive for me and negative for you. It's like we both agree on what the game is and isn't, but those things worked for me. This is the kind of comparison and review I find interesting.
Having finished the game now, I can't say I really enjoyed it. The story and presentation are definitely the game's strong point, and even those have their ups and downs. The final battle really emphasized the game's strengths and weaknesses to me: it was half an hour of button-mashing that ran at ten frames per second and was incredibly hard to tell what was going on...but at least it kind of looked cool.
Nice review. When I did the full review of this a while back, I was curious to hear what someone here might think of the game. It sounds like you aren't enjoying it as much as I did. You do a great job of pointing out the weaknesses, which definitely popped up in the first hour.
So lots of great topics here both in the article and comments, just thought I would defend my use of the 1-10 range again. I did write this up a few months ago and it is still valid in my mind: http://firsthour.net/scores
Basically, I'm very numerically oriented, I like ranking things, ordering them, etc. and scores of 1-10 make that very easy. The scores aren't so unbelievable defined like IGN or Gamespot with 7.9's or whatever, but a reasonable abstraction of my total thoughts. My main problem is that I don't play enough bad games to average out the scale. I have fully intended from the start to use all 10 numbers of the scale, but since I'm not paid to do this, part of me still demands I play games that I know I would enjoy in the first place.
Anyways, I'm fine with reading any scoring system as long as it is reasonable, be it letter grades, stars, EPIC WIN, whatever.
Also, for the record, I've given out scores of 2, 3, and 4 :p
Oh, and don't complain that my scale doesn't have a real middle, the middle is 5, I just haven't found a game that deserves a zero yet!
"I'm not saying 5-star systems are bad, they work fine too and offer immediate concrete and easy-to-understand results. A little more accuracy never hurt things though."
I totally see what you're saying, but for me personally, I would look for the additional accuracy in the text of the review. Accuracy without context and comparison isn't of much use.
But yeah, again, great writeup and ensuing discussion. :)
I think this is an awesome site, with great people (who also happen to be quite talented) and lots of unique content. I'm proud to be among you, even if, currently at incredibly limited capacity. Way to go Greg and everyone.
1-5 feels the same to you because the current scoring is broken where all low scores are pretty much all equally bad, so you'd still have that idea in your mind. If 5 is average, it becomes much easier to designate between below average, bad, and just terrible.
And I'm not sure, but it isn't that hard for me to think of decimal ratings. At least single decimals, not sure if could go to hundredths or thousandths lol. It certainly would make it more difficult to convert the score into words if you're thinking that way; but if you're just thinking relative numbers it can make sense.
Also it could be argued that the American school letter grade system is generally fairly broken and has many of its own problems (including inflation), although I didn't feel like getting into that (despite how it's a good example of the concept).
I'm not saying 5-star systems are bad, they work fine too and offer immediate concrete and easy-to-understand results. A little more accuracy never hurt things though.
I wouldn't summarize those categories with a score, it's just more to talk about them since each can legitimately make-or-break a game for a buyer, based on their personal preferences.
Such a dichotomy could be a problem for someone focused on style, and thus would be stated as such.
This celebration deserves Party Boy.
I've really been wanting to continue this game, but was afraid to because of how badly it went the first time. I might actually give it another go now.
options menu, turn auto save on. retreat when recharging command points. dodge when enemy goes red, barrage/normal attack when enemy green/yellow.
your missing out on a great game.
My thoughts on the subject are kind of a mish mash.
1. I don't think we need scores at all.
2. If we Must have them, I'm all about stars. A 5 star system seems fine to me. If you only have a 4 or 5 star system, aggregate sites become less interesting, which is fine since I think they are a net negative for the industry.
3. The current scoring system REALLY only has 6 possible scores if you think about it.
1-5 is all the same to me. Then we have 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. I generally completely ignore decimals when I read a review. So someone gives a game a 7.8? Really? It's absurd.
Also, keep in mind, the 100 point scale is more or less based on the letter grade system. So averages SHOULD be in the 70s, since that would be a C letter grade. 90s being an A and anything below 60 is simply a (F)ail.
As far as scales of scores, I feel 1up really has the right idea, using letter grades instead of numbers. I don't necessarily know how well this works for international readers, but in the US it's as near unskewed as I've seen.
I don't like the idea of lumping graphics and sound together as style. There are a number of games with a large gap between the two, having technically proficient but uninspired graphics but a fantastic soundtrack, such as Halo. When one is stylistically void but the other is a masterpiece, how can you rate them with a single score?
I also forgot to include a note on longevity. Longevity is not just say, the length of a single-player game or the time it takes to get to an end or finish all the optional dungeons. That means something, but longevity is more the time that the player can stay interested through continual self-improvement or interesting gameplay/story additions (or whatever else the devs can use to keep things fresh). I don't consider a game with a 100 hour 1000 floor near-identical dungeon grind to have very much in terms of longevity.
Yeah the actual score range is difficult and I haven't really thought about that too much. Hard to exactly say since the current inflated system almost requires those decimals near the top to have any separation at all... Right now my current thought is that 0-10 with decimals, 0-10 integer and 1-5 would all be fine. But yes, a 5-point system would be easier to understand but it would also reduce the precision of aggregate and comparative scoring. I think Greg's scoring system makes decent sense as far as adjectives go: http://firsthour.net/scores (although he doesn't have a proper integer midpoint :P)
I agree with most of what you say and I'd be happy with all of the changes you propose, but I've got my own take on improvements and ideals...
Score Inflation: I think that's a tougher nut to crack than you seem to. I agree that having a 7 average is essentially making 6 and below the "no buy zone" for 99.9% of readers, hence making the majority of the scale irrelevant. But I don't think simply moving the average to 5 is the right solution. Even without tenths being thrown into the mix, that's still ten different ratings that can be assigned to a game...and it's hard to come up with even TEN scaled adjectives that you could use to describe the quality of an experience. I like the five-star system that the user-contributed site Backloggery uses (check out my list of games at http://www.backloggery.com/games.php?user=victorvonplugman).
1 = Bad, 2 = Decent, 3 = Good, 4 = Great, 5 = Outstanding
A five point system is easy to understand, offers an obvious average point, and even seems less damning of lower scores: a 2/5 just seems like less of a slap in the face than a 4/10 does to me, especially when the 2/5 means "decent." Because really, how many "Bad" scores do we need? Certainly not six of them like in the current 10 point system.
Text vs. Score: If I had my way, scores would be gone altogether. I try to give an easily-noticed and concrete text verdict at the end of my reviews (i.e. "if you're looking for _________, this is at least worth a rental") and, though I've only written a few full reviews here, I never mention any scores in the text and have only a Verdict at the end of it, where people naturally scroll down to when looking for a score. I still include the score in the info box, though, because if I feel like people would ask questions if I didn't.
Categories: I agree completely. We've come to the point where "graphics," a term that tended to have a technical tone in years past, is essentially irrelevant as almost all games at least look very good. I tend to go overboard in my reviews with Video, Audio, Story, Gameplay, Challenge, Uniqueness, Pacing, Longevity, Value, Fun Factor, Boxart, Instruction Manual Grammar, Disc Shininess, and a final Verdict, but I'd rather include a sentence for each very specific category than simplify things into four or five vague scores. That said, if I had to limit myself to four, I'd go with the ones you proposed.
Aggregate sites: What I'd like to see is a single review site where four or five reviewers of different gaming tastes each give their take on every game. Maybe A loves narrative/style, B loves mainstream action/racing, C is a competitive fighter/shooter, D plays casually, E likes cerebral puzzle/strategy, and each would obviously have their own perspective on the game. Obviously this would require five people to play each game (not necessarily the WHOLE game), but it would also let readers find which reviewer(s) they identify with and weight each opinion accordingly. And if all five reviewers gave the game a thumb's up, then it would obviously be a crowd-pleaser instead of a niche hit.
But yeah, great article and hopefully we get a good discussion out of this.
I must've missed the part where he said the game was hard... and it must written in white as well. He said the game is only hard to tolerate, and I fully agree. His story reflects mine... I played it, was enjoying it somewhat for a bit, gradually got annoyed by its work-like repetitive structure (and terrible damn music), tried to keep pushing trying to find what everyone loves so much about it.... ended up losing my mind before games end (watched ending(s) on youtube, which was good, but still melted game with a lighter), but rather than hating jRPG's, I ended up hating "the internet" (you) for lying to me and I still do to this day. Childish? Maybe, but its worked out for me.
If Obsidian had a better track record of actually finishing their games, I'd be a bit more hopeful. KOTOR 2 was a complete mess of glitches...though admittedly, they actually ended up being pretty fun: I got to massacre an entire cave full of hallucinations before I got stuck in an endless conversation loop in one case. I've heard Neverwinter Nights 2 and Alpha Protocol are similarly full of technical bugs. On the other hand, the games tend to have good stories, and Alpha Protocol's narrative structure regarding choice and consequence is apparently top notch.
I'm not sure how I feel about having Chrono Trigger remade in the age of Metal Gear Solid and Mass Effect, though. If there's ever been a succinctly-written RPG, it's Chrono Trigger, and nowadays it seems developers love to bloat stories with tons of excessive text and VA. I'd hate to spend an hour in Lucca's childhood accident scene navigating through dialogue wheels. I think it COULD work, but I can't see the game's tone and charm translating well to the third dimension in the modern RPG climate, and I'd expect more than a few crazy hitches to hamper the fun if Obsidian were in charge.
This particular article makes the game seem like a drag, for the most part. But it's a story - you need to be patient to find out the ending. And you need to be tolerant of the flaws in translation. It may be lacking in action, but it's like a thriller/mystery, and you have to understand the depth of the game's meaning. (Meaning?)