Famitsu reviews five PS3 launch games

"you obviously haven't been queued up on a wow server. or been beaten down because of lag. magically matched p2p is faster.

you'll see that while playing resistance the first week."

Actually I have. Comparing WoW to a 40 player Resistance match works well for your argument, but try playing WoW over P2P and see how that works.

P2P is great for smaller games, but it ain't gonna well for anything over 16 players.

BTW, I am not going to be buying a PS3 and I don't think Resistance looks all that great. I'm just surprised that Sony is offering dedicated servers for certain games.

coward and 32.

i think you guys are mixing "grades" with "gpa." 2 completely different scoring systems.

gpa is the comparative one. grade is the measuring one.

m3mnoch.

@ 32_Footsteps,

"It's not often I'm surprised, but the amount of sheer wrong in some of the responses to me have managed it."

Logical fallacies (ad hominem attacks) are wrong responses too.

"P2P is great for smaller games, but it ain't gonna well for anything over 16 players."

uh. why?

are you saying the ps3 doesn't have the processing power left over to do it? are you saying shared server bandwidth covering 500,000 players is more available than the peak speed of 1 in 40 players?

so, let's say chances are that one of those 40 players is going to have 1 meg upload. that puts the throughput at about 25KB/s per player -- or, as i like to call it -- plenty.

now, scale that out to 500,000 or 5,000,000 players. that's between 12GB/s-120GB/s for equivalent space. (not counting latency, of course. p2p pwns that.) you're talking about wow-style throughput numbers there. have you seen the wow datacenter costs?

so. um. yeah -- it's perfectly applicable.

we're not talking about a datacenter that's just delivering non-latency dependent content. we're talking low latency requirements. we're talking about the shitstorm that would happen if sony tried to run a central data center for resistance -- much less ALL their games.

is it in japan only? or north america? is it broken up? if it's broken up, how will anyone play with anyone? do you have to be on the same servers?

no. there's a reason 360 games are p2p. there's a reason the old quake servers were basically the same architecture. it's very simple, quantifiable math.

so, math's not your strong suit, i'm guessing.

m3mnoch.

I've got it straight, m3mnoch. Note that I only talk about school grades as a measurement for the amount of material a student has learned.

As for Gamespot... I think they're a little inflated myself (and a bit too prone to being influenced by publishers), but they are much better than many other outlets. And they're proof that you can make a scoring system centered below 75% is workable.

White Rose Duelist-
"Your argument in favor of the school grading system makes no sense. First, if you believe most of what gets put out is total crap, then you are not paying attention"
You misread what I was saying. I said that most of what was being put out is of around the same quality, thus the very definition of average. Understand this concept---If everything that came out was a 10/10, then 10/10 would be average, and no longer exceptional, hence my quote “If everything were amazing, nothing would be.” My comment about crap games was in regards to truly crap games…they do occur occasionally, and they do get harshly criticized with very low scores. I simply brought that point up in case anyone was thinking that even crap games are scored highly, which if it is bad enough isn’t necessarily true.
“I think that video game reviewers are lacking in that grasp of the definition of "average" as is. If video games were rated the same way as everything else, there would be no confusion about what 50% meant. It really doesn't take much beyond second grade math to figure out the whole system with centering around 50%, and I for one didn't get percentage grades until long past that point.”
See my response to 32_Footsteps…

32_Footsteps-
If you somehow think that the absolute middle score isn't average, then YOU are the one that has little grasp of the definition of average. I'd like to think that we aren't marketing to the "complete moron" demographic, myself.

You also misinterpreted what I was saying and shot straight towards the pompous condescending response, which apparently works for you.
What I was TRYING to say here 32_Footsteps is if you or anyone, from retard to genius, looks at a 5/10 rating right now, KNOWING the state of the rating system, KNOWING that most reviews are graded on an 70% average basis; you and everyone else would come to the conclusion that the game has to suck.
Example, you check out some reviews of a game…most are about 70%. But then you see some rogue publication, trying to bring reform to an inflated rating system, slapping on a 50% and calling it average. You don’t know their agenda of reform, all you see is 50%. You would decide (before reading their review, I’m going on your gut reaction here!) they are being harsh or they are confused.

Get ‘er now? Good? Good!

"What I was TRYING to say here 32_Footsteps is if you or anyone, from retard to genius, looks at a 5/10 rating right now, KNOWING the state of the rating system, KNOWING that most reviews are graded on an 70% average basis; you and everyone else would come to the conclusion that the game has to suck."

This is the fun part of reading - I can find out whether or not that 70% actually sucks (which would imply that the average, mediocre game was actually worth more than 70%), or whether it was decent. I personally don't react until I know what the number actually means.

Moreover, I can judge by reading whether I'd come to the same conclusion based on their thoughts on certain aspects.

Basically, my experience with video game rating is sufficiently broad that my gut reaction to seeing a numerical score is to find out whether it's legit or inflated.

Negativecool - your reasoning is circular. Ratings are inflated because people expect them, but people expect them because ratings are inflated. Show me an entry point into the inflation that doesn't involve swag/ad revenue/etc.

"But then you see some rogue publication, trying to bring reform to an inflated rating system, slapping on a 50% and calling it average. You don’t know their agenda of reform, all you see is 50%. You would decide (before reading their review, I’m going on your gut reaction here!) they are being harsh or they are confused."

Interestingly, said publication is linked in both my and 32's names. Perhaps we should put out ratings policy somewhere more prominent, but Netjak uses the whole scale and centers around 5, and it seems to work just fine. Anyone who knows us (including the Joystiq bloggers) realizes that when we hand out a 9.x out of 10, we mean it. The ratings in my own personal reviews have gone from 0.7 to 9.8, with the relatively high mean of 5.77.

The idea of a review score is to compare. The idea of a school score is to determine individual competency. Consumerism by nature is comparison. By signifying everything 60 and below as a terrible game, we are not doing anyone any favors with the review.

Game reviews simply cannot be treated like school grade because they simply are not objective in nature. Does a 67% from a review site mean:

A - The game was measured and can be mathematically determined that the game is only 67% complete?

B - Does the 67% mean the game is better than 67% of all comparable games on the market?

C - A completely arbitrary and meaningless number.

A isn't the answer. Even measuring bugs and other QA problems would not be able to result in a solid number, and that is only from a technical standpoint. In most cases, the game is 100% complete, so that is out the window.

B doesn't make much sense either. How can a site average in the mid-70's then? Are all games on average better than 70% of the rest?


C is the only logical explanation. The 67% means absolutely nothing. The reason there is even a debate on review score inflation is because the numbers are arbitrary and meaningless. If a review score system is properly utilized, the site's scores should average around the 50% mark. That means if there are 10 games, then each game has a unique score of 1-10. That means that no matter how good those 10 games may be, another game in the bunch is better or worse.

The game scored 1 may, theoretically be a great game, but why should the consumer buy it over the one scored at 10? The company that made the 10 game clearly did a better job, so why didn't #1 do the same?

Review sites currently operate under an unlimited resource model. Since half or more titles rank at 70 or above on most sites, this says we should be buying half or more of all the games on the market. As gamers, this system does not do us any favors. Review sites are meant to be consumer-centric, and should give opinions of which titles should be purchased, and in which order, to best factor in differing income levels.

A merely competent game, nothing amazing yet nothing particularly bad in comparison to everything on the market, should be rated a 50%. Half the games are better, half the games are worse. 50% makes perfect sense as it means it is better than half the games on the market. Most review sites would register a 50% as plauge-worthy. If the game is pretty good, but you've played better, it may get a 60%. 60% on most sites still means the title is bad.

The current individual merit system is worthless to consumers. True, two similar games may get identical scores on individual merit of, say, 92%, but which one should I buy? If I knew the site treated the score as a percentile, then I would know it is a coin flipper. However, since I know review outlets don't do that, I can't tell which is a better purchase.

Review sites need to average close to 50%. If every game were reviewed, logic states that the average should be 50%. This 70-100 system with everything 69 and under being crap doesn't do me much good.

I have a question: If Resistance has "Standard FPS gameplay," then how did it attain a score of eight? "Excellent netplay" must be the reason, but Resistance only offers forty players online, right? The PC has been offering 64 players online since 2001, right? My guess is that this online has to be very good in order to bring the game out of the average and into the good scoring range. I bet this game would have recieved a seven out of ten if it had been on the 360. I just don't see how a game with standard FPS gameplay (Doom anyone?) and a good online can come out to a good score. I mean Halo came out in 2001 and it has above the standard FPS gameplay for 2006!

@ 49
I had an idea for a game I called Dreamworld very similar to what you descirbed.

lol i love how the threads get longer and longer...as if someone actually cared what you thought. is there really a point to posting a damn essay on here? besides proving that you have no life?

"I've got it straight, m3mnoch. Note that I only talk about school grades as a measurement for the amount of material a student has learned."

yup. i meant you were talking about grades. he's talking about gpa.

gpa is, by the way, statistically average. 2.0 (the average of 0 and 4) is a "c," right? c's are 70%.

so, by that theory, does that mean we should just convert all review scores to gpa? so, resistance would get 1 a and 4 bs. that puts it at a 3.2 gpa.

respectable, but not ivy league material.

m3mnoch.

@ dirtyd

It can help your writing skills just to get everything out. I think it was Jim Dale who said, "If you want to be a writer, just write out all the crap first, and than you may have something." If you write a rant in here, than you can write something better than that later, because your mind isn't on the rant, it's on whatever is important. Commprendre?

Another take (sorry if I'm repeating anyone, I skimmed some long replies):

Games that would score lower than 70% are often either overhauled and improved, or scrapped entirely. Some gems make it through, and I often delight in reading the train-wrecks that get the lowest scores in EGM.

Also, there are a lot of no name crappy PC games that no one even bothers to review.

"you obviously haven't been queued up on a wow server. or been beaten down because of lag. magically matched p2p is faster.

you'll see that while playing resistance the first week.

m3mnoch."

Bad comparison there M3mnoch..i've read some of your rants, they are amusing to say the least. Anywhoo the WoW servers are built to handle THOUSANDS of players NOT OJUST 8 players or 40, but THOSANDS. I bet if we put a p2p server like the xbox one up against one of WoWs servers, but with only what 16-32 players is the MAX for Xobx games ( im not sure on the max number of players a game on xbox can have, i'm guessing 16 not sure correct me here please.) whereas if you put ONLY 16-32 players on the WoW servers i can pretty much be guaranteed i wont 'lag' on the wow server if at all compared to the xbox p2p which lags NOW

Remember the ONLY time the WoW server lags is when the server is FULL! Also WoW is a MUCH bigger game in terms of landscapes, spells, character customization.

Also, although i support Sony (and Nintendo ), I too DON'T want the Xbox out of the picture. I say bring on the competition:)

but thanks again for another one of your amusing posts. Like reading the funies on the back of a newspaper.

Gah, I can't believe people actually *like* ridge racer. And I am not saying this out of spite of the keynote. I have played a few earlier versions of it, and jesus christ, the handling is ridiculus. It is like playing mario kart with the graphics of gran turismo.

White Rose Duelist/32_Footsteps/et alii

Although I do agree with everything you've all said, I feel I must play Devil’s advocate to make one last point before retire for the evening.

Can you all not agree that since we’ve all been to school, been graded on relatively the same scale through most of our childhood/young adult lives, that a rating system of 70% average is more intuitive to most? Would it not be more obvious that a game pulling a score of 95% is exceptional, 70% is just doing enough to get by, and

*cut off?*
and

(Cont. from last comment--- oh, less than signs cut off the rest..oops)
Less than 60% is just completely missing its mark… If everyone has been judged by this measurement of excellence shouldn’t it be more intuitive?..Anyway I typed this out a couple times before I realized I was cutting myself off so in short…
The idealist in me agrees with everyone that 50% should be the measure of mediocrity, but the prognostic side of me believes that changing the current rating system is just an inept attempt to defy the convention.

"Fantavision
Beautiful rendition of fireworks, especially when you get chains of many going off. Very good puzzle game with deeper gameplay than you expect at first glance.

Scores: 8, 7, 8, 8 (31/40)"

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

jojo.

"Bad comparison there M3mnoch..i've read some of your rants, they are amusing to say the least. Anywhoo the WoW servers are built to handle THOUSANDS of players NOT OJUST 8 players or 40, but THOSANDS."

huh?

my bad. when lebowsky was talking about sony hosting matches, i assumed it was ALL of the matches, not just one. duh! how stupid of me! sony only has to host one match of 40 people to accommodate everyone! yay!

seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

wow hosts hundreds of thousands of players. (granted kinda in the same game) sony would still have to host hundreds of thousands of players if there were hundreds of thousands of players playing online (in tens of thousands of matches) who bought resistance. they'd still have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SIMULTANEOUS CONNECTIONS.

instances, zones, etc. aside, it's still, relatively speaking, the same thing. you've got hundreds of thousands of disparate computers all making simultaneous connections to sony's datacenter pushing and pulling tons of latency dependent data.

thus -- it's a valid comparison.

what's the difference? wow necessarily needs all the players in the same game world, so, they HAVE to run the servers. whereas instanced gameplay (everything from oldschool doom to new school resistance) can be splintered up and hosted p2p. all added up, it's a similar amount of network traffic floating back and forth. p2p just allows for better connectivity and lower latency.

thanks for your useless input, tho.

m3mnoch.

All these comments talk about how beautiful they are(a la next gen) what about the GAME PLAY!

PWNED... sorry, I'll go take my own life now.

We all expect a number whenever it be on a 1-10 scale or a school-like percentage (or the odd letter grade) to be slapped on a review. The number system has become common place and naturally there's going to be potential abuse. We're all human and as such have biases, views, tastes, personalities and opinions unique to ourselves that taint perspective.

You strip away the inaccuracies and biases that form this widely used numbers game and you'll still find a review system that functions more than adequately on it's very basic premise. It doesn't need to be overhauled. The case is we really put too much emphasis on lone numbers. People like quick summaries and nothing cuts to the chase better than a number much like the use of a 'thumbs up' or a star rating. What is actually said and goes into making that number click is often more important than the actual number, but we feel comfort and familiarity in trivial numbers.

The use of the word 'average' is not something that can be singularly pegged into a lone standardized number either. You don't applaud a student for getting 50% on a test and neither should you spend time and money on a game when the review consensus is hovering at the 50% or below mark ... 50% in any scenario doesn't scream 'average'.

Oh god, Memmnoch, are you looking at yourself in the mirror and brushing your hair when you write all of that? You're really hittin' em those arrogant little stingers at the end, too!

The JPEG of Dorian Grey enough?

- Concerned Citiz3n

ha! dorian grey! that's awesome.

nah. i'm just a big bully.

/strokes his non-existent mustache

well. a bully who beats up on other bullies. i just loves me some gnarly discourse. and trolling trolls is my favorite hobby.

chances are, i haven't been brutal towards you (since you're actually witty, i'm pretty sure of it.) regardless of your "true identity." as long as you're smart and/or funny with your razzing, there's no need to hide. it's all in fun.

pretty much anyone with a star (and a few without since joystiq seems to have stopped scoring) makes solid, sensible comments that i agree with most of the time. there are exceptions -- epobirs is a bit whiny and jeff only thinks he knows what he's talking about. the netjak guys rock shit. they're my favorite commentators. laughingtarget especially.

mostly tho? i just like being argumentative and making people think.

but, don't let my roughshod exterior fool you. i'm really soft and sensitive on the inside.

m3mnoch.

p.s. the last statement zingers are my favorite. go back and look at a lot of my previous posts. they're typically punctuated like that.