Game Ratings

schkorpio · October 2007

<div class="IPBDescription">review scores wtf</div>This is something that has really been bothering me lately (well enough to have a rant about it anyway) I'm talking about official reviews, not user submitted ones (as they are usually hype or hate).

Most sites I've noticed score their games out of 10 right, yet most games that get reviewed get a score between 6 and 10 - so lately I've been wondering what are first 5 numbers (out of 10) for? I seems that no matter how bad a game is, it will score atleast a 6. And now matter how good a game is, if its hyped enough it will get a score between 9 and 9.5 (like it even matters .5 is just personal preference anyway)

Why don't they use the full spectrum of numbers they have made available to themselves! other wise just use a 5 star rating like for movies (no 1/2 scores either cause then it just makes it out of 10)

<span style="color:#FFFF00">1 star </span>= don't play
<span style="color:#FFFF00">2 stars </span>= wait for the bargin bin.
<span style="color:#FFFF00">3 stars </span>= medium, worth buying
<span style="color:#FFFF00">4 stars</span> = really good, but a few things let it down
<span style="color:#FFFF00">5 stars </span>= perfection (half life 2)

Another thing that bothers me is that a lot of games get reviewed by on their concept good or what the game could be if it had some patches. Rather they should actually review the game as it is, and on its gameplay.

basically what i'm getting at is that game reviewers just suck up to the publishers and dev's so that they can either make money or play more game early.

How about some objective reviews.

For example
Bioshock, it was really really awesome in some areas, namely the presentation gfx/sound and level design, yet the basic gameplay was pretty sad. To me that would not mean the game would be a 9.5 out of 10. Yes bioshock deserves 9.5 out of 10 for presentation, but then about 3 out of 10 for gameplay - shootnig the gun tommy gun was just like wtf is this pea shooter.

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Graphics</b></span>
Does the game look new and shiny? or are the GFX dated? is it still using the hl1 engine? animations & character movement

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Sound</b></span>
How good the game sounds? does it support surround sound? eax and other positional techniques?

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Art work </b></span>
How good the art style of the game is - e.g. ns has great looking aliens, let down by the dated engine.

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Originality / Concept</b></span>
has this been done before, yes it has, but why should I buy this except for new gfx

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Gameplay Mechanics </b>(this is worth double points as its the most important aspect]</span>
How well the game plays, are the teams balanced? how everything fits together , how well the concept has been pulled off, does it actually play like its meant to. I guess on consoles you could even put controls into here.

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Feel of the game </b></span>
are the weapons satisfying to shoot, do the vehicles drive well etc

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Quality </b></span>
does it need patching? are the menus good, how many options there are, does the server browser work. Does the game lag like crap on fast pc? are there any bugs?

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Fun Factor </b></span>
everything else aside - is it actually fun to play?

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Longevity/ Lifespan</b></span>
how long will the fun last, is there anything like new maps comming out to keep the fun going? Co-op modes etc

So for say bioshock you'd have

<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Graphics</b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">9</span>
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Sound</b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">10</span>
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Art work </b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">9</span>
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Originality / Concept</b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">5 </span>(its a consolised system shock 2 underwater)
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Gameplay Mechanics </b>x 2</span> <span style="color:#FF0000">4</span>
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Feel of the game </b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">3</span>
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Quality </b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">9</span> (excellent quality, no bugs, performed well for the
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Fun Factor </b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">4</span> (wasnt that fun for me afeter I got passed the shiny gfx, the concept of the story was good, but the stroy itself was well pretty lame. bioshock would probably be a better movie than a game)
<span style="color:#00BFFF"><b>Longevity/ Lifespan</b></span> <span style="color:#FF0000">6</span> (you can play it a few times as its got a few different ways to approach it)

that is a score of 63 out of a possible 100. Which to me is exactly what it should be - 6 or 6 .5 out of 10, and or even 3 out 5 stars.
Of course I'm pretty harsh but you can easily see that you'd be hard pressed to give bioshock anything above 7 or 8 out of 10. And yes i'm just using bioshock as an example, but this sort of thing goes for every single game thats been reviewed. Don't get me started on quake wars lol - how that turd got a near perfect score astounds me.

Drfuzzy · October 2007

I liked gamepro's old way of scoring: 5 star
1 for graphics
1 for gameplay
1 for controls
1 for fun factor
1 for sound

schkorpio · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Oct 4 2007, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I liked gamepro's old way of scoring: 5 star
1 for graphics
1 for gameplay
1 for controls
1 for fun factor
1 for sound</div>

Thats fine too, aslong as they add up <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

Like some games I remember getting like 5's and 6's for certian sections and then it still gets a 9 out of 10 at the end :S

Quaunaut · October 2007

The best review is one without a score or rating. Example:

<a href="http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=593" target="_blank">http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=593</a>
<a href="http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=594" target="_blank">http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=594</a>

schkorpio · October 2007

I partially agree with you there quaun, but say if I want look at the all of the xbox games that were considered high regard - it'd just be easy too look up anything that got a high score - without a score its a little harder to do

UltimaGecko · October 2007

Gamespy has a useless 5 star system (at least they did last time I went there) and I despise it, because it becomes absolutely useless. The lowest system I'm comfortable with is out of 10 (I prefer out of 100), because it provides a decent breadth for good games (7-8) and nigh-perfect games (9-10). The thing with 1-6 in most rating scales: if you factor in the graphics for a game and the gameplay and sound it's really hard to do everything so wrong that you score consistent zeroes.

Another big problem, is that a lot of places just don't review games that are that bad.

I'm going to use a German magazine for my examples (so don't look at me if the names are off or something), because I just haven't bought a magazine in the US in forever (although FHM inexplicably sends me stuff).

Anyway, there are a lot of games that recieve abysmally low scores, stop me if you've heard of these:
Redneck Kentucky: 33
Air Strike 2 - Gulf Thunder: 36
Steel Walker: 33
Code of Honor: 53
(here's a fun one) Rotlicht Tycoon 2 (that is: Redlight Tycoon 2): 9
Dawnspire: 57

For comparison:
Command and Conquer 3: 89
Civilization 4: 89

The magazine also chastizes Resident Evil 4 for the poor graphics port pre-patch, and it recieved a 71.

Maybe you just need to read reviews from somewhere else?

If that doesn't help you, think about it this way: how many people in your high school really recieved Fs? Probably only a handful of people. 60% is often a D-, so there you go. It's hard to fail that bad. I'm willing to grant that there's far too many As handed out in gaming reviews, but the poor reviews are solid, most games just aren't <i>that</i> bad. Would you give Bioshock a D? Because that's what you just did.

Although I like the 100-point system, there's really no discernable difference between 89 and 91 points, which is why a 10-point system is usually sufficient (or even a 20-point '9.5' system). The problem with '5 stars' is that it's far too broad. What if the review doesn't like it <i>that</i> much? What if they have a pet peeve and it drops a star, a 20% decrease is huge for something that can be reviewer whim.

DiscoZombie · October 2007

when I look at a review, it's a 3 step process. first I'll look at the number. if it's, like, 5, I may read the tagline but probably won't read any farther unless I'm curious about WHY the game is so bad. if it's like 7.5 or higher, I'll read the summary to see if it sounds like a game I'd be interested in, and if it does, I'll go ahead and read the full review.

so in short, I actually like the way most review sites do reviews lately. Gamespot is usually the one I read first - just personal preference. actually, first I look at the average review number on gamerankings.com just to make sure a review isn't artificially high or low... but anyway, I don't think there's a particular need to rank different aspects of a game and then average them. games are more than the sum of their parts. take dwarf fortress. it would get like a 1 for graphics, a 1 for sound, a 3 for control scheme, but I'm still playing that game to death =p gamespot just added a new 'merit' system, where rather than giving a number score to different aspects of a game, they give 'merits' (or demerits) for particularly good or bad game elements, so they can point out what works or doesn't work without it necessarily directly affecting the game's score.

semipsychotic · October 2007

Number systems in game reviews are dangerous; they have a tendency to replace critical thinking with convenience. This is something that Quaunaut and Disco are pointing toward, but I'll say it explicitly. Really, a number should serve one and only one purpose: summarize feelings for the game and indicate whether it's worth your time to read the review further.

Rating individual aspects of the game is especially silly, especially since everything must be taken in context. Graphics and sound combine to form much of the game's presentation, and neither are effective while the other suffers. The presentation itself is vitally important in the feel of the game; for example, a big and powerful weapon should <i>look</i> big and powerful and <i>sound</i> big and powerful so it <i>feels</i> big and powerful and players like to use it. Halo3 has some good examples, like the Spartan Laser, the Bruteshot, the Gravity Hammer, and most everything else in the game, and this is because Bungie took a lot of time to make sure they did it right. Compare them with the original Halo's weapons, and you might find that some of the weapons from the original are sorely disappointing to use, like the assault rifle. In the original, it sounds deep, looks blobby, and feels like shooting a turd cannon, so it received a makeover for Halo3 and now sounds somewhat pea-shooter-ish, looks sleek and pointed, and thus feels like shooting a high-rate-of-fire spike gun. The first feel was incoherent, unwieldy, and made the gun frustrating to get used to (it didn't match the rifle's reality as an inaccurate pebble launcher), but the second feel matches the assault rifle's game-affecting properties perfectly.

That was a bit off the beaten path, but that should still illustrate the point that rating individual aspects of the game will gloss over important relationships without--here's the key--an intelligent review to explain it. And if you're going to read an intelligent review written by a perceptive reviewer, why bother with the numbers?

Thansal · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 4 2007, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The best review is one without a score or rating. Example:

<a href="http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=593" target="_blank">http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=593</a>
<a href="http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=594" target="_blank">http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=594</a></div>

better example:
<a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation" target="_blank">Zero Punctuation</a>
btw, Halo 3 one is up, and last week was Peggle! (I am behind and need to watch them when I get home)

TychoCelchuuu · October 2007

I like the way PC Gamer and Maximum PC do it. They just review the game, recap the good bits and the bad bits, and stick a handy number on there. Doesn't turn a game into just a bunch of categories with numbers attached, but it still gives you a way to rank "top 10 RPGs" or something. Really, though, the number is useless unless you want to compare it to other games, because the real meat of a review is in the words. Simplifying it down to a number serves a purpose, but not the purpose you seem to be looking for. A number just can't encompass everything about a game the way you expect it to.

Mantrid · October 2007

I use Metacritic. Thus, I don't worry about these kinds of things.

schkorpio · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Oct 4 2007, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653953"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If that doesn't help you, think about it this way: how many people in your high school really recieved Fs? Probably only a handful of people. 60% is often a D-, so there you go. It's hard to fail that bad. I'm willing to grant that there's far too many As handed out in gaming reviews, but the poor reviews are solid, most games just aren't <i>that</i> bad. Would you give Bioshock a D? Because that's what you just did.</div>

thats the problem with all of the rating system in a lot of places/sites, which is another thing i was trying to get at in the original post (but probablly got lost in the rant).
At the moment it seems that no matter what score system you use - say 100 point system - 100-90 is an A, 80 is a B, 70 is a C, 60 is D, 50 E, and all below is an F .
So you still have the problem were the first 50 points don;t really mean anything.
Where as it should use the full sprectrum of numbers -

100-90 = A
80 -70 = B (<strike>systemshock2</strike> bioshock would be between c and b - maybe C+ or B-)
60 - 50 = C
40 - 30 = D
20 - 10 = E
10 - 0 = F

So even with bioshock giving a score of 65ish its still a respectable score - when using that kind of scoring system.
It just seems to me that a lot of review sits (i mainly just see whats posted on bluesnews) just stick to higher end of the score system because they like givingout big numbers to wow people over.

At school or any other form of training it does make sense to use the higher end more becuase, you either A know it really well, B know it better than average, C know it well enough to get by D,E,F, dont know it , or you are completely useless. Its completely different for games i reckon.

Also I agree with everyone that the con's and pro's is incredibly important - and review should always have words to back up the numbers.

TychoCelchuuu · October 2007

You need to stop using Bioshock as an example, because your opinion is wildy different from how most people feel. The gameplay was not "pretty sad." IMHO PC Gamer's/Maximum PC's/Gamespot's current rating system works fine.

schkorpio · October 2007

obviously i don't feel that it does - hence this topic <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

KungFuDiscoMonkey · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 4 2007, 08:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654145"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You need to stop using Bioshock as an example, because your opinion is wildy different from how most people feel.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(schkorpio @ Oct 4 2007, 09:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>obviously i don't feel that it does - hence this topic <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /></div>

What rating you feel Bioshock deserves might have been your initial reason for starting this thread, it is probably less relevant when discussing the rating systems itself. People will always disagree with the ratings games get from time to time.

MedHead · October 2007

My problem with current review scores is the semantics of the system. Using a quantifiable system, like numbers, stars, or any other "quantity out of quantity" scale leads to the over-analyzing of the score, and confusion on what it means for the game. Saying a game is "average" can often sound different to a reader than saying "five out of ten stars". Most games won't even consider a game if it's not "seven out of ten".

What of "ten out of ten", anyway? Is that perfection? Can a game be perfect? No - but then why have a "perfect" score? If there is a game that receives a "ten out of ten stars" in 1995, and a better game comes along in 1996, does the game from the previous year stop being "perfect"? If 10/10 isn't pefect, how does one get better than 10/10? How does one qualify a 10/10 from 1995 and a game that's even better in 1996 that receives a 10/10 score?

I like the movie review system that is employed by Ebert & Roeper, and another similar system by (please don't kill me) Chris Gore on G4TV. Ebert & Roeper give movies "Thumbs up" for good, and "Thumbs down" for bad. Chris Gore uses a system of "Pass/Rent/Buy" - or something along those lines - that merely states whether a movie is worthy of watching or not. Putting a number to an opinion is a difficult thing, and the more nebulous expression of satisfaction found in a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" means there is less debate and confusion over which game is 'better" than another.

For instance, in Gamespot, one game can get a 6.2, while another can get a 6.3. Would anyone notice a difference in the quality of the game with that one decimal point? What about a game that's a 9.9 and a 10? Will someone out there harrumph that he wasted his money because he didn't get that last decimal point of satisfaction out of his purchase (probably - but that's partly my point).

I think the "x out of y" system of reviewing products is broken. It places the priority on the number and not the content of the review itself. It's a system used widely on the Internet, and I think it caters to the "skimmers" of the Web - those who don't want to read reviews - and does a disservice to good products that have a few problems keeping them from greatness. I'm not saying censoring problems with a product, but rather putting them in a descriptive review with a simpler scoring system for those who don't want to read, rather than seemingly putting all the effort into getting the right decimal point in the score and then bashing out a two-hundred word review to go along with it.

UltimaGecko · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(schkorpio @ Oct 4 2007, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>thats the problem with all of the rating system in a lot of places/sites, which is another thing i was trying to get at in the original post (but probablly got lost in the rant).
At the moment it seems that no matter what score system you use - say 100 point system - 100-90 is an A, 80 is a B, 70 is a C, 60 is D, 50 E, and all below is an F .
So you still have the problem were the first 50 points don;t really mean anything.
Where as it should use the full sprectrum of numbers -

100-90 = A
80 -70 = B (<strike>systemshock2</strike> bioshock would be between c and b - maybe C+ or B-)
60 - 50 = C
40 - 30 = D
20 - 10 = E
10 - 0 = F

So even with bioshock giving a score of 65ish its still a respectable score - when using that kind of scoring system.
It just seems to me that a lot of review sits (i mainly just see whats posted on bluesnews) just stick to higher end of the score system because they like givingout big numbers to wow people over.

At school or any other form of training it does make sense to use the higher end more becuase, you either A know it really well, B know it better than average, C know it well enough to get by D,E,F, dont know it , or you are completely useless. Its completely different for games i reckon.

Also I agree with everyone that the con's and pro's is incredibly important - and review should always have words to back up the numbers.</div>

See, the problem there is reiterated with exactly what you said. 0-10 isn't 'F' because it's only 0 to 10 - and F is utter failure (as in: don't buy this). Take the example of a 5.0 in the German grading system if you really want a different example (you can do work and some generally good work and still get a failing 5); getting 50% still means you fail, but you did some work. Similarily, getting a 50 out of 100 means your game has some low class merits (it has graphics, and it has sound, it's playable - tha means, on whatever scale the reviewer is going with, it is rateable to some extend...maybe the game is fun for a bit but not worth buying or even renting, but if it falls in your lap..."meh, why not?").

You might want to argue that there's little point in giving a score if it's so low that it's a failure either way, but sometimes games are mediocre failures, sometimes they are abysmal failures (see my above listing: Rotlicht Tycoon 2 is a horrible, horrible game (not really the premise, just everything about it...I don't even know how it got a sequel, I played the first one for a laugh. Well, I say I played it, but I didn't so much play it as 'drudged through' its cumbersome controls and terrible gameplay), while Redneck Kentucky is playable, and apparently a reviewer in a different magazine thought it was okay for half an hour of fun).

These are still not games you'd want to buy, so they're failures, they're below the line of 'I could give it a shot' and they're down in 'wtf?' territory. Also check out what MedHead said as well; most Americans are attuned to the American grading system, and below 60 is generally considered just plain bad.

The greatest problem you should really be concerned with is the reviewer's objectivity. I read some of IGN's grammatical and incoherent nightmares, and I've noticed that they're almost always written by some Hilary Goldstein guy. When your reviewer has not target or favorite genre you've lost your objectivity. When the guy reviewing "Barbie's Beach Adventure" is reviewing "Kill-o-matic 5000" you've got a problem. Your reviewer needs to, at the very least, be familiar with and enjoy the genre of the game he's reviewing.

It's also best if more than one reviewer is used, since a more credible opinion is formed overall. This can easily be accomplished online by looking for alternate ratings at other sites. You can't really rate a game or a movie or a book or any other subjective matter with an ultimate score, it's always someone's opinion and you should easily realize this when reading reviews: they are suggestions, even guidelines, but the only person that's going to know what (if anything) you'll like is you.

DiscoZombie · October 2007

Giving a game a 10/10 doesn't mean the game is perfect - it means the game gets the reviewer's highest endorsement. If I gave Bioshock a 10/10, it means that, despite the game's flaws, I couldn't possibly recommend a game more highly than this game. Just like an A+ paper isn't perfect - it isn't so beautiful and amazingly written that you will ascend to heaven immediately upon reading it. It's just so good that the teacher just couldn't have possibly expected more from you.

Epidemic · October 2007

I agree, I like the 5 stars rating the best as well. But each reviewer has a different idea of what each rating mean, some would only reserve 10 for a movie if he had a spritual ascension while watching it.

I would classify the 5 stars as:

5) Really good
4) Good
3) Mediocre
2) Bad
1) Zomg, zeh googles do nothing.

It's very close to most grading systems as well, so it's tried and true <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />

MedHead · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Oct 5 2007, 12:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Giving a game a 10/10 doesn't mean the game is perfect - it means the game gets the reviewer's highest endorsement. If I gave Bioshock a 10/10, it means that, despite the game's flaws, I couldn't possibly recommend a game more highly than this game. Just like an A+ paper isn't perfect - it isn't so beautiful and amazingly written that you will ascend to heaven immediately upon reading it. It's just so good that the teacher just couldn't have possibly expected more from you.</div>
I'm not the only one who believes "10/10" equals perfect. The latest Games for Windows magazine contained a letter from the editor asking for understanding to readers for the 10/10 rating for Bioshock. He wanted to affirm that the score did not mean the game was perfect, and that he did admit the game had flaws. If such a letter is required, there is something to be said about the argument that the current rating system is flawed, or at least, its perception (a perception I believe is due to misuse).

TychoCelchuuu · October 2007

The only alternative is to get rid of numbers completely, which leaves you without an easy way to compare games/get lists of good games without reading every review, or having a number scale where no game can ever get a perfect score. The first route is obviously no use and the second route would have people saying that since no game EVER scores an 11/11 (the highest score is a 10, basically) the scale should just drop the useless number and only go up to 10.

PerfectionsFlaw · October 2007

This is off of that Halo 3 campaign Review by Chris Remo at Shacknews.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>In any case, most of Halo 3's visual impressiveness comes not from texture work or shaders but from the impressive sense of scale; its huge outdoor battles, which few shooters still do particularly well, continue to impress. And, as series aficionados know, its vehicular gameplay remains essentially the best in any shooter--the feeling of smashing a Warthog through ranks of enemies while a gunner mows them down remains practically unparalleled, as does stealing an enemy's Ghost and turning it on him.</div>

WTF!?!? Okay.. What I want is a thumbstick for steering and a button for acceleration and a seperate button for reverse. What did I get? Two thumbsticks. Who's ######ing idea was this? Why ignore a proven concept from the racing genre and substitute it for these flimsy ######ing thumbsticks? First vehicle in the game is the warthog, followed by the chopper. Shortly after I secured a chopper I went for a drive on a country road. Apparently this road was destroyed, like Tacoma, so.. I slow down, back up, floor it with the boosters at the last second and whammo! In the creek. Not because my timing was off, but because at the last second I confused one thumbstick for the other and turned when I should have accelerated... Sigh. The vehicle aspect of this game is probably the worst I've come across, ever.

Damn the Chief.
Follow the Freeman.

Aldaris · October 2007

Hardly their fault you fail at adapting to a different control method <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />

Xyth · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PerfectionsFlaw @ Oct 8 2007, 08:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>This is off of that Halo 3 campaign Review by Chris Remo at Shacknews.
WTF!?!? Okay.. What I want is a thumbstick for steering and a button for acceleration and a seperate button for reverse. What did I get? Two thumbsticks. Who's ######ing idea was this? Why ignore a proven concept from the racing genre and substitute it for these flimsy ######ing thumbsticks? First vehicle in the game is the warthog, followed by the chopper. Shortly after I secured a chopper I went for a drive on a country road. Apparently this road was destroyed, like Tacoma, so.. I slow down, back up, floor it with the boosters at the last second and whammo! In the creek. Not because my timing was off, but because at the last second I confused one thumbstick for the other and turned when I should have accelerated... Sigh. The vehicle aspect of this game is probably the worst I've come across, ever.

Damn the Chief.
Follow the Freeman.</div>

You are the first person to ever say this... Your fingers are on the joysticks anyway, why make the person move them around whenever they want to hop into a vehicle?

PerfectionsFlaw · October 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ Oct 8 2007, 10:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654669"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Hardly their fault you fail at adapting to a different control method <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /></div>

I adapted later on, that doesn't mean I liked it. I just don't like change when the method that is currently in use works just fine and is quite familiar. This is why I quit my last job, engineers felt I had to adapt to their new method.

Game Ratings

Comments