![e9741fcee12e49c5756306065ff2dff6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KUgGXwh.jpg "e9741fcee12e49c5756306065ff2dff6[1].jpg")
Since most video game reviews are crap, I've been working on a formula that you can use to adjust scores so that they're more accurate. So far, I'm thinking:
Nintendo game: Add 10 points
Sony game: Subtract 10 points
Western indie game: Subtract 15 points
Weebshit game: If on a mainstream site like Gamespot, add 10-20 points depending on how assblasted the reviewer is about muhsoregynee. If reviewed by a user with an anime icon, subtract 10-20 points
Sonic game: Add 10 points
What do you think? What other categories should I make?
>>336321810
>Yu-Gi-Oh! game that does something different
Add 20 points.
>>336321810
i didn't read your dumb thread OP, just tell me who the cute demon girl in the image is so i can go make a cum to her
number review scores are arbitrary and meaningless
>New IP
Add 20 points.
slavshit: add 20 points
>>336321973I legitimately enjoyed Wheelie Breakers
Post more curvy semen demons.
>>336322053
Pretty sure its just an original and not from anything
>>336322183
that's a damn shame. thanks for the reply, i'll be taking my leave now since now i'm horned
>>336321810
But let's explain, once and for all, the problem with the percentile and decimal rating scales. Let's first of all note that scales out of ten with decimal points (i.e. 7.5/10 and the like) are still percentile scales, and scales out of four or five stars which include half stars (used mostly by film reviewers and film reviewer wannabes) are still decimal scales -- these are just silly tricks to fool the feebleminded. The only tenable rating scheme is the one out of three (favorable/ambivalent/unfavorable) I mentioned in the beginning, which is the only one that occurs to man by nature. That's how people respond when asked their opinion on pretty much anything -- no one goes "hmmm, 76,379 out of 100,000" when asked whether they liked a certain film. At most one could expand the scale by adding two more gradations: "highly favorable" and "highly unfavorable" -- but no more than that. Adding any more will always be humbug, because a person is not able to quantify his sentiments to a greater degree: we are human beings after all, not machines -- our value judgements are diffuse, uncertain, fluctuating. What is the difference between a 7 and an 8 game? Can anyone spell it out in human words? Let alone between a 72 and a 73!
The greatest drawback of these retarded rating schemes, however, is that they induce in the reviewer the delusion that what he is rating against is perfection. In the natural rating scales out of 3 or 5, nobody would suppose that the highest mark is reserved for "perfect" works, but the moment you move to a decimal or percentile scale people begin hallucinating about "perfect 10s" and "perfect 100s". You only have to observe the reaction of, say, the British gaming scene (rllmuk, NTSC-uk and the like) whenever Edge magazine gives out a "perfect 10" to realize the negative consequences of this inane delusion. There's no difference between a 9 and a 10 you fuckin' imbeciles!
I don't get it.
![bc8e4371ac65d7ae700fe157a9825230[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/XUT1s21.png "bc8e4371ac65d7ae700fe157a9825230[1].png")
>>336322183
>>336322053
It's a cute Koakuma.
>>336321810Thicker
>>336322253
All those 9s the Edge morons give out are also "perfect 9s", if not in fact MORE perfect than the 10s. The 9s (and the 8s, and the 7s -- not to mention the 6s, which I will shortly mention!) are usually the more ambitious, more innovative games, which might perhaps have one or two (easily disregarded) minor problems that in the eyes of the Edge pedants keep them from "perfection", while the 10s may be less ambitious games which are however more polished, lacking these "imperfections". And since, as long as you are pedantic enough, ALL games have "imperfections", you end up randomly giving out 10s and 100s once every few years just so that no one can accuse you of... pedantry. This leads to some hilarious results, one of the most notable of which being that Edge magazine, the world's most respected, pseudo-high-brow videogame publication, gave the original Grand Theft Auto III a 6 on release, essentially advising readers to not bother with it. NOT PERFECT ENOUGH FOR THEM I GUESS LOL! LONG LIVE CONKER'S BAD FUR DAY!
To recap: Perfection is an empty concept -- a mere word, because there will always be the chance that a "more perfect" work may be produced at some future time (not to mention discovered in the past!) -- and where will your "original perfect" work be then, eh? So a rating of 3/3 or 5/5 implies no claims of perfection; such ratings merely signify that -- as things stand at this point in time, and given his gaming background -- the reviewer is strongly recommending the work in question. Who knows how things will stand in a thousand year's time? To require that a rating should be valid until the end of the universe (which is what the term "perfect" implies) is unfathomably idiotic -- so let's leave it to the idiots then.
>Nintendo add 10 points
Nah nigga.
>>336322324
One point remains to be touched on, and it's indeed, as one would expect, since I left it for the end, the subtlest and most delicate one. We must realize the difference between a review and a critique. The dictionaries are of no use here because they regard the terms as mostly interchangeable -- and nor are they mistaken: in the grand scheme of things they indeed are. Yet at this point, for reasons I will explain at a later date, we are obliged to make at least a provisional distinction. By "review" we should refer to a critical essay which attempts to place a specific work within a hierarchy whose construction is always a work in progress. Such essays must necessarily confine themselves within the scope of the hierarchy under construction, with any references to greater issues being off-topic and undesirable, because they do not in any way contribute to the hierarchy's construction. Such essays, as we have seen, should also always come with ratings, especially if they are produced in great numbers and with any degree of regularity -- as they must in order to better contribute to the construction of the hierarchy.
A critique, on the other hand, while still described, like the review, as a "critical essay", does not confine itself within a specific medium, nor does it bother with constructing hierarchies, but proceeds to place the work within a larger framework -- indeed almost the largest: that of human culture and civilization (the largest would be that of the universe, and there are indeed such ambitious critiques: we call them "philosophical critiques"). -- And it would of course be ludicrous to suggest that such essays should come with ratings. That is why, for example, George Orwell's most famous book "reviews" (some of which are themselves almost of book-length) do not come with ratings: because they aren't book reviews.
>>336322425
Now in videogames, to get back to our subject, "reviews" on them do not equal in scope Orwell's most extensive book critiques, and with good reason. To do that they would have to relate the significance of the games to the world outside of them, to place the game -- no longer in the context of its genre or that of videogames as a whole, but in that of culture and human civilization. But this is a decisive jump, a jump which Orwell and other literary critics were not obliged to make, since the novels they critiqued were always already placed within that context. A novel, you see, a work of narrative fiction, always refers back to the culture which produced it, and this is especially true of the significant novels (also called "philosophical novels") which serious critics are mostly concerned with. But videogames are nothing like that. The "story" or the "visuals" or the "music" or the "atmosphere", which the pseudo-intellectual gamers become so laughably enraptured with, are never ultimately valid objects of critique, since they can be easily changed without significantly altering the essence of the game. These are secondary, incidental aspects, which the pseudo-intellectuals in their ignorance and stupidity elevate to aspects of primary importance. When these secondary aspects are disregarded what then remains is a system of rules which erect and constitute a reality -- a reality which short-circuits the existing one and substitutes itself for it. How then, to relate the new reality to the old one? The old one has been abolished -- there is nothing to say for it -- except perhaps "Good-bye, you won't be missed!" The very act of game reviewing, of critically examining a videogame so as to place it within a hierarchy of videogames, presupposes that one has no interest in reality.
>>336322493
Critiquing a specific game, therefore, or a genre or series or philosophy of game design, in the sense that we defined the term "critique" above, would be childish -- it would be a mistake that only a child would make, a child simply playing with words whose meaning he can't even begin to comprehend. For the only way to marry videogames and the concept of "critique" is to undertake a critique of videogames -- and that, as things currently stand, no one other than me is capable of doing.
Oh and, by the way, for reference, here are the rating guidelines I believe in personally:
***** Highly recommended
**** Recommended
*** Good, but has been done before, and much better
** Playable, but without much merit
* LOL
>>336321810
Reviewers already add 10 points to Nintendo games.
>>336321810
>sonic games: add 10 points
This
>>336321810
More like
Nintendo game: Subtract 20 points for outdated design
Sony game: Subtract 40 points for making a goddamned movie
Western indie game: Subtract 50 points for being a high school project that some bum cashed in
Weebshit game: Disregard completely since I am not an anime watching homosexual failure neet
Sonic game: Disregard as I am not a furry
>>336321810
>Nintendo game: Add 10 points
>I bought a Wii U and I'm not afraid to admit it
>>336321810
damn
this is pretty autistic I must say.
Unless its actually shit, Nintendo games always get high scores. Even if theyre shit they'll get better scores than the deserve like Sticker Star.
No one gives nintendo stuff lower than 5 even if its bad cause nintendo
review scores are arbitrary and pointless
Just read/watch the review and you'll know what that reviewer thought and if you dont agree with that reviewers tastes then dont watch their reviews cause they wont be helpful to you. Only revieWs ive ever needed are Gametrailers/Easy Allies and I always close the video before the score cause I dont need that shit I already know if its good or bad
>>336324007
It depends on the reviewer. Nintendo games aren't exactly Gamespot's things, and Gamespot reviews of Nintendo games are always lower.
>>336321810
T H I C C
H
I
C
C
>>336324007
Nintendo tends to either get rated too highly, or not highly enough. They're stuck around the 70-85 range.
>>336324305
Pretty sure Gamespots review of tropical freeze was hilariously bad.
Like the dude thought some of the level gimmicks are literally impossible to react too bad.
>>336321810
>nintenyearold
>shit taste in porn
I'm not even surprised
>Site covered in ads for the game
Subtract 20 points.I wanted to say 50, but thought that might be too harsh.
>>336324572
>literal semen demons
>shit taste
Fucking plebian.
>>336324007
Tropical Freeze on Gamespot and Paper Jam on IGN got retardedly bad reviews. There's been an obvious Nintendo bias going around since 2012 or so.
>>336325062
H-he's not dead. He's just hiding from the cops again...
>>336324964
The linework is boring and the coloring is laughable
>>336324365
>>336321810
Fat girls shouldn't be able to wear swimsuits! They need to lose weight and earn the right!
>>336325275
fuck off ireland. Fat girls are made for sex.
>>336325240
>>336325275
D U B L I N
U
B
L
I
N
>>336321810
>Sonic game: Add 10 points
post disregarded
