PC Zone Review *(spoilers)

[Lightspeeder]

Havent seen any mention of this on the site yet, but the Uk PC Zone current edition has a review of jedi academy. It is rated as much better than Jedi Outcast although it receives 89%. That is because of their reviewing system stating that it wasnt very different to previous installments.

 

The review throws up some interesting details about the game *(spoilers).

 

New moves such as saber impale in conjunction with force pull.

JA has a similiar structure to Jk 1 in that it has alternate ending for dark/light paths, which you follow depending on your use of force powers. You also increase force power by assigning stars just as it was in Jk1.

[JEDI OUTCAST]

nice. thanks for the info:D .

[txa1265]

It was discussed here in some detail.

 

But I still find the scoring disparity interesting ... some parts I understand, as the Q3 engine is older technology now, but the 'likeness' to JKII ... I don't buy that as a 'mark down'.

 

Ah well, reviews are opinions, which are, after all, like ... never mind

 

Mike

[Lightspeeder]

no problemo.

the review also states that the levels are tighter and less meandering and that there is a more satisfying starwars feel to the game than JO.

[Lightspeeder]

thanks for the heads up on the discussion of the score, it is a bit bizarre to say JA is better tan JO but give a lower score, but anyway they basically rave about it.

[Emon]

I don't trust any reviews anymore. For all we know, that's a review of an early build (legal or not). One time PC Gamer reviewed a beta of a game, they even clearly said it was beta, and marked it down because of bugs. wtf.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Lightspeeder

thanks for the heads up on the discussion of the score, it is a bit bizarre to say JA is better tan JO but give a lower score, but anyway they basically rave about it.

Yes it is bizarre ... but there it is ...

 

The other thing that bothers me is that it is a 'review' that was released basically when the game went Gold, meaning they had to have played on beta code, which means there may be differences - for good OR bad.

 

I just like 'reviews' to be based on release code, that's all.

 

Mike

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Emon

I don't trust any reviews anymore. For all we know, that's a review of an early build (legal or not). One time PC Gamer reviewed a beta of a game, they even clearly said it was beta, and marked it down because of bugs. wtf.

So true ... if I want to find out what the critics think, I wait a bit and go to GameRankings. Even then you will regularly see odd-ball scores ... KoToR has a 80% mixed in with the average 95% ... not so bad a spread. But JKII had a 40%, then a 60% and then close to a 90% average.

 

That does make it tough with some games, but JA I know I'll love ...

 

Mike

[Emon]

Another thing. PCG let some jackass named Desslock review SWG. Now, I know SWG is not as completed as it will be in say, a year, and really does not deserve that high a rating as the hype, but this guy gave it a 70% something for the wrong reasons. He said it was bad that you couldn't start as a Jedi! This is an MMORPG we're talking, not an FPS! If you start as a Jedi, that means anyone can be a Jedi with no work. That means everyone will want to be a Jedi, which means it's no fun because a Jedi isn't unique anymore. If you're the only Jedi in the land, people are going to respect, fear, or look up to you. If everyone else is the same way, they don't care. It's nothing special if everyone has it...

 

After that review, I was really fed up with PCG US. Good thing I get it for free.

[Anakin1607]

What's the big deal? 89% is an awesome score.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Anakin1607

What's the big deal? 89% is an awesome score.

It sure is, but after reading the review you would have expected ~92-93%. Not 100%, and less than 95%, but >90%.

 

That is why in the other thread I said I feel they are 'handicapping' scores based on new engine games that aren't out yet (i.e. HL2, DX:IW and Doom3).

 

Mike

[Emon]

It's the reasoning for the score, not the score itself. The old engine argument is bull****. Gameplay comes over graphics, we all know that. Graphics only should knock it down if it's really bad. JA looks great, it's got some very pretty levels and excellent special effects, and I think what they've done with the engine is awesome. No reason to mark it down. I'm rather sick of these reviewers that are like "omg it not look leik teh hl2 so it r sux!!!"

[Prime]

Originally posted by Emon

It's the reasoning for the score, not the score itself. The old engine argument is bull****. Gameplay comes over graphics, we all know that. Graphics only should knock it down if it's really bad. JA looks great, it's got some very pretty levels and excellent special effects, and I think what they've done with the engine is awesome. No reason to mark it down. I'm rather sick of these reviewers that are like "omg it not look leik teh hl2 so it r sux!!!"

I agree completely. It seems these days that the only way to be a good game is to be completely different than anything else that is out there. If the graphics are only as good as JO, I will be happy with that. The engine argument is crap as you say. What else are they really expected to use at this point? I would expect that the game would only be worse if they went to a different engine for JA because then they would have to ditch all the work they did on JO and probably start from scratch. I don't understand the mentality of wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. JO had a lot of great things, so why get rid of those?

 

I never just look at a reviews score, since everyone has different reasons for grading things as they do. Like in this case, the arguments he makes I don't agree with at all. But never the less, it still got an 89%, and that was a "reduced" score. Sounds pretty good to me

[Kurgan]

This is actually a fairly common practice for reviewers in my experience... that is, giving games lower scores for "failing to innovate."

 

For example, Riven was knocked down, because although it was a great game, it didn't push the technology that was available enough beyond the basic concepts of its predecessor Myst.

 

Likewise, Mortal Kombat 3 got bad reviews in Gamepro, because they felt it was too much like a graphical upgrade of MK2 with hardly anything new or exciting.

 

A game may be fun and enjoyable, but if it fails to add new things then it gets marked down, and you often hear "what may have been impressive five years ago is now old hat" type of quotes. In other words, nowadays people expect more than what this game is giving them.

 

The only inconsistency I see sometimes is with some games that are "big hyped pc sequels." Often these games are hyped so much that even if it "hardly adds anything new" it will still get good reviews. However, this may not be as cut and dried as I thought, for example many people gave Unreal 2 bad reviews (although I've heard magazine reviews were almost entirely favorable, but that's only what I heard).

 

I agree with the statements about release code. If you're going to review a beta, it should be a PREview, and treated as such. On the other hand a lot of magazines give every preview glowing praise... then when the real game comes out, they trash it. That's on the other extreme.

 

Reviews are just that... reviews. Somebody's opinion. You don't have to agree with it. A lot of people miss that point when they complain about how Roger Ebert didn't like such and such a movie.

 

Now a good critic will evaluate a product based on its various merits and list its strengths and weaknesses. The idea behind reviews is to give the person considering the product an idea if they are wasting their time or not. Nobody's perfect of course...

 

I have seen some sites that present multiple scores (ie: "if you are a star wars fan: 97%" "but if you are not a fan 78%"), perhaps that is a better idea. Or like what EGM and other mags used to do, have a panel of reviewers give their own scores, in addition to the main review. The more opinions the better.

 

Long story short, I do think that game reviewers should review games when they are reviewing games, and review ENGINES when they are reviewing engines, and try not to confuse the two.

[StormHammer]

Very well said, Kurgan, and I totally agree.

 

I tend to view any score around 75% as average, and the game should be enjoyable. At >80% it's good, at >85% it's very good, at >90% it's excellent, and >95% outstanding.

 

But that's just me.

 

I'll wait until I've played JA until I give it my own score, but I expect it to be in the 90s.

 

As for the comment about reviewing engines...that's a very valid point. Too many reviews go on about the engine, and how it can do this, that and the other...and miss the point that the game could be ultimately bland.

 

Unreal 2, to my mind, deserved a 75% score, because graphics don't make a great game. They concentrated so many resources on detailed graphics and made a mediocre game to showcase it. Hopefully the free XMP patch will help to redeem it slightly...

 

Anyway, I wish game mags would not try to pass off obvious beta code as the 'real deal' in their reviews - but then, I often get the feeling that half the time they only play the first couple of levels anyway...

[toms]

Originally posted by StormHammer

I tend to view any score around 75% as average, and the game should be enjoyable. At >80% it's good, at >85% it's very good, at >90% it's excellent, and >95% outstanding.

 

Do you realise how silly that is? 75% is average... has to have over 90% to be excellent?

 

I know it is all down to the stupid scoring systems that these mags use, but it still bugs me. Usually, the score doesn't reveal the full story anyway... you have to read the article to get an idea of what the reviewer liked and disliked and see if they are into the same things as you are.

 

Edge give average games 5. Below average games less, above average games more.

They also did a very revealing article about game reviewing a few months ago... said that a lot of the time these reviewers only have HOURS to make up their mind. So they play the first few levels for a while to get an initial impression... then turn on the cheats and blast through the rest of it at high speed, just to check it doesn't contradict their initial impression.

 

They then gave the same game to 5 reviewers and got a load of different scores (although the text of the reviews said pretty much the same thing, but the score came down to how much emphasis they put on certain elements).

 

I have stopped buying games magazines (except the odd Edge) as most of them (especially PC Gamer and PC Zone in the UK) seem to pay lots to get "WORLD EXCLUSIVES" and then feel obligated to give them better reviews than they deserve. They almost never give one of their high profile World Exclusive front cover games a bad score. Last one i remember was Force commander... and even then they gave it a much better score than it deserved.

 

gamerankings.com is definately the way to go (and rottentomatoes.com for films) as you can get a much better overall impression. I tend to check out a good score, a bad score and then a review that most closely matches the average score.

 

As for JA in PCZ, i seem to remember they gave it a "World Exclusive Review" and gave it a much better score than it deserved (about 80% imho) which left them with a hard choice for JA... it isn't so high profile, it is probably better, but how can they give it a better score than the foolishly inflated one they gave the first game????

[HaruGlory89]

I don't really like reviews these days, their so bizzare. Take a couple games for example:

 

a)FORCE COMMANDER: GameZone(80%), Electric Playground(70%), Gamespot (60%), Game Revolution (D)

 

b)Dungeon Siege: PC Gamer (91%) IGN (85%) UGO(B-) EuroGamer (60%) PGNX network(45%)

 

c)Jedi Knight II: Electric Playground(10/10) Gamespot (90%) Gaming Age (80%) Eurogamer(70%) Game Reviewers(60%) TechTv (2/5)

 

d)Oni: Gamespot UK (90%) Game Revolution(B) Electric Playground(70%) Gamer's Depot(60%) Computer Gaming World(2.5/5)

 

I think I've made my point. Play JA even if it gets 5%.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by toms

Do you realise how silly that is? 75% is average... has to have over 90% to be excellent?

 

There are basically two statistically based scoring systems (ok, there are infinite variations, but two basic foundations).

- 'School scores': ABCDF, 90-100, 80-90, 70-80, 60-70 (sometimes 65-70) and <60 (or 65). In this case the 75 IS average.

- Numerical scoring: 5 is average. 10 is perfect, 0 is (literally) unplayable. 50% of scores should be between 4 and 6, 25% between 7-10 and 0-3.

 

I have stopped buying games magazines (except the odd Edge) as most of them (especially PC Gamer and PC Zone in the UK) seem to pay lots to get "WORLD EXCLUSIVES" and then feel obligated to give them better reviews than they deserve. They almost never give one of their high profile World Exclusive front cover games a bad score. Last one i remember was Force commander... and even then they gave it a much better score than it deserved.

 

I find that is much more true with Previews than reviews, because reviews are typically not front page stuff, whereas previews are big showcases. It is funny (sad, really) to see the same people gushing in a preview and turning around and pummeling a game in a review. Elite Force II saw some of this - they talked how long it was, how great the AI, etc ... then the reviews say 'not so long, really bad AI' - and that for an 80% game!

 

gamerankings.com is definately the way to go (and rottentomatoes.com for films) as you can get a much better overall impression. I tend to check out a good score, a bad score and then a review that most closely matches the average score.

 

I agree ... but of course that contradicts your presonal opinion on JKII So no system is perfect, even if there are 1000 reviews average of 98% you might thing the game is crap. For instance, HL1 is not in my top 10 even for FPS games ... but you'd think they printed the CD's on Gold based on the reviews.

 

As for JA in PCZ, i seem to remember they gave it a "World Exclusive Review" and gave it a much better score than it deserved (about 80% imho) which left them with a hard choice for JA... it isn't so high profile, it is probably better, but how can they give it a better score than the foolishly inflated one they gave the first game????

Hem hem.

 

Mike

[txa1265]

Originally posted by StormHammer

Very well said, Kurgan, and I totally agree.

Ditto

 

I'll wait until I've played JA until I give it my own score, but I expect it to be in the 90s.

 

Me too. I gave (in my internal review) JKII a 92.5%. I expect that JA will creep up a bit ... maybe as high as 95% for me.

 

As for the comment about reviewing engines...that's a very valid point. Too many reviews go on about the engine, and how it can do this, that and the other...and miss the point that the game could be ultimately bland.

Get ready for this to increase ... games like STALKER and HL2, with all of those nifty ragdoll effects ... they'll be so busy watching bodies fall and vehicles bounce they'll forget to figure out whether or not the game was any good ... and then assume it must have been awesome because of all the coolness ...

 

Unreal 2, to my mind, deserved a 75% score, because graphics don't make a great game. They concentrated so many resources on detailed graphics and made a mediocre game to showcase it. Hopefully the free XMP patch will help to redeem it slightly...

 

Gamerankings has the averages of Unreal II and Elite Force II as 79% and 80% respectively. That's basically the same score. I had my issues with EFII, but felt it was a better and more interesting game than Unreal II ... and since I agree with the 80% for EFII, I'd have to put Unreal II at ~75% if I scored it fairly.

 

Anyway, I wish game mags would not try to pass off obvious beta code as the 'real deal' in their reviews - but then, I often get the feeling that half the time they only play the first couple of levels anyway...

What toms said about the playmode seems about right for most reviews. Try re-reading reviews of games you know well that came out right at the launch - them compare them to the reviews from a month later. The difference is remarkable. These quick, 'cheater' reviews lack any subtlely, missing nuances that may very well make a huge difference in player enjoyment.

 

Mike

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by HaruGlory89

I don't really like reviews these days, their so bizzare. Take a couple games for example:

 

a)FORCE COMMANDER: GameZone(80%), Electric Playground(70%), Gamespot (60%), Game Revolution (D)

b)Dungeon Siege: PC Gamer (91%) IGN (85%) UGO(B-) EuroGamer (60%) PGNX network(45%)

c)Jedi Knight II: Electric Playground(10/10) Gamespot (90%) Gaming Age (80%) Eurogamer(70%) Game Reviewers(60%) TechTv (2/5)

d)Oni: Gamespot UK (90%) Game Revolution(B) Electric Playground(70%) Gamer's Depot(60%) Computer Gaming World(2.5/5)

 

I think I've made my point. Play JA even if it gets 5%.

 

I agree.

 

I was just posting my 'own gauge' for 'scoring' games. I don't trust reviews from any one magazine or game review site...that would be madness.

 

As I've also said many times...I always try to play a demo of a game first to see if I'll like it...with only a few exceptions. JA will be one of those exceptions, and Deus Ex 2 another. Why? Because these games are coming from developers that I actually 'trust', and I have a very good idea of their past successes (and failures).

 

Originally posted by txa1265

Get ready for this to increase ... games like STALKER and HL2, with all of those nifty ragdoll effects ... they'll be so busy watching bodies fall and vehicles bounce they'll forget to figure out whether or not the game was any good ... and then assume it must have been awesome because of all the coolness ...

 

I want to believe you're wrong, but I know you're right. So I'll post here the crux of what I said in another forum about game engines. Basically....I wish some developers would stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and that there was a more dynamic collaboration of effort in game engine design throughout the industry. I'm viewing the game industry like the film industry, in this context. If you look at the film industry, it basically had the same technology for many decades, and the only real innovation has been the introduction of digitial film techniques. You hear gamers (and reviewers) often complain about the game engines being used - that they're getting old, and outdated, etc. - and the focus on the actual content of the game is lost. The movie industry just had little tweaks here and there all along the way...nothing really major...yet people still went to see movies and judged them on their stories, acting, and whether they made you feel 'good' inside.

 

I just wish the game industry was at the same point...where engine development basically reaches it's peak, and then developers can focus purely on the game 'content', and making it thoroughly enjoyable to play. I won't say that graphics are unimportant, because they clearly are, but there is still too much emphasis on graphics when games are assessed. In the same way that you can get a movie with lots of whizz-bang special fx and no plot and bad acting, which should flop, games have been slowly edging in the same direction.

 

If there was a consortium of developers that contributed ideas and resources to the development of an ultimate 'modular' game engine to suit all needs, and achieve some kind of universal standard, it might go a long way to cutting out some of the engine devleopment process a lot of (even fledgling) developers consider is needed to produce their games. This would probably only hold true to particular 'genres' of games, and is more of a pipe dream - the chances of it happening are extremely remote, I know.

 

So at the end of the day, I have to applaud things like the Quake 3, Unreal and Lithtech engines - because in spite of their age, we have seen some great games developed on those platforms. There are some exceptions, of course, as there will always be - developers cannot always get the 'mix' right - but I imagine it is rather easier to focus on content when you are working with proven technology. The other benefit, of course, is that the more you work with a particular engine, the better you understand it, and so you should be able to achieve more with it in less time. I think a good example of that is Raven and Jedi Academy, in my view.

[BigMexican]

as a game reviewer, you have to remember that even the specific gaming audience targetted by your publication will vary in terms of what they want and dont want, and as such, you do have to take into account things like the engine when reviewing games, because that's what a lot of people want when they play, awesome graphics, surround sound, and realism to allow them to fully immerse themselves in the game. others (such as myself) want the most primitive engine available so i dont have to go without food for two weeks again just to be able to afford a computer upgrade.

 

for magazines and websites that cater to all gamers (rather than say, Star Wars Gamers, or Hardware/Technology/Overclocking Enthusiasts, etc etc) it will be even harder to balance all the issues in terms of what the audience is looking for in a game. multiple reviewers are often unfeasable, but the reviewer should at least give various scores for graphics, gameplay, plotline, sound, etc etc, and in the review, highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a game so that a consumer can make a more informed assessment.

 

as for timelengths, i doubt that many games (especially ones as big as JA, not to mention HL2 or Doom3) would be confined to a few hours of play, especially in big publications. companies know the printing deadlines of mags, and if they get their game in with a day to go before the mag goes to press, they deserve a half-finished review.

 

if you're worried about the quality of a game to be released, grab a game you like, and a few back issues or archived reviews of it, and see which reviews you agree with the most, and then read their verdict on the game you're considering.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by BigMexican

as for timelengths, i doubt that many games (especially ones as big as JA, not to mention HL2 or Doom3) would be confined to a few hours of play, especially in big publications. companies know the printing deadlines of mags, and if they get their game in with a day to go before the mag goes to press, they deserve a half-finished review.

Publications, maybe, but more and more websites are putting full reviews out on the day of release or day after. Take Tron 2.0 - it came out on Tuesday, and already has at least 9 reviews on GameRankings! I don't know how early these sites can get games ... but they obviously don't get to play at the same pace we do ...

 

Mike

[Prime]

Originally posted by Kurgan

This is actually a fairly common practice for reviewers in my experience... that is, giving games lower scores for "failing to innovate."

 

For example, Riven was knocked down, because although it was a great game, it didn't push the technology that was available enough beyond the basic concepts of its predecessor Myst.

 

Likewise, Mortal Kombat 3 got bad reviews in Gamepro, because they felt it was too much like a graphical upgrade of MK2 with hardly anything new or exciting.

 

A game may be fun and enjoyable, but if it fails to add new things then it gets marked down, and you often hear "what may have been impressive five years ago is now old hat" type of quotes. In other words, nowadays people expect more than what this game is giving them.

You are very correct.

 

It doesn't really bother me if a reviewer gives a lower score if he doesn't think the game has improved enough on its predecessor or if it doesn't use the latest technology. As long as he states that that is the reason why he lowered the score, then I can take it at face value. Then when I read his review, and he says, "great game, but," I can see that the game might be more enjoyable for me, because I do not care what engine it uses or if it pushes the envelope. I just want a fun game, and I want to be able to determine if it is for me from the review.

 

Like has be said, every reviewer has their own opinions and expectations of what makes a good game. As long as they state their reasons, then the reader can filter the reasons that are important to them, and make a judgement call.

 

But simple looking at a score is almost useless. When JO came out on PC, it got a lot of 90+ ratings. When it came out on consoles, it often got a much lower rating, due to issues with the port, not necessarily the game itself.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Prime

It doesn't really bother me if a reviewer gives a lower score if he doesn't think the game has improved enough on its predecessor or if it doesn't use the latest technology. As long as he states that that is the reason why he lowered the score, then I can take it at face value. Then when I read his review, and he says, "great game, but," I can see that the game might be more enjoyable for me, because I do not care what engine it uses or if it pushes the envelope. I just want a fun game, and I want to be able to determine if it is for me from the review.

I have mixed feelings about this - on the one hand I agree that the explanation is most important, on the other hand many things come from the score - prestige, sales, awards, and so on. So someone saying that 'JA is the best game I've ever played, but too much is just evolution from JKII' and gives it a 89% versus someone playing HL2 and saying 'too short, boring, gameplay problems - but the physics and facial animations were like nothing ever done' and giving it a 92% ... that makes a difference in the market, and therefore in the games we'll be seeing in 2004 and beyond ...

 

Originally posted by Prime

Like has be said, every reviewer has their own opinions and expectations of what makes a good game. As long as they state their reasons, then the reader can filter the reasons that are important to them, and make a judgement call.

That's so true ... in many classes I've taught on statistical analysis, I make the students tell me WHY they made a certain analysis. Sometimes the correct explanation is more important than the right number.

 

Originally posted by Prime

But simple looking at a score is almost useless. When JO came out on PC, it got a lot of 90+ ratings. When it came out on consoles, it often got a much lower rating, due to issues with the port, not necessarily the game itself.

This one I'm not sure about. Think about it - JKII was one of the best PC FPS games last year, so it deserved the 90+ it got everywhere (leave it alone toms ), but on the GameCube for instance it was yet another mediocre port ... and deserved the ~70% it got there. Point is - what does a GC owner care if it was good on the PC - do WE care about how good games were on a console when they're crap on the PC? I don't ...

 

Mike

[Sithxace]

this game could be good but its too much like last years game, it has the same menus, same graphics, same everything. Its more like a expansion pack, the creation is nothing these days, maybe 3 years ago it would be a huge thing, but today its the norm, so they cant really use that s the great feature.

 

 

if they got a better engine, better way of distrubting levels etc, and some other things, itll be a god game