Next-gen launch reviews projected

Not arguing the Cube didn't have good games...it had a handful of really nice exclusive titles...but I'd rather take that 3-5% loss and have a bigger selection of stuff.

Kind of surprised at the Dreamcast average.

That's not saying much.... N64 launched with only 2 games. 360 Launched with 17 or so.

Even the most pitiful system on the list averages a 70% for their launch titles... and yet, how many launch titles are worth playing?

This list just screams to me at how inflated video game scores really are.

MCSD, the site says that since N64 only launched with two titles, they averaged the scores of games through December 1996.

Pilotwings and Mario 64 would have an average way higher than 75.4%.

I can't believe the Dreamcast has that low of a score....I thought the launch for the DC had a lot of really good titles....Soul Calibur, Sonice Adventure, Hydro Thunder, NFL 2K, Power Stone, House Of The Dead 2....I mean, that's a pretty damn good launch right there.

And from what I remember of the GC launch, it was Rogue Squadron and Wave Race, and that's it....I thought the GC launch was one of the worst...

But footsteps is right....from these charts you can see how much game scores are inflated.

Am I the only person who can't remember a launch game for any of these systems that deserved an 80%?

Looking at the GameCube ratings, and comparing it to sales in the rest of its generation is just more proof that game review scores don't really affect sales at all, I guess.

"the mediocrity of 70 to 80% average"

Hah, this is awesome.

Seriously. The GC didn't have a killer app at launch (or ever, now that I think about it). It was, for me, the most disappointing console ever, and sadly it never got better.

I think some of the older consoles are suffering from re-review scores. Hard to believe the PSOne only averaged 70%. Didn't it have Warhawk and Battle Arena Toshinden? Those were hot back in the day. At the same time, how is the PS2 average so high? I don't remember Oni and Fantavision being on anyone's must-have list.

And the average after launch is .... ?
Does the current overall average of hte GameCube, Xbox, PS2, etc. go up or down over time from launch? Or remain about the same?

"More surprising is that Nintendo launches (N64 and GameCube) tend to fare slightly better on average than Sony launches (PS1, PS2)."
---------------------------------

I don't see how that's surprising. Nintendo consoles launch with strong first party titles and Sony consoles don't. Seems pretty obvious to me.

@ 8 Psyclerk,

Super Smash Bro's Melee was Gamecube's killer app (which was released pretty close to launch). And, as the console's life comes to an end, that game is still on sale for $45.95 Canadian at the EB Games near my place because it still sells and sells and sells.

Gamecube had a lot of really good titles, just like the Xbox and PS2. However, the system seriously lacked third party support and the overall selection of games was not there for the system. But GameCube had some very impressive titles, even beyond SSBM.

"Unsurprisingly, a 36% plurality of launch titles tend to be mired in the mediocrity of 70 to 80% average scores..."

Kyle, shhhhhh! You'll spoil IGN's whole thing they got goin' on with game comapnies.

I bought a Gamecube on launch. Worst purchase I ever made. I didnt like SSBM, too much for little kids for me and the final boss was a hand?! wtf. Everything they're saying about the wii they said about the gamecube. I wish nintendo would just develop games, that's what they're good at.

@Psyclerk & Ritz

I didn't care for SSBM. But Metroid Prime 1 & 2 definitely made the 'cube worth the purchase IMHO. Not to mention Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine, and Resident Evil 4. "Eternal Darkness" was fairly amusing as well.

For as cheap as the 'cube is now, even just this handful of games makes it worth it.

lol TB, you just said that you didn't like ssbm (one of the best games of the last generation) and you think they are good at making games? kiddie? i know more 6 year olds playing halo than ssbm? if you don't like it then your in the minority dude.

People say this time and time again but nobody listens. Sites like IGN do not assume the 5 is average. Their system is more similar to a school grading policy. 90's(A) is great, 80's (B) is good, 70's (C) is average, 60's (D) is passable, and anything under it is bad.
http://games.ign.com/ratings.html
Look what it says under 60's "Passable, but just barely. Games in this range have more blemishes than strengths" Magazines like Game Informer use the same system. Think about it, when somebody normally asks you what you thought of something on a scale of 1-10, and you thought it was OK, do you usually give it a 5 or a 7?

In fact so many places use a 7 as average system, that if a site or magazine started using a 5 as average system, it would screw up sites like Gamerankings and Metacritic. Everyone assumes a 5 as a bad score, so I'm sure over 90% of sites use the same system. Whenever Joystiq does a metacritic, they might often say something bad with games in the 6's and 7's. http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/20/metareview-justice-league-heroes/ So if every place uses the same system, is it really inflated if they all use it in the same way.

Nowadays, most things you would purchase in a store cost about three times as much as they did 30 years ago. So why aren't we all poor? Because we're making more money. Now if products went up in price and our salaries didn't then we'd be hit by "inflation." If IGN was giving higher reviews for games compared to other sites then they could be accused of inflation.

Game scores are meaningless. There have been poorly rated games I have loved and highly rated games I have hated. Stop looking at numbers and actually READ what the reviewer wrote! Ugg I swear to God! It's like you think you could go into an art museum and give the Mona Lisa an 8.5 out of 10.

Judd, it's not that we don't listen. It's just that said reasoning strikes me as completely moronic.

Using the equivalent of a school grading system would work fine only if you were grading the game purely on technical issues and you were grading them in a vacuum and not against other games.

But video games are graded against other games, and they're graded on very subjective terms (though technical issues do come up if they're egregiously bad, like games that frequently crash). It's the only logical fashion, really.

As for whether or not scores are inflated if everyone does it - yes, they are. You're basically trying to use the problem of the masses to justify the same problem in one particular individual. Just because alot of people do something doesn't make it right, or fair, or even sensible.

As for hurting Metacritic - who gives a flying rat's ass? If the scores got shifted, people would adjust accordingly, except maybe they'd put more stock in the scores that remain high.

Besides, it's not like Metacritic would go away - they'd probably just put up a note about a "great re-centering" and manage their business *exactly the same* as they always have. The only ones who would be hurt would be game manufacturers who depend on inflated scores for advertising purposes.

Although I think the Wii will be a massive hit, I doubt the review scores will reflect that on launch. Many PS3 games will no doubt review highly, but I can see a bunch of 50-60% scores for the Wii, due to developers' inexperience with the controllers and also due to their lack of depth.

Mass-market titles like Brain Training or Nintendogs didn't review that well in the games press, from what I remember. Once reviewers have played Gears of War or Resistance, I can't see them giving 90%+ scores to the likes of Wii Sports or Rayman Rabbids. It's kind of like asking a movie reviewer to review a soap opera.

So, average Wii launch scores - 65%?

Or am I insane?

Cool graph, if you turn it upside down you may see a similar graph showing the popularity of the consoles.

anyone notice sonys systems has the two lowest averages? Sonys systems never launch with killer app titles. I did purchase a psone a ps2 but have no intentions of getting a ps3 ever. I looked at the launch titles and 90% are coming out for 360 or are already out. Sony is going to have to come out with some games that true fans cannot live without trying. So far i dont see any title doing that for me.

I think a lot of the games coming out for the Wii will be mediocre. Initially many games will feel gimmicky and not have much to them. I think the Wii games will follow the same arc as the DS games. Many games will tack on the new controls or make very limited games until they get comfortable with the new control scheme.

32 footsteps -

It is pretty naive to think that just because a grading curve doesn't have 50% as the middle for either quality of a median of scores, that means that scores in that category don't tend to have a commonly shared meaning.

For example, in competitive national debate scoring, points are awarded to each speaker, and the range is 1-30 "speaker points." And it has just become community standard that 27 is considered "average", 27.5 good, 28 very good, 28.5 excellent, 29 outstanding, 29.5 you're the best in the country, and 30 is transcendent (almost doesn't happen). Any ranking system that is going to be fairly subjective will almost always result in a bunching up at the top of the curve - but that doesn't mean that with gaming scores, we don't recognize that a game that gets an average of 90% from every gaming site is much more likely to be an epic game than one averaging in the 75-80 range. I mean, mathematically it would be nice if the whole range was used, but there is something close to a community standard amongst rankers, and it doesn't ruin what the rankings are meant to do, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Another argument is that there is some accuracy to those rankings, if you consider the fact that there are games like Gods & Generals, or Barbie Ninja Game BOy Advance whateverthefuck....you don't see those kinds of games ranked often, since they're never on the front page of gamespot etc., but there are games that deserve (and do) recieve scores like 10-40. In comparison to that, even bland launch junk is worth 20 to 30 points higher.

(and the comparison of launch scores is interesting, but if you look at the top end on metacritic...the PS2 absolutely dominates every other console in terms of number of games that crack an average of 91, 92 plus. By a long shot. There's really no secret why that console is the best selling ever).

Rob your insane. Zelda alone will put the launch average way up. On top of which for a game to get a review score in the 60's it has to be just plain bad.

You are also forgetting that when reviews are written the novelty of a new control scheme hasn't had a chance to wear off yet. I would expect the exact opposite. Review scores to be inflated compared to the games test of time.

A perfect example of this will be the score Madden 07 recieves on the Wii. Already people are praising its new control scheme for breathing fresh air into the series. The review score will probably be inflated do to the novelty of a new control scheme and not the overall game mechanics or features.

I would expect this to happen to most if not all Wii games if the control scheme is implemented properly.

Oh and on top of which I can't see reviewers playing Zelda and giving games like Gears of War 90%+. Its like comparing Caviar to frozen hamburgers.

Do we really need 70 points worth of granularity to differentiate between bad games? I'd be more concerned with the relative quality of games rated 80-90, yet based on the standard system, there's 3x as much room to describe the difference between games that suck. If I were to start over again, if I couldn't do the sensible thing and make the middle of the scale average, I'd make 25% the break-even point so that we could get more information about games that might be worth purchasing.

The scoring system is what it is, and no amount of whining here is going to change it. That doesn't mean it's good, or makes any sense to people who aren't the sort to post on Joystiq. Metacritic handles game rankings completely differently than everything else simply because the ratings for video games are inflated, and they say so.

"It is pretty naive to think that just because a grading curve doesn't have 50% as the middle for either quality of a median of scores, that means that scores in that category don't tend to have a commonly shared meaning."

You're right. That would be naive. Good thing I don't believe it. Nor do I ever say that I do believe it.

Here's my biggest problem with having a median of around 75 on a scale of 0-100: it makes comparisons at the high end of the scale much more difficult to make.

If the game is a great game, pretty much everyone agrees that it's worth at least a 90 on the scale above. However, if the scale in question is centered around a 75, it's only 15 points above this average - is a 90 earth-shattering, or is it merely pretty good? And how much better is it than a game that got an 83 (which is halfway between the average and the top-end score)?

On the flip side, if you center things around a 50, then you can make much more clear delineations between worthwhile games. A 90 is a full 40 points above the median - it carries real weight. And you can cleanly delineate all the games that fall between that median and the start of the really good games.

If I can talk about my own ratings, yeah, they might look a bit harsh. But you know what? When I give out a 9 (since I rate on 0-10) or better, you know that's a damned good game worth your money. When I give out a 7, I'm not saying it's mediocre, I'm saying that it's worth the time and money to some but not others. Because I'm willing to center my scores at the actual center of my scale, it's easier to tell what I mean and give a bit of nuance into what I'm judging.

If you look at metacritic, there is a pretty clear picture of what the game reviews average out to be:

Anything 91, 92 or higher is an AMAZING game. Now it doesn't mean every single person is going to like it - if you hate skating games, you're not going to get much out of THPS2-4 no matter how highly that is scored.
85-90 is pretty great, and people who like that genre are almost always going to be really into that game.
80-85 just somewhat less so of the above
75-80 means well done, if you have extra money and time, or if you REALLY like that genre, than go for it.
70-74 will seem subpar to most
anything below a 70 is usually not worth checking out.

That's just as clear as the "harsher" scale you use (and since it is a community standard, it would seem to be much more so, in many ways).

Not that there aren't things worth criticizing, but gaming reviews actually work out a hell of a lot better than movie or music reviews for the most part. Games are really the medium where you get the most accurate value currently out of looking at an aggregate set of scores. So I wouldn't say there's any nuance or clarity lost, no (especially given accompanying text being a check on most of this).

I've seen a couple comments along the lines of "game reviews don't determine sales" and such, and yes, that is true, in part, but I think people are missing a point that I am reminded of concerning consoles like the GC.

The GC has a lot of really good games...it just doesnt have a lot of games in total. I havent done the research (oh and I will if need be) but I think that, according to ratings the GC likely has the highest proportion of highly rated titles versus crap and mediocre stuff. However, this isnt always a great thing for a system. The GC just doesnt have a very large library. Their strength is mostly first party, and that is where most of their really good scores come from, but their library is so small. Their launch was pretty good, despite not having the almost obligatory Mario game included, but they burnt out too quickly. Releases became more and more rare. If the GC has quality titles, they just didnt have longevity. In some ways, this adds great support to the GC and backwards compatible Wii, because there are some must-plays there. But, they didnt have enough to support the GC at the time.

I like to make an analogy with game libraries for last generation:
PS2 is tons of bright shiny gems strewn throughout even more piles of steaming crap... but you ignore the crap and plays the gems.
Xbox is a nice mix of gems and some crap, but the gems are mostly of the same color and cut (bad genre/game type diversity).
GC is a few gems, and a few peices of crap strewn about an otherwise empty room. The gems are real shiny, but there are only like 10 of the.

I love analogies

The unfortunate thing about the Wii launch reviews is that there are 10 or so games that will no doubt be slammed pretty hard by reviewers. Look at Avatar, Cars, Barnyard, and Spongebob (all launch titles from what I understand). Most of these (with perhaps the exception to Spongebob from what I understand) will be ports of past-gen releases with barely functional Wiimote support. Not to mention games like FarCry and Splinter Cell will likely be the same... we haven't even seen these games in motion yet, and launch is 3 weeks away!

Depending on your tastes, there are at least SIX launch games that are worth getting, in my opinion (let's say, Zelda, Excite Truck, Red Steel, Rayman, Monkey Ball, and Trauma Center... you could also throw in Elebits). While you might not buy some of these games due to genre preference, it's easy to see that the Wii's launch is going to have more A/AA titles than any launch in the past. I can't remember the last time it was even remotely reasonable to want SIX titles at launch! And this doesn't even count Wii Sports! Not to mention, WarioWare/Metroid/Mario coming out in the next few months!

My point is this. If Zelda gets a 10, and Barnyard gets a 5, you've effectively given each game a 7.5 on the normal scale. Next-gen Madden and NBA from EA could both score something like 8. There you go. PS3's launch lineup is already ahead in the averages, and the Wii has already used up Zelda.

These averages really don't mean much. Stinkers bring down the GOTY candidates. Give me Wii's launch lineup any day, regardless of average.

The reason, as I understand it, for having good games bunched together at the top is that the higher up you go the more the review has to do with personal preference than real tangible differences in quality. If one game gets a 9.6 and another gets 9.7 the reviewer probably didn't mean that the 9.6 game totally blows and that theres no way anyone would ever want to play it for even a second beacause it's total crap compared to the big 9.7 over here. In all likelyhood they want you to play both games because there both great and yeah if they had to pick one, which would be like choosing a favorite child, they would go with the 9.7 but you really should look into both if your forced to make that choice. If a game is worth buying that's really all I need to know and thats really all reviews are meant to do.