GiA writes: "When I first fired up 3D Labyrinth, I thought I must have made a mistake."
I mean...they should at least get 1 point for the effort? ...no?
Not sure if I've seen a score that low.....
Seriously, how does the site even explain reviewing the game so low? Speaking logically, the lowest a game should be able to score, is a .4. Like, how did it get a 0 for content? Are you saying it has no content? How is that possible?! As long as you're able to do something, that should be a score of .1 no matter how good / bad / long. You also mention it has an awful soundtrack, but there is a soundtrack, thus that should be a .1 too. Furthermore, how can the game score a .2 in graphics, yet a 0 in everything else, when the images look like crap?!
That comes off as such an artificial way of assessing a game's final quality. No matter what the quality of certain aspects of a game may contain, they now HAVE to get at least a 0.1 as a sort of 'E for Effort' grade?
Unless it's literally impossible to play the game, then it should score the absolute lowest amount possible. This isn't like a test where you're either right or wrong, this is a system where at least making an effort should get you the minimum score. Not like a game scoring a 1/5, 1/10, .4/10 (like this review), .2/10 (like this reviewer actually scored it), 1/100 or 0/whatever is going to make a difference.
Sure, but when was it determined that a flat-out 0 score couldn't be the lowest score possible to a reviewer for something that's still playable? Since institutions like quality control are around to weed out something utterly broken, there's no harm in our evolving standards giving out 0 scores to playable that feel absolutely abominable to play just like film critics can give zeros out to watchable films that are abominable to watch. This rigid .1 stricture kind of feels akin to the antsy behavior some people have over others giving out 10's just because it's not "perfect." I may find the voice acting, soundtrack, and everything else so wonderful and pristine, but some may still capriciously demand that I have to give it a 9.9 in sound for admitting that I heard a couple of audio bugs. I suppose in this day and age, I don't mind the idea of a 0/0.0 being given to categories for being either non-existent or being so dreadful as to wish it actually were non-existent.
There is a big difference between a "perfect" score and a score that makes the claim that everything in this game is so devoid of value that it should never be touched by man and the gods should punish those who spawned it. However, if you want to give review scores of zero, then more power to you. I would personally read it just to know how you justify everything to be completely and utterly worthless. And while this isn't a "rule", just like I can make a site that considers 5 average, give out zeros/perfect scores and all that, the community will speak out against me and it might prevent me from being accepted into metacritic (they review any site before adding them). There are also a lot of people that were posting they thought 2/10 was a broken unplayable mess in response to Fighter Within.
When you get down to the nitty-gritty of it all, there really isn't in regards to assessment. Just like a game can feel masterfully-crafted even with a few smudge marks most gamers can agree on noticing, the same can be said for a diabolically-crafted one that may actually do something right (at least in comparison to everything else). It would be a shame to see commentors give someone a lot of guff over 0/10 scores and the like which could harm they're chances of greater recognition on meta, but the root of that problem comes back to the attitude of the community unwilling to just allow a broader reviewing spectrum from some new voices.
Pretty much. Like I said, there is bound to be something redeeming, at least to the point where it can earn a faction a point. I like to think this review agrees with this concept on some level, since the graphics scored the only points. Now, looking at the images, I don't exactly think that the graphics are that much better than the sound and the review mentions 10 levels I believe, so there is some basis for things getting a .1, because again, a score of .1 means virtually nothing. I also feel that film is a little different, since those reviews look at different things. I also don't feel any film should score a zero, because I like watching awful movies to make fun of them. Would I give a B movie a 10/10? God no, but I can accept that some people will find them worthless, if only to laugh at. Though this is a different debate and I rather not get into it. I do agree with your feelings towards comments I've read a lot of comments in regards to reviews and you can see a strong disconnect with fans the lower the game goes. However, I actually saw fans and mind you, I am 100% serious, I saw NISA fans calling out a site for giving Neptunia MK 2 a 10/10 because no one there felt it was that good. Can you believe that? Fans complaining the game scored too high. UTTER MADNESS RIGHT?! But sadly, thats where we live. Metacritic looks at standards and it makes sense to a degree. A single score of 5, which might be your average, will tank the other 7's that some people consider average.
holy **** god **** i cant even ..... dang lol
real talk though it just a game using Unity 3D default asset
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.