Metareview (UK Edition) -- Metal Gear Solid 4 (PS3)

"rather than the game failing to earn them in the first place"
read the EDGE review, genius, and explain to us how MGS4 "failed to earn them" and Halo 3/ Super mario galaxy did. I for instance would be fine with a 7 review - I am not so atatched to the series - if this same site didnt fall for the "10" bandwagon when it come to two of the most overhyped, lame games of this gen.

I figured if I was reviewing games, they'd all start with a 100 and have points knocked off for various reasons.

You know, that's an interesting way of reviewing a game.

If I was reviewing a game I wouldn't start with a score and knock points off at all. The review is subjective its not based on some formula or method. "hmm those low res textures are probably worth 0.5 points, thats 9.5 oh and the AI was only worth 1.5 out of the allotted 2 AI points so that takes the score to 9". Play the game write about what you liked, write about what you disliked and give the score you feel best reflects the quality of the game.
If you think the game was a 10, fine. At least mention the things you disliked about it or the weaker points of the game.

Well put Comrade, that's exactly what I was trying to get across on page 1.

Games start at a 0 and work their way up, not the other way around.

taking points away makes sense if the game is hyped to 100. If you come to a game with absolute no predisposition - like finding an unmarked disk or something, the game needs to earn your love.

If you are all ready to love it, but it starts disappointing you, then you take points away mentally.

The score really should be related to the hype, not the quality of the game:

Portal - ready to love and loved.
Team Fortress - silly looking but loved.
Halo 3 - scared not to love but meh'd
Call of Duty 4 - unexpectedly loved

Colin, if you have read the Edge review I can't honestly see how they cold attach a score of anything higher than an 8 to it. I also can't believe that you are asking me to interpret another's review in order to justify the score they have given a game. I would ask why, but I'm guessing it's pointless.

It is largely noting that the game is a mixture of triumph and failure, inconsistent if you will, that it will appeal to MGS fans but leave others cold, that it is very good but not everything it could be. Indeed there are only a couple of overwhelmingly positive paragraphs throughout. Those are the reasons why it failed to earn a higher mark.

The Mario Galaxy review (Edge 183, Christmas 2007) is an overwhelmingly positive celebration of how brilliantly triumphant they thought the game was in every respect. They basically wanked all over it and could do little else but award it a 10.

I can't comment on Halo 3 as I don't have the issue at hand, what I can say is that I disagreed with the review at the time and would still do to this day.

Are you satisfied now?

You should also get over that irrational obsession you have with numbers which appear at the end of a block of text, they are essentially meaningless. If you can't derive what the reviewer is saying from the words and tone of the review then you should just stop reading them.

But seeing as how you like them so much I am going to score Metal Gear Solid 3 1/2 cardboard boxes out 5, or 87% (that's a 6 out of 10 BTW).

Reviewers sometimes don't know what they are doing. GTA 4 is not a 10, no game is, so why are they giving the game a 10. So many outlets gave it a 10, there had to be some incentives from rockstar.

If no game can be a 10 then why is there a number right up there? Considering games ratings are shifted up to the top end of the spectrum, not using 10 is stupid. GTA was a 10 for me. It had loads of issues but none of them distracted me from the gameplay enough to think anything other than "that's annoying". On the contrary, a 45 minute long cutscene (I don't know how long they are, haven't read any reviews) and a particular reviewer would rather be in on the action, then they are a big issue and it's obviously going to affect their opinion hugely.

Because..as I keep saying, a 10 does not mean a game is perfect. No game is. What it means is that it's so good that even with its fault, the good overshadows the bad.

It's business stoo. One dirty hand washes the other and somehow they both become clean in the process. Anyone with half a brain can piece together how that doesn't work and can see through the obvious transparencies, but we're mostly not dealing with people with half a brain now are we? Thus, business opts to push a little harder, get a little dirtier.
It all started with Nintendo Power. If that transparency wasn't obvious enough then here, let's add video game ad space to our magazine. Oh, still not transparent enough...well, how about free trips around the world press demo's, exclusive early interviews and previews and reviews? No? Well, let's see what they think up next?

One COULD view it as being a system where 10 (Or 100%) is a theoretical perfect score which cannot be achieved. Why is it there if it cannot be achieved? A simple place holder. A standard which cannot be fully met, but approached as games get closer and closer to being perfect in a reviewer's eyes....

just sayin...

Having 10/10 is fine, because of the granularity. Having 100/100 is not. That's not saying that it's as close to perfection as possible, it's saying that it's bloody perfect. And no game is perfect. See, 10/10 is fine because that's essentially 90-100, which many games fall into.

God damn it, I hit reply........

And I suppose all the movies that get 5/5 require a new scale to be made? Please... And how was Halo out in the last couple of months? Not to mention it didn't get loads of 10's like you seem to be saying.

Or you know, maybe(just maybe), he enjoyed those games more than MGS. I know it's hard to believe, but not everyone thinks MGS is the Bees knees. Just like not everyone thinks Halo, GTA, *input any high-profile game here* is awesome.

"I don't have to have played it yet to know this fact."
wow, just wow. So since you want it to be a system seller that it has to have a 9 or better.

Your approach, sir, is fair and balanced.

And if he was annoyed with them does that not make them a valid reason for giving it an 8?

ummm what? How is GTAIV the worst of the series? Not only does have a better story than the three of them(with Niko being a much more likable character than of the three games protaganists), but many of the gameplay mechanics(such as shooting and driving) are definitely much better than the original trilogy.

GTAIV is the ONLY GTA I've ever beaten. I've literally played them all. That says how much better GTA4 is over the others.

@Imitor

I have to agree with you there bud ... You would not see all these PS3 haters saying perfect 10's are being handed out left and right when their precious next mario or Gears 2 drops ... Then its well deserved ... The double standard on this site by the usual suspects is absurd ... If the guy thought the cut scenes were bad thats one thing ... But to say the game is worse because it has cut scenes is fucking idiotic ...

@Vegeeta

You see there pal that was his OPINION ... Much like this Edge review ... He does not have to clearly state why this GTA was the worst ... Its because he says so ... See how that works

Dammit..I meant 80

Its because these console zealots don't want the PS3 to have a good game ... If its on the Wii or 360 its well deserved ... If its on the PS3 its highly over rated and sucks ... The idiot gear on display is making me sick to my stomach

As a member of the network I'd like to thank you for your support during these dark times.

i've always assumed that they dont have to read them all. But they seem to read the early posts usually.

Xev, lol.