A different way to judge games?

[Nolder]

Well I was just thinking about "game of the year" and how pretty much everyone that gives that award away will give it to a AAA title

Which makes sense, they have the most quality because they have the most funding behind them

The only other way in which we really judge games is by genre and if it's indie or not

 

So "Best game" "Best X game" and "Best game that wasn't made by a major studio"

 

What if instead we separated games into "weight classes" like they do in boxing?

 

So something like

 

$0-$59,000

 

$60,000-$299,000

 

$300,000-$999,000

 

$1,000,000-$5,999,000

 

$6,000,000+

 

Actually I think that may be a bad example of ranges but whatever you get the idea

So in those "Weight classes" you'll have Best game overall, Best X genre games, and we can really get rid of the whole indie concept altogether and lump them into the lower categories

 

What do you guys think?

[Red2111]

i think judging games based on genre is the best, as most games reguardless of console have the same original price point of $60's

[Nolder]

But it isn't fair to judge something like Starcraft 2 to FTL. Starcraft 2 probably took millions of dollars to make and had teams of people that worked on it. FTL was probably made for less than $100,000. That's like comparing an Olympic athlete to a kid in all stars in their little league. Both are good but when you compare them directly Starcraft/Olympic athlete will obviously win because they're just in a different class you know?

[SinisterDeath]

Who said Starcraft wins?

 

Why do you care so much what these reviewers think? And how they rate them?

 

Blizzard, and other Triple A game companies, pay companies, that review game, to review there game, and well. Why do you think the majortiy of all games released, score an average of 75-90%?

 

IS a book published by a multi-billion dollar company, automatically better, than a book published by someone on there own? Same goes for games. All that matters is what you think about the game, not what some game-reviewing smuck thinks of it.

[Nolder]

Who said Starcraft wins?

It has better graphics, better story, voice acting, multiplayer, map editor, better music...I could go on but what would be the point? It's really no contest.

I love Starcraft and I love FTL but Starcraft is a better game hands down. It's just not fair to compare them. ActivisionBlizzard is a huge company that can afford to have teams of people working on their games for months if not years. I don't even know who made FTL, I think it was like 3 guys or something. If it were compared to other games in it's own "weight class" it would have a chance of coming out on top IMO.

 

Why do you care so much what these reviewers think? And how they rate them?

I think it would help lower "weight class" games get the recognition they deserve instead of only hearing praise for AAA titles year after year.

 

Blizzard, and other Triple A game companies, pay companies, that review game, to review there game, and well. Why do you think the majortiy of all games released, score an average of 75-90%?

Well I dunno that that's entirely accurate but I'm sure it's close to the mark.

 

IS a book published by a multi-billion dollar company, automatically better, than a book published by someone on there own? Same goes for games. All that matters is what you think about the game, not what some game-reviewing smuck thinks of it.

Books are not comparable to games in this instance. Books are very rarely judged merely for how they look or how fun they are to discuss with others. Books do not have teams of people payed to work on them they are almost always a work of passion/art by one person.

[SinisterDeath]

It has better graphics, better story, voice acting, multiplayer, map editor, better music...I could go on but what would be the point? It's really no contest.

I love Starcraft and I love FTL but Starcraft is a better game hands down. It's just not fair to compare them. ActivisionBlizzard is a huge company that can afford to have teams of people working on their games for months if not years. I don't even know who made FTL, I think it was like 3 guys or something. If it were compared to other games in it's own "weight class" it would have a chance of coming out on top IMO.

Crysis has better acting, Better graphics, better animations. But that game sucked.

ITs about gameplay,and how much you like one over the other. Bracketting them by development costs is fine if thats how you want to rate video games as a whole.

 

I think it would help lower "weight class" games get the recognition they deserve instead of only hearing praise for AAA titles year after year.

Thats a magazine/website industry issue. And doing that.. Well. Think of it on D&D and taxes vs rich and poor.

Besides. I don't give to fiddles about what some website says  how good some game is. 9 out of 10 times, that game producer (EA) buys those praises and rewards.

 

 

Well I dunno that that's entirely accurate but I'm sure it's close to the mark.

Find a random gaming magazine, 9 out of 10 times, a video game will rate around 4 out of 5, or 80%+. You rarely see games that are 3 out of 5, or worse. (And those are games, that are so spectactularilly bad, that they can't in good concscious, regardless of how much money they've been getting to push that games-sales...)

 

 

 

Books are not comparable to games in this instance. Books are very rarely judged merely for how they look or how fun they are to discuss with others. Books do not have teams of people payed to work on them they are almost always a work of passion/art by one person.

Sure its compariable. Depending on the author, and the publishing company, really does tell how many of those copies get in the hands of reviewers, to be reviewed.

Imagine you wrote a book.

And your  publishing company, got Oprah to read it.

Now imagine that same book, self-published, and trying to get Oprah to read it.

 

Book & Video games  share one very comparable aspect with each other.

 

Marketting. And the more money you pump into making sure people know that your book exists, the more people will read it, and thusly, discuss it, and draw in other potential readers. (look at wot. Tens of thousands of fans of the series world wide.)

[Starrik]

But you turn it around, and look at phenomena like Minecraft. Games are so much less about the budget that goes into them than the gameplay and idea behind the game itself. An indie game on a low budget with a brilliant idea will always beat a written-to-formula high budget game.

[Nolder]

Minecraft is one of those anomalies that no one expected to happen or take off like it did. Even now people are still expecting to to go away and it defies those expectations. You can't use an example like that as it doesn't fit into the norm.

 

What about some other great indie games? Super Meat Boy, Binding of Issac, Braid. Those are all great titles but none of them came even close to beating out say a mario title. Great indie games will not always beat out a formulaic high budget game. Not even close.

[SinisterDeath]

Why care so much about sales?

500,000 sales does not a good game make.

[Nolder]

Yes it does. Any other way to judge a games value is subjective.

[SinisterDeath]

Yes it does. Any other way to judge a games value is subjective.

Nope.

It just means that 500,000 people don't know a good game.

 

Think of it like Mc Donalds.

 

McDonalds is not the best tasting hamburgers out there.

Infact. IMO they taste like Ass.

And for the same price, I can go to a genuine Burger Joint. (maybe a lil more.. like $2 more,With actual costumer service) For a burgger  that you'll actually enjoy, and actually tastes good.

 

But yet. McDonalds is a Billion Dollar Corporation. And its food tastes like Shit.

That burger joint, make maybe, $200-500K a year (give or take).

 

Does that make the Burger Joints food taste less good, because it has less sales?

No!

 

Sales just mean more yuppies that can't tell the difference (or don't care) between something that tastes like ass, and something that tastes like actual Beef.

 

Same for Video Games.

You have a game (Sins of a Solar Empire) Cost under $1m to make. (might be as little as $250k!) Yet. When that game orginally released.

It was the top selling PC game of that year. It beat out other Triple A video games (for the PC)

Infact. Not only that.

It had a much, much better profit margin. Becuase it took far less money, to recoup there costs.

 

Contrast this to Crysis.

That costs what.. 50 million? 150Milliion? To make.

And it barely covered 105% of the cost to make it in sales!

Reviews were medicore.

Story was meh

Graphics were out of this world.

 

Large Sale Numbers Make a Good Game Not.

A good Game, is a Good Game, Regardless of how much time and money went into producing it.

(Thats my Oppinon on that.)

 

Reviewing a game, based on its genre, is pretty much the standard for breaking down game reviews, and whether or not its good.

(aka, I wouldn't expect someone who's never played an RTS, and only FPS's like Halo,, to give a game like Civ 5 a fair review.)

Does it outshine other games in that genre? This year? Previous years? all time? has it Improved the genre? has it simplified and dumbed down the Genre? ect ect.

[SinisterDeath]

Also, just wanted to point out. That the Kickstarter Phenomon, has brought into the limelight, many video games, that would never be possible today, without funding that most publishers don't want to risk spending any money on. (because they want those huge mega sales, and don't care about the one, that gain 550% profit, but only sell less than 50k copies... Thats just bad buisness sense.) These games, have a very good posibility, of not only having high review mark, but actually selling a fairly large number of copies, and make a nice amount of profit out of it.

 

Something, most video games today, actually lack, is a great profit margin. They cost millions to make, houndreds of people involved. And by the time everythigns said and done. Alot of them, barely break even. Some gain a small chunk of profit, And the rare diamond in the ruff makes an insane amount of profit.

(COD, WoW, Minecraft, ect)

[Nolder]

 

Yes it does. Any other way to judge a games value is subjective.

Nope.

It just means that 500,000 people don't know a good game.

 

Think of it like Mc Donalds.

 

McDonalds is not the best tasting hamburgers out there.

Infact. IMO they taste like Ass.

Sorry, you lost me right there. 

[SinisterDeath]

 

 

Yes it does. Any other way to judge a games value is subjective.

Nope.

It just means that 500,000 people don't know a good game.

 

Think of it like Mc Donalds.

 

McDonalds is not the best tasting hamburgers out there.

Infact. IMO they taste like Ass.

Sorry, you lost me right there. 

Everyone has one. Or is that not valid enough?

[Nolder]

It's subjective and that's the problem. What you like or dislike has no bearing on whether something is quality or worthwhile. Everyone has different tastes.

[SinisterDeath]

It's subjective and that's the problem. What you like or dislike has no bearing on whether something is quality or worthwhile. Everyone has different tastes.

Same goes for you Nolder.

 

I think its best, to simply view each game individual, as its self, and within its genre.

Not by the money that went into its production, segregating games by how much monies were envolved in its creation.

 

To put it in other terms. The version you came up with. Is like a redistribution of ratings, taking away from the rich games and giving to the poor games.