This blog is focusing on how rushed reviews are being published by the media have affected games saying they are the perfect game
The most recent example has to be Halo Reach. A recent article has sprung up on N4g stating does Halo Reach Deserve 10 out of 10 http://n4g.com/news/605525/...
This blog isn’t about was Halo Reach a 10 out of 10 game because that is a matter of opinion but suggesting that the media push these reviews out to early and are neglecting major problems with games. Certain websites like IGN gave a perfect score so quickly it made me think this game must not have any problems. It wasn’t until I read more reviews, posted much later, that pointed out some problems. For instance Kotaku posted this http://kotaku.com/5635510/h...
It basically stats there are a lot of great things with Halo but the main problem was the Allies Ai being poor. These sort of issues have been neglected in these early reviews. The big thing is how that these issues slip in a review and how some parts of the media can give a perfect 10 with a problem that other games are rated down for.
This isn’t the only game to have this problem. For example GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption. GTA IV had loads of 10 out of 10 when the game had problems that only arise when playing the game for any length amount of time (like replay factor, missions being very similar, and more). RDR is a fantastic example of this issue. 20 of reviews stated it was a perfect 10 game. Only a quick search on Youtube for glitches in this game disproves this. I personally has experienced a couple of these glitches like poor graphical loading (i.e faces didn’t load properly). These are huge problems with a game. Any other game that took longer to review would have rated this much lower due to the amount of glitches and bugs in the game
The problem is that the media is review way too quickly and giving perfect 10s to easily. Halo Reach is not the best example because it is a good game and deserves defiantly around a 9 of what I have seen but what bugs me is that certain bugs/ gameplay problems are over looked so that a review can be published quickly so the web site gets more hits. I have experienced the problem more with RDR due to the amount of bugs in the game.
This has led me to not trust reviews that well which is a big problem. I now tend to read more reviews that are in the mid range because they tend to point out the problems with the games unlike the rushed 10 out of 10 reviews.
Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.
Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.
To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.
The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.
Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.
15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.
These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse
The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.
Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.
Your arguement is really flawed if you think 10/10 means "perfection". Even Legend of Zelda:OoT could be found to have flaws, it's how well it amounts to (or surpasses) other games in that genre. Things like glitches in RDR are really trivial to a reviewer if they find the overall experience to be one of the greatest they've had in sandbox games.
Can you point out which of the early reviews stated there weren't any flaws? I remember IGN US's review pointing the ally AI problems (when driving) a few days ago and a 10/10 review mentioning that as well.
A perfect score i.e. 10/10 does =/= perfect game. Let me link something I posted a few days ago.
"10/10 does not mean Perfect. Thats the misconception that many people take. All it means is, imo of course, Best we have seen so far of this type of game. Nothing is EVER perfect with one exception. That exception being art. If you view games as art then they sure as heck can be a 10/10 and it depends on what your judging. If you judge a game off of technical merits then things like glitches can come into play but if you judge a game off of it's artistic value i.e. SOTC or Heavy Rain then you have to use another scale. Sure the controls in HR aren't my personal fav but the choices, consequences and story drive it to be a 10/10 to me even though the voice acting is sub par and the American kids have french accents...
10/10 to me means "This game is worth 65$" 9/10 to me means "This game is worth 65$ if you love the type of game" 8/10 to me means "This game is great but you should be a fan and be prepared for a few things that might let you down such as game length, variety or story" 7/10 means "Be a fan and wait for a price drop"
Here let me just say that if games were rated on a money scale you would see it differently.
Lets say a site bases its reviews off of price. i.e. God of war costs 65$ new and the site says it is a "65$ out of 65$" because they believe it is worth every penny but not that it is "Perfect" Now a game like Halo Reach comes out and the reviewer may be a fan and see a lot more replay then an SP only game like GOW and say this game is a "80$ out of 65$ value" meaning that to them if the game came out at an 80$ price tag it would be worth it. To you this is beyond perfect right? How is this possible?
Now a game like Borderlands might be a great value for fans but for average joe it may be a "40$ out of 65$" review score. To me this means wait for it to drop to 40$ or get the GOTY edition.... Or a game like Batman AA may have left such an amazing impression on a reviewer that they believe its worth 100/65 dollars...
I guess my point is 10/10 does not mean perfect it's just a persons opinion on how good, how much value, how well designed, how well delivered and how well rounded a game is despite any other problems such as glitches, bugs, lack of online etc... "
"I now tend to read more reviews that are in the mid range because they tend to point out the problems with the games unlike the rushed 10 out of 10 reviews."
that's smart for any review of any product/service. except maybe the "rushed" part. like other commentors here I'm not sure I agree with you on that point. as Jinxstar mentioned we don't really know how long reviewers have had a game, do we?