IGN Review

[The BiggD]

Originally Posted by Hoborg

This doesn't make any sense re: X360a review

Let's break it down

Audio 85
Visuals 85
Playability 80
Delivery 70
Achievements 30

Let's just assume achievements are not factored in the final score. Then the logical formula is 85 + 85 + 80 + 70 / 4 = 80

If we factor in the last category then we just add 30 and divide by 5 to find the average which totals = 70.

The review score is 75. That makes absolutely no sense. Where are these extra 5 points coming from?

I'm assuming they add or subtract a few points based of their own liking/disliking of the game. Because some games get uneven values, such as an 83 or 94, so I'm thinking they don't use an exact formula.

[xhunterrrr]

Originally Posted by Hoborg

This doesn't make any sense re: X360a review

Let's break it down

Audio 85
Visuals 85
Playability 80
Delivery 70
Achievements 30

Let's just assume achievements are not factored in the final score. Then the logical formula is 85 + 85 + 80 + 70 / 4 = 80

If we factor in the last category then we just add 30 and divide by 5 to find the average which totals = 70.

The review score is 75. That makes absolutely no sense. Where are these extra 5 points coming from?

I don't think they have said they average the scores together for a final score. IGN never did when they scored different categories.

[Hoborg]

Originally Posted by xhunterrrr

I don't think they have said they average the scores together for a final score. IGN never did when they scored different categories.

I believe IGN used to average their own sub-factors.

[xhunterrrr]

Originally Posted by Hoborg

I believe IGN used to average their own sub-factors.

They did not. And they made it clear they didn't with a small statement. I am trying to find it now.

EDIT: Well, since they have changed the way the score reviews, the FAQ about review scores has changed. You can go to older reviews where they used the 10 point scale and see that the overall score is not averaged.

[DOPE BOI]

Originally Posted by WalterWhite

Then I guess you're the guy I described. They rate the achievements because it's an achievement site and the achievement rating is listed in the final score breakdown area at the bottom but isn't factored into the final overall score of the game. It's not that difficult to comprehend. Here's the paragraph in question for you. There's a typo in the sentence but that's above my paygrade.

Collectible this, upgrade that, it’s pretty disastrous stuff in all honesty. Oh, and whoever’s idea it was to make a missable achievement a secret one… wow, that person really doesn’t understand the achievement system at all. Be warned, speak to the Endurance crew whenever possible so that there’s no icon above their head when you embark on the mission – a la the first Assassin’s Creed's Lucy-based achievement. You’ll thank me later. One of the worse lists I have seen in years. Plain and simple. It’s a good job we don’t factor the achievements rating into the final score!

Okay. I didnt see that sentence. Must have blurred in with all the text. thx

Still doesnt matter to me. I dont play for completion, so if the games good I will play and get what I get. This game is good 8.5. Now if you factor in Achievements and the fact that Multiplayer will take 42hrs to finish and it would take a huge hit.

[sticks117]

Originally Posted by WhiteWolfDamo

It is nice, and reassuring to see the reviews coming up early, I'm looking at you colonial marines, but non of them are overly detailed on things like mechanics, how xp works, is there a NG+ ect...

Gamespot review said you can explore the island after and its really fun to do so.

[Midnight Malice]

Originally Posted by Vindicator51

Well, i think it's because people are purchasing half a game to begin with. Since the MP in the game is tacked on, it means it suffered overall.

I was interested at E3, but i see nothing of interest now.

Quite the opposite in fact. If this game would have come out without the multiplayer, and was a 15 hour game, it would be complete, keeping it on par with the standard length with games of this type. However, adding multiplayer, tacked on or otherwise means you are getting MORE of a complete game, not half a game. What everyone assumes is that they cut the game short to add some sort of multiplayer (while sometimes this is true) it is a small minority of games that actually do this, and it is extremely funny when games don't, because most people cry out for some sort of multiplayer, but when a game that wouldn't normally need it does it, people bitch that it is tacked on, and complain that it is even there.

We all want long outstanding single player games, but the simple fact is, those games do not sell well when you compare them to games that focus more on multiplayer. Developers have to find ways to sell thier games, and the majority of people would not buy even a 30 hour campaign (which is very long by the standard) with little to no replay value, and since everyone says vote with your wallets, they look towards the games that sell well (generally shooters that focus on multiplayer) to find ways to generate the kind of revenue they want to see. Unfortunately that means less variety in the kinds of games we get.

Also, the fact that people take into account of what they will and will not play based on achievements is absurd. If it is a game you really want to play, look at the achievement list and then decide not to based solely off that... I understand not wanting to put an incomplete game on your card, but you don't HAVE to play it while signed into your profile. You can enjoy the campaign and then move on without having to grind out the rest of the achievements. I wish more people would be willing to do this, because I have seen so many times "I really wanted to play this until I saw the achievements" DUH!