GamesTM scores.

[bwi]

Nice article about SNK in there this issue and totally agree that WW should have got higher , but then do we really think most games should get 7/8 because some people like/dislike?

I want to see more 1/10s

bri

[nips]

To be honest, I'd prefer it if they scored out of 4...

With Games (TM) i feel that 9 and 10 are pretty much the same, 7 and 8, 6, 5 and 4 then 3, 2 and 1

So Matrix would have got 2, but TWW would have got 4...

Then you get a general idea of how good a game is, but you couldn't say - "I'm not buying that, it only got 1/4", becuase inspite of it's mark, if you like the genre you will probably like it anyway...


P.S. This is not the same conversation as the EDGE one, because I see the implications of the scores in EDGE different to those in Games (TM).

[delb3k]

I`d love to know what criteria it uses to mark its games, it would help me get some of the reviews a bit as the scores this issue seem all over the place. I normally would wait and read the text but that aint this case with this mag, the style is too clumsy to really work out where the score came from sometimes.
I`ll buy it anyway, its the only other mag on the market that attempts to reach a standard, although I dont feel its got to it yet

[Cacophanus]

This months cover is R-Type Final boxart (multiple ships trialing off into the background) on a luverly white background. Nice.

Ahem, I got them that artwork

Interviews with Kujo Kazuma(Irem Inc) on R-Type Final and koji Igarahi(Konami Japan) on Castlevania franchise.

...I also did the Kazuma interview (as well as the R-Type Final preview, if it's still in there).

The letter from Japan is interesting reading about the state of Japans economy and the "superficial harmony called 'wa'." and the effects on gaming in Nippon.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Paragon Publishing are now renaming gamesTM to ollieTM. May my reign of gaming fury continue unabated!"

As for the reviews...

Armoured Core 3 - 8/10

I also wrote the review of this, and my original score was "9/10". There generally is a tendency to under mark games that the editorial staff just don't get (the same can be said for this months P.N. 03 and Made in Wario reviews). Moreover I am constantly instructed to "mark harshly", but they have already raised the bar by giving Metroid Prime "10/10".

I don't think harsh marking necessarily denotes integrity in any quantifiable terms. I think good games should get good scores, and bad games get bad scores. There is generally a tendency within the games media to "go against the grain" (EDGE has especially proved this as of late) so as to prove knowledge and expertise. I, personally, think it is confusing our reader base.

Naturally I very much enjoy working for gamesTM, but this is still very much a point of contention that needs to be rectified.

[Sidez]

"I don't think harsh marking necessarily denotes integrity in any quantifiable terms. I think good games should get good scores, and bad games get bad scores. There is generally a tendency within the games media to "go against the grain" (EDGE has especially proved this as of late) so as to prove knowledge and expertise. I, personally, think it is confusing our reader base."

Totally agree. Also with their record of spoiling games i'm going to have to avoid this issue due to the Silent Hill 3 review. Sorry man but that game means too much to me.

[Ady]

6/10 for SH3 and PN03.

Oooooh, get Games TM - trying to be all controversial and everything!

[Jashin]

Congratulations on the R-Type cover, interview, preview and the Armored Core 3 review Cacophonus - the best bits of the magazine this month. Good stuff . And the regular Japan comumn - but that's always interesting.

[fumi]

I'm only really interested in the text, tbh..

My sentiments exactly.

[Reef]

This is getting tedious, of course people have their favourite games that they want to see get good scores but at the end of the day it's just a guide!

Read the text, take that in and note their comments...

Read the score and use it as a guide only...

Like this month:
Matrix - 4 to me says, not a bad game, give it a go you will probably enjoy it but be careful as it may not be what you want it to be.
Silent Hill - 6 to me says, not a bad game, give it a go you will probably enjoy it but be careful as it may not be what you want it to be. You may or may not enjoy it more than Matrix but we did.

The reason I buy both Edge and Games TM is that I can take their scores as a good guide to what I should buy, unlike "EVERY" other british published games magazine out there which don't give less than 7's for anything

[Chadruharazzeb]

The problem with Silent Hill 3 only getting a 6 is, for me at least, a sure sign that the game is not the classic I was hoping it would be.

Whether you believe in scores or not, if it was as good as I was hoping for it would have score 9's in GamesTM, Edge, wherever. Geniunely quality games get top marks around the board, so when something you've been looking forward to for ages fall short of this, you're bound to be a bit disappointed.

[Ady]

The problem with Silent Hill 3 only getting a 6 is, for me at least, a sure sign that the game is not the classic I was hoping it would be.

Whether you believe in scores or not, if it was as good as I was hoping for it would have score 9's in GamesTM, Edge, wherever. Geniunely quality games get top marks around the board, so when something you've been looking forward to for ages fall short of this, you're bound to be a bit disappointed.

I really can't see how any of the sequels could've got a 9. Not even the original deserved ::that:: high a score.

I'm not expecting SH3 to be a classic, but I know it'll be a damn fine game, and that's what's important.

[rjpageuk]

The problem with Silent Hill 3 only getting a 6 is, for me at least, a sure sign that the game is not the classic I was hoping it would be.

I am thinking the same about Wario Ware. After reading the comments on this board I was expected the new best thing ever from Nintendo, but after the Edge and GamesTM reviews I am slightly less optimistic.

I know it is only an opinion etc, but I still thought Made in Wario would be getting higher review scores...

[badgerpie]

I don't think i'll be picking it up. I like the fact the scores are edge-like (in that a bad game doesn't score a 7), but I don't think the magazine is there yet.

I picked up the last issue (zelda cover), as I was going on holiday for a week and wanted some extra reading material despite the books I was taking. I think the reviews make a good sense check to the ones I read in Edge, and I like the fact that (to my mind) they tend to review more games than Edge does, but I don't think the layout is there yet.
I found it quite unattractive to the eye and difficult to read. Too much insistence on boxouts. The fact that I also found a few errors in the magazine didn't inspire me with confidence either.

I know its a new publication and I hope it does well and improves. It'd be nice to have another decent publication to read. I'll probably give them about 6 months and then buy another issue and see if I like it.

[Ady]

Man, what is this? So if one's magazine of choice doesn't give an anticipated game a perfect score then it's not worth buying at all? Have I slipped into some parrallel dimension where thinking or yourself and ::gasp:: making up your own mind is prohibited?

Through having an understanding of Edge's pretty straightforward score system, I was never part of the anti-score movement that wanted it abolished. Some of the comments in this thread have made me think otherwise however. It'll encourage people to think for themselves a bit at least (which is a good thing).

It's sad that some people can be so black and white about this and dismiss a game they haven't even tried yet becaue some review didn't give it a ten.

[Cacophanus]

Thing is, and I can speak from an inside perspective, these magazines don't give their honest opinion. They merely want to make some noise with their scores. The score isn't important, just the insidious intention behind it.