Couple things...first, they were first impressions...Im entitled to give my first thoughts on the game...which were far from impressive. I expected graphics that would blow any other racer out of the water. They didnt. Ive literally spent a couple hours on both Forza and GT5 today...and every time I go back to Forza, I notice crisper graphics (while racing, not with replays)...also, the framerate with Forza is consistently very high. I have had a handful of instances of major framerate drop with GT5. You shouldnt get your panties in a bunch just because Im giving an opinion of a game that you are in love with. Its not a bad game, never said it was...but its safe to say that its not the once in a lifetime racer people hoped it would be. Forza 3 is right up there with it. Out of curiosity, how many hours have you put into Forza 3?
No, didnt miss the point...because you quoted my IGN score, followed with a previous comment I had made about an IGN review...as if all I was counting on was the IGN review, which wasnt the case at all. Game rankings is a compilation of every review site...it takes the scores of all ratings and creates an average. Therefore, even though a few reviewers might have different opinions, when you have the average of 20+ review sites, then that should give a good estimate of what kind of game you're dealing with.
uh huh..keep going. http://us.playstation.com/publictrophy/index.htm?onlinename=rezdawg Zuma must be a fun game huh? Name me one forum that is better than neogaf when it comes to gaming discussions.
Name me one forum that's more obnoxious, pretentious, steals more credits and has less actual substance than gaf. I considered registering for gaf when I was in college, read half the registration page, laughed and didn't even bother. Anyways no point derailing this, the one thing gaf does best is thinking it's more than what it really is. Still haven't gotten GT5 yet, this is actually a pretty busy time. With all the sales going on, it's a great time to catch up on older games you missed out.
Actually, that was just me trying to be clever in saying "Don't put much stock into IGN reviews." Just figured I'd use your words instead of mine. The main point of my post was that review scores from these places are practically worthless, especially when being the only factor in determining if a game is good, if it met expectations, is GOTY, etc. That last part is true only if the following is true: 1. The reviews themselves are reliable. 2. Each reviewer uses a similar rating system. (possibly more, but those stand out to me) As I pointed out earlier, 1 is pretty much not true (nothing to do with differing opinions either). And even if 1 was true, there's still going to be some issues with sites like Gamerankings simply due to each reviewer having different standards for their review scores. A 7 might be average at one place, while another hands out 9s like they're candy. Some reviewers don't even use a standard rating system, instead using something like I mentioned earlier or not even giving any kind of rating (though Gamerankings/Metacritic usually assign a score anyway). You can still use sites like Gamerankings to get a general idea of how good a game is (or, perhaps it is more accurate to say how well it was received). I use it all the time for things like that. But I stick to very broad ranges because of the "error" involved. If a game is around 85 or higher, probably a good chance I'll enjoy it. If it is lower (but say no lower than ~70), I may have to check out a demo or something and see if its flaws bother me. Lower than 70, the game probably sucks and I'll avoid it (though still some exceptions). The problem is I usually see people going crazy about very small differences in scores. "I'll only play games that are rated 90 or better." Or "Wow, this game is a huge disappointment because it is at 88 instead of 92." If PD didn't screw up load times, and maybe a few other minor issues, I wouldn't doubt it if scores averaged around the lows 90s (may get there anyway, depending on the rest of the reviews). Would fixing those issues really make a BIG difference in "meeting expectations" vs "total disappointment"?
I expected the graphics to be a huge step forward from Forza. All the pictures that were shown from GT5 were shots that weren't from actual in-game racing...I agree that those looked spectacular...and much better than the same shots from Forza 3. The thought was that the actual in-game racing would be just as impressive. Forza has great gameplay and is an exceptional simulation racer...therefore, when looking forward to GT5, I was not looking for something that simulated racing better...or something that was very in depth with customization of vehicles...I already had that in Forza 3. What I wanted, and what many expected, were incredible graphics. It didn't matter that I had played the game for 1 minute or for 25 hours...the graphics didnt blow me away while I was racing. And for that reason, I cant say that the 5-6 years of development were worth it. That's where the disappointment comes in.
I came in here trying to figure out what GT5 was like, and all I got was some nerdy GT5/Forza debate.
That's fine. And definitely a legitimate reason to be disappointed in the game (well...sort of I guess). Just don't be disappointed because IGN gave it 8.5 or that the average score is 87 or whatever. It could have gotten those scores while having graphics not thought possible from even a PS4 (and consistent visuals too!). Stuff like that just bugs me. I cringe pretty much anytime someone quotes a review score (and little else) in threads like this. I almost brought this up in the CoD thread when reviews scores were being mentioned, but I got busy and forgot about it. Probably better that I didn't make an even bigger mess in that thread anyway. All that said, I still think GT5 gameplay graphics look better than Forza 3...ignoring wildy inconsistent visuals anyway (as I mentioned earlier, GT5 may even look quite a bit worse sometimes...though I think Forza 3 sometimes has similar problems). Wasn't just basing that on replays or photomode. Plenty of gameplay videos from previous video game shows, which didn't even have all the latest features. But I won't really get into this much, especially since I haven't played either game really (didn't even play GT5P, the demo...though i guess I did play that free GT thing from a while back). Just based on a few videos/screens of each. Actually, if I had my way, we'd be debating the correct way to use Gamerankings.
For anyone questioning the issue I have with graphics, Im not making it up to just hate on the game...From 1up: http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?pager.offset=1&cId=3182562&p=
Reviews in video games work the same as anywhere else; there is no consensus scoring system for music, movies, books, etc. There's nothing wrong with using reviews to help lead you to your purchase or with aggregate sites helping to give a picture of how a game is received. It's the same in every other medium, though I've noticed gamers seem to get much more desperate to eliminate the system altogether, which is silly.
Thats exactly how I feel. If I see a bunch of reviewers crapping on a game, Im not going to go out and buy it to see for myself. However, if I see a game get a lot of praise, then I'll be much more likely to buy it and test it out. This is what happened with Demon's Souls...I hadnt even heard about the game...then I saw something around a 90 on gamerankings...I read a bunch of reviews and I thought it was worth a purchase. Turned out to be my game of the year for 2009. Reviews are meant to give you an idea of how a game plays...when you read 10 reviews, you get a sense of what the game is all about. Sure, looking at 1 review might not give you a realistic picture...but when a bunch of people can point to the same positives or negatives, chances are that they are correct in their assertions.
Hey Rezdawg, I saw these videos and thought of you, you awesome troll you. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRE9PlJesn8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRE9PlJesn8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kcuz-gdzSuM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kcuz-gdzSuM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NdQIkyrSjl0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NdQIkyrSjl0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Those graphics are sooo good and those physics...oh my. Best racing game for sure.
How exactly am I trolling? Ive mentioned that Im going to enjoy this game and that Im going to play the hell out of it. How exactly is that trolling? Am I only supposed to discuss what is amazing about the game? It would be trolling if I didnt own the game and didnt plan on playing it...However, I got it on release day and I will put in well over 100 hours of time into it. And Forza was a great racing game...Im sure if you wait a few days, similar GT videos will come out as well. You never answered the question...how many hours have you put into Forza 3?
I guess this is more based on my experience than anything, so it might be wrong. But games seem MUCH more reliant on review scores than other mediums. In recent years, sites like RottenTomatoes have certainly put a bigger emphasis on reviews. But it never really seemed like they mattered that much. Certainly overall positive/negative impressions were good to know (i.e, thumbs up/down), but I rarely really paid much attention to the RT score of movies I watched. Even then, wouldn't be unusual to see a lot of movies with scores <50%, and yet I still enjoyed them. Also didn't see too many people refusing to watch any movie that doesn't score at least a 90% (though maybe they're out there). Reviews are a factor, but more often than not, you make your decision based on clips you've seen or just general info you know about the movie (e.g., directed by Darren Aronofsky, based on LotR, starring Will Ferrel, etc). A bit similar to other mediums (e.g., buy a song because you hear part/all of it before, not because it "reviewed" well). I guess gamers don't really have that luxury. Can't really figure out if you'll like a game with a simple trailer or anything like that. So I guess reviews started becoming more important, unlike other mediums IMO (again, based on my experience). Demos are starting to become more the norm though, and that might be a good way to lessen the reliance on review scores. I'd rather just play the game myself than listen to what someone else said. I certainly don't think the system should be eliminated. As I already said, I use reviews as well. I just don't go all crazy with the review scores, just as I don't with movies. I'd prefer a Rottentomatoes for games actually. Instead of knowing the the average rating for a game, I'd rather just know what % of people liked it and thought it was "fresh." That kind of helps get rid of some of the discrepancies with various review systems. Hopefully get reviewers to drop all the crazy scales and move to something simpler. Maybe even drop ratings altogether. Just looked a few random movie reviews, and most actually didn't have a score from what I could tell, just text. Very few game reviewers do that AFAIK. This is more or less what I was suggesting gamers to do. Use a few reviews to become familiar with the games that are out there (maybe check out games scoring 80+ or whatever). Read reviews (the text, not the scores), impressions, check out videos/demos, etc. Based on that (and not likely the Gameranking score), you'll decide if the game is "good" enough for you to buy (or decide it is a disappointment). Don't buy/avoid a game based solely on the score, especially if it is just from one reviewer. What bothered me in this thread was the comparison of IGN ratings for Forza vs GT, and the GT5 score being seen as a disappointment. Not something like "IGN says that graphics aren't as good as Forza at times." Who cares about the ratings, especially when they're that similar and probably done by different reviewers? edit: If I read a few more reviews/impressions and maybe played the 2K11 demo, I probably could have saved some money there. Yes, I'm still complaining about that game.
Well, the GT5 reviews are a disappointment...the hype surrounding that game, given the developer, time to make the game, fan base, previous record, etc...all of this had come together and pretty much anointed the game as the racer that would put all others to shame. I expected this game to beat Forza in every aspect. GT5 being on par with Forza is really not a good thing...it took them 4 years longer to make it and it was released a year after Forza. Speaking for myself, I remember being in grad school during the release of Forza 2 and telling everyone to just wait for GT5...And here I am, after all these years, thinking WTF just happened. Its not that I think this game isnt bad ass...its just not really, really bad ass...and thats a disappointment.
So far my impression is "meh." It isn't bad, but nothing special either. Thinking maybe I should give Need for Speed a try instead.
