VaultNetwork.netVault Network Boards
Author Topic: Skyrim does not deserve a 95% on gamerankings [Locked]
Ashmaele  4 stars
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts: 1,809
Registered: 2002-1-15 08:30:50
80 played hours, still having a blast. I've never understood how video games are "graded" but it's one of the better games I've played and I would recommend it to anyone.

ETA: The god awful UI alone knocks it down to B status if I was handing out letter grades, though.

 

-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
Sin_of_Onin  4 stars
Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
Yukishiro1 posted:

Sin_of_Onin posted:

There are some games that eventually break your heart. Skyrim seems to be one of those.


There are other games that never even capture your interest. It is hard to distinguish between the two with a simple rating system.



Part of it is definitely that games that are fun for the first 10-15 hours get a ratings boost they don't deserve. No doubt about that. You see that in MMOs a lot too. Age of Conan got great reviews because Tortage was good, and most of the reviewers never bothered to spend enough time in the game to find out there was nothing to do in the second half of the game that wasn't awful or broken. Skyrim does benefit from that.


But it is not a 95/100 game even in those first 10-15 hours. How can an action rpg with uninspiring, wooden combat get a 95%? It's absurd.


The rating system has become meaningless because anything less than an 80 has become unthinkable for a major release.



The early buzz of this game was really strong. I don't think people generally shared your take on things.


There are also some things that get really really annoying after a certain amount of time. I had to stop playing Fallout because the combat was so annoying.

 

-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Bad UI, bad AI, wooden combat mechanics. There are a lot of good parts of the game too but there's no possible way anyone with a shred of credibility can look at Skyrim and say with a straight face it's one of the best games ever made, which is what a 95% average comes out to.
Thugoneous  4 stars
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts: 1,128
Registered: 2002-11-2 18:00:54
I think one reviewer was fired for giving Kane and Lynch a less than stellar review.

 

-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
GrilledCheez  4 stars
Title: The Lord's Balls
Posts: 1,060
Registered: 2006-3-22 11:06:32
Skyrim is an awesome game. Expectations are too high. Replayability and novelty shouldn't automatically get you an A+ either.

 

-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Nothing should automatically get you an A+. 90 has become the new 80. If an AAA budget game doesn't get a 90% average people consider it a failure these days.
Sin_of_Onin  4 stars
Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
I think you are missing the point of reviews. If they were all average (B) then how does that really help the customer?

 

-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Uh doesn't that sorta make my point? If any AAA release these days automatically gets an 80% just from being an AAA release how does that help? How is compressing the scale to realistically only 80-100 doing anyone any favors?


These days a 90% is pretty much expected and doesn't say much any more. \


An 80% used to be considered good. Now as you have demonstrated an 80% is considered average, and for an AAA title frankly it's considered a failure.
Sin_of_Onin  4 stars
Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
Yukishiro1 posted:

Uh doesn't that sorta make my point? If any AAA release these days automatically gets an 80% just from being an AAA release how does that help? How is compressing the scale to realistically only 80-100 doing anyone any favors?


These days a 90% is pretty much expected and doesn't say much any more. \


An 80% used to be considered good. Now as you have demonstrated an 80% is considered average, and for an AAA title frankly it's considered a failure.



But the reader is the one compressing the scale. It is basically Buy(A), maybe buy(B), only buy if you really like the concept(C), and don't buy(D). That is not going to change.

 

-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Well no. It is the reviewers compressing the scale. AAA developer titles never get anything less than an 80% these days. It used to be a good game would get mid 80s and any developer would be happy with that. These days if your game doesn't get an 85% apparently it's considered a failure and you don't get royalties.

VaultNetwork.net is an independently operated community forum and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or technically based on IGN, GameSpy, FilePlanet, GameStats, or the former IGN/GameSpy Vault Network.
References to VaultNetwork.net mean this site/domain. VNBoards-style presentation is a visual homage only. By using this site, you agree to the forum rules.