Thread 717147985

What categories are important when rating games in terms of quality?
>Gameplay
>Character design
>Setting
>Artstyle
>Music
Anything else? How heavily should each of those categories be weighted?

>Gameplay
The only important one. The rest is just icing on the cake.

>>717147985 (OP)
gameplay is like 50%
game balance is 30%
ui and performance the remaining 20%

>>717148102
Why does /v/ complain so much about "soul" if only gameplay matters?

>>717148267
cuz /v/ is a board full of casuals who pretend like they're hardcore

>>717147985 (OP)
You haven't played a game with shitty sound design if you think sound is unimportant

>>717148609
name 3

>>717148267
Because /v/ is overrun by dipshits now. If someone is whining about soul it's a safe bet they are one of those dipshits.

Music > Gameplay > Character Design >= Artstyle = Setting
>b-but Gameplay should always be first
Music that I can listen to on my free time is more valuable, fuck you.

>>717147985 (OP)
The scales didn't change, standards just got higher as more actually good things came out. Back then the overwhelming majority of games were shitty garbage shovelware that was only compared against other shitty shovelware.

>5 is average because it's in the middle of the scale
That's not what average means.

>>717148102
>ONLY MUH GAMEPLAY MATTERS!
is that why so many soulless europeans play aimlabs?

>>717147985 (OP)
You can't use a the same "weighting" for every game. Imagine this game

>10/10 gameplay
>10/10 character designs with the best character creator in the industry
>10/10 setting, perfectly captures what the game is about
>10/10 art style, non-gamers are compelled to hang the game's art on their walls
>0/10 music, literally the worst shit imaginable, makes EH REH seem like Mozart

What is the overall rating? Does your rating change if it is a singing game like Singstar/Karaoke Revolution?

>>717149275
Yes? Or no? I dunno. I don't care what steam charts say or what is popular or not. Gameplay is the only important one. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

>Read
>>717148974
>And then
>>717149275

Holy shit. You're right.

>>717149263
It is though.

>>717147985 (OP)
>implying the 90s were better
the game was rigged from the start

>1-10 scale instead of 1-5 scale
What's the point of needlessly complicating things?

>>717151034
Because shovelware require their own scale of terribleness.

6+ is playable
~5 is where the kusoge dwells

>>717151525
>~5 is where the kusoge dwells
if they're all unplayable then they're all the same score.

>>717147985 (OP)
uh.. everything you just mentioned

>>717151838
No anon, not all kusoge is the same, there is a major difference between a terrible game and a literal piece of digital excrement.

>>717152170
there is functionally no difference. neither are worth playing to begin with.

>>717151525
>require
Uhuh. If everything below 6 is unplayable kusoge, then what's the point of grading it if you're not recommending the game anyway? Again, needless complexity.

>>717152239
I don't want to be kicked full force in the balls. I also don't want to be shot in the balls. I can, by having higher brain functions that you apparently lack, however discern that one of those is way worse than the other.

>>717152239
>>717152284
Maybe someone out there is a masochist and likes to play garbage.

>>717152326
your analogy is stupid and the difference is still nill. the action the reader is called to take is the same: don't play this under any circumstances.

>>717148267
modern AAA game mechanics ARE soulless disintegrated sludge.

>>717152376
Indeed, there ARE weirdos out there that like to play shit games, but I doubt they really seek reviews like "this game is not just shit, it's poopy diarrhea shit after ten spicy burritos, 4/10." Someone calling the game shit would be more than enough for them.

>>717152660
Take AVGN for example, he plays shitty games, he is willing to go thought the process of beating or at least playing a shitty game, literal garbage, but even he can tell if a game is just shit or if it is putrid diarrhea, because big rigs might be shit, but then you have legendary sewer dwellers like that one ET game.

>>717147985 (OP)
story outweigh everything else
take this "awful" game for example, matrian gothic, but because the story is good, the overall rating is pretty high in my opinion, even though the gameplay is very problematic

>>717152376
yeah, me
bad games can still be fun

>>717147985 (OP)
Steam has had the correct approach for 20 years. Do you recommend playing the game or not? Nobody gives a shit about your subjective rating.
>>717148267
Because gameplaytards don't have a soul.

>>717153292
>even though the gameplay is very problematic
I never got to play it myself, but wasn't it just a RE clone?

>>717153371
Its like you took all the puzzles and concentrated them into one huge puzzle where the three characters you play as can't be in the same room ever

>>717147985 (OP)
>Game Mechanics
>Game Balance
>Level Design
>Controls
>Replayability
>Graphics
>Art Direction
>Animations
>Technical Performance
>Story
>Sound Effects
>Soundtrack
>Voice Acting
Obviously not all games have all of these but its a good baseline.

>>717147985 (OP)
Gameplay > Music > Art style > Everything else.
Give me an engaging game with a banger soundtrack and and solid visual direction and I'm in. I'm a sucker for games that go for a low-poly look, especially trying to emulate that PS1 look.
Digital Foundry has been a fucking cancer on gaming. No one that has has sex cares about fucking screen space reflections or the polygons used in the headlight it a car.

>>717153364
Steam has the correct approach, but very terrible execution. First, you can't even recommend (or not) the game without writing a review, so you only get probably about 1% of players that can be bothered to write one. And second, it doesn't emphasize enough that it's a binary choice, so you get a bunch of retards who write some horseshit with assumption that "I wish I could give it a neutral rating" has place in such system.

>>717147985 (OP)
writing, screen play, world design/building, sound design, level design. I don't know what texture art or design is technically called

style and setting is not something you would rather btw, kid. that's just personal preference

A binary
>recommend or don't recommend
is just as retarded as the out of 10 scale. It's too black and white, too fucking dichotomous. The reason why so many "retards" write that, is precisely because of that stupid system. A great game can come with so many caveats that or predatory monetization that a reviewer shouldn't recommend it anyway. Or perhaps there is a game that is decent, but needs a patch or two to iron out some performance issues. A simple "yeah, I recommend this," or "No, do not fucking buy this you piece of shit" just don't won't cut it in these instances.

An out of 5 scale is best. Or ideally, leaving out an asinine score altogether. Let the reader decide for themselves after reading the whole thing whether they wish to buy it or not. A rating or score at the end is too final, too conclusive, too "set-in-stone."
>Wow, this game got a 4/10 and not a 3/10? Damn, maybe I should consider checking it out then!"
-Said no one ever.

>>717154856
rate*

>>717153660
there it is, art design, art of everything in the game in general from trees to characters

>>717153371
it has very annoying mechanics, you have to use item boxes to share puzzle items between characters, enemies only stay dead for a bit and can attack your characters while off screen. there are very few safe spots to leave the characters unattended and are often inconvenient. ammo is kind of limited, hallways are narrow so it's hard to dodge the zombies.