DR2K
Well-Known Member
Yes, especially Capcoms recent games.
What do you guys rate DoA5 out of ten?
- Thread starter Keved
- Start date
Yes, especially Capcoms recent games.
Ace Flibble
Member
I've never found a 2D fighting game to be even half as accessible as the most awkward 3D fighting game. Primarily though because perhaps I haven't really put in much effort, since I like multiplayer games to come down to who inherently has the best knack for the game, rather than who has memorised spread sheets of frame data which seems to be the only way to stand out in 2D games.
DOA5 gets a 6 from me, using the full range of the 10-point scale. I suppose that translates as a 'terrible' 8 if you're using the typical IGN/Gamespot/Kotaku/N4G dipshit scale. The parts of it that I love I love a lot; the parts that I hate I hate a lot.
It's not 1997 any more. We shouldn't still be dealing with so many glitches, broken AI, such wooden voice acting (both language tracks are equally bad in this regard, before any weeaboos jump in), such weird cloth/hair physics, frequent clipping even in basic idle animations and I've never been quiet abotu the fact I think Team Ninja/Tecmo's mentallity, marketing and treatment in regards ot the female characters is archaic, exclusionary, insulting and should have changed years ago.
On the other hand, the actual mechanics (at least when nothing's glitched, the AI isn't being psychic, there's minimal lag, etc) provide for the most fun and seemingly best-balanced fighting game I've played to date, it's absolutely beautiful in motion and this is the only game where I can get my arse absolutely handed to me and I'll still feel I'm having a good time.
So it's really 50-50, perhaps slightly leaning towards positive as ultimately I do rank entertainment value higher than anything else. Hence, 6/10.
DOA5 gets a 6 from me, using the full range of the 10-point scale. I suppose that translates as a 'terrible' 8 if you're using the typical IGN/Gamespot/Kotaku/N4G dipshit scale. The parts of it that I love I love a lot; the parts that I hate I hate a lot.
It's not 1997 any more. We shouldn't still be dealing with so many glitches, broken AI, such wooden voice acting (both language tracks are equally bad in this regard, before any weeaboos jump in), such weird cloth/hair physics, frequent clipping even in basic idle animations and I've never been quiet abotu the fact I think Team Ninja/Tecmo's mentallity, marketing and treatment in regards ot the female characters is archaic, exclusionary, insulting and should have changed years ago.
On the other hand, the actual mechanics (at least when nothing's glitched, the AI isn't being psychic, there's minimal lag, etc) provide for the most fun and seemingly best-balanced fighting game I've played to date, it's absolutely beautiful in motion and this is the only game where I can get my arse absolutely handed to me and I'll still feel I'm having a good time.
So it's really 50-50, perhaps slightly leaning towards positive as ultimately I do rank entertainment value higher than anything else. Hence, 6/10.
I disagree with this assessment to a degree I'm not sure I can properly articulate.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
I guess this goes to show you how wildly different certain values are to certain people.
Don't take this the wrong way, but If I ran a gaming journalism website I would have actually fired someone if those had been the contributing factors behind their scoring of a fighting game. It's like scoring the legitimacy of a sport based on how flashy it looks -- it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is destined to offend competitive enthusiasts. The glitches themselves are irrelevant unless they hinder gameplay, and most were patched regardless.
And on the same ticket, the folks over at DOAW for the most part would completely agree with you. heh.
TRI Mike
Well-Known Member
And for posts like this I stopped reading main game "journalism" reviews years ago.
Female Tengu
Active Member
8.5 out of 10.
To be fair, there is a reason hockey is often considered a more entertaining sport than golf.
Tactical/strategic ramifications can and should be debated (and are undoubtedly crucial) between them, but aesthetics are still relevant, even if they do not hold primary salience.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
And yet, fact: More people play Golf than Hockey.
And you still can't rate either of them. They are a competitive sport, not a movie, restaurant or theater production. There is no equal to which you can make a comparison, and therefore no cause for a rating.
And fighting games have their own rules and priorities which make them too different to compare them to each other as well.
It's like rating starcraft 2... how the fuck are you going to rate starcraft 2 with a straight face? It's a basically a national sport. If you gave it a bad review, an entire country would consider you an ignorant asshole.
It's just best to leave this kind of stuff alone.
Ace Flibble
Member
Game reviews are not, have never been and should never be written expressly for the enthusiasts of the game's genre. Reviews which are are of absolutely no value to anybody; the enthusiasts already know where they stand on the game and everybody else is left just as clueless as they were before they read the review.
The purpose of a review is to convey one person's opinion in a fashion in which it may aid an otherwise uncertain person as to whether they may wish to play the game. The idea that a review should be ''objective'', or utterly disregard any given aspect of a title whilst giving disproportionate precedence to other aspects, is absurd and defeats the entire point of having a review.
... Not that my previous post was even a 'review'
If I were to actually review DOA5 I'd probably give it the same 8.5/10 that I gave DOA. Recognising what appeals (or doesn't, as the case may be) to you and where you sit in the clueless-to-enthusiast scale and how that relates to what your readers may want to know is an important part of being a reviewer.
I do get paid to review things (not video games, currently, though I have done so in the past) so this is a subject rather close to my heart
edit: you rate Starcraft 2 as you would any other game. Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
The purpose of a review is to convey one person's opinion in a fashion in which it may aid an otherwise uncertain person as to whether they may wish to play the game. The idea that a review should be ''objective'', or utterly disregard any given aspect of a title whilst giving disproportionate precedence to other aspects, is absurd and defeats the entire point of having a review.
... Not that my previous post was even a 'review'
If I were to actually review DOA5 I'd probably give it the same 8.5/10 that I gave DOA. Recognising what appeals (or doesn't, as the case may be) to you and where you sit in the clueless-to-enthusiast scale and how that relates to what your readers may want to know is an important part of being a reviewer.I do get paid to review things (not video games, currently, though I have done so in the past) so this is a subject rather close to my heart
edit: you rate Starcraft 2 as you would any other game. Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
A scale of 1 to 10 is not intended to enlighten anybody, its to flatout judge something as good or bad. I understand the need to enlighten the ignorant, but why is it acceptable to "rate" a competitive game and not a competitive physical sport?
You would surely catch hell for the latter, and to insist that it is acceptable to rate the former is somewhat demeaning to its overall legitimacy.
That someone can go around telling potential new players whether or not the game is "good", when they don't actually know anything about the "game" itself? Now if you ask me, that's just flatout wrong.
You would surely catch hell for the latter, and to insist that it is acceptable to rate the former is somewhat demeaning to its overall legitimacy.
That someone can go around telling potential new players whether or not the game is "good", when they don't actually know anything about the "game" itself? Now if you ask me, that's just flatout wrong.
My sides. xD
Any time you provide an opinion, you piss people off. Often, it's a whole country (hell, the opinions of the US have pissed off almost the entire world!).
And yet you called DOA4 "bad." Yes, I realize you know a lot about the game when you provide that judgement, but then there's relativism again that makes "legitimacy" such a fuzzy issue.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
DOA 4 could be played in a legitimate manner, however compared to its predecessor and nearly any other fighting game on the market it was lacking in several areas which would have normally promoted logical and coherent strategy. Because this has been proven as fact and not opinion, it is acceptable to call the game competitively bad.
Granted, "high level" matches could still happen between the very few people who "got it", but even those who did, tended not to like it.
Granted, "high level" matches could still happen between the very few people who "got it", but even those who did, tended not to like it.
To spare us all redundancy, I'll just let that error stand.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
What? It is factual that it was missing key competitive elements that are present in other games. There is no opinion about that at all. If something isn't there, it isn't there.
"Key" is an interpretative statement. Any value relying on it is derived from opinionated bias (note: bias is not bad, but it does compromise objectivity over subjectivity). To empirically establish what is "key," you would have to conduct a scientific study across fighting games, which to the extent of my knowledge has not been done.
To explain further would involve metaphysics, which I don't think anyone here is particularly excited to hear about. Suffice to say, it's an issue of the epistemology surrounding criteria for the dichotomies between "good" and "bad."
Off-topic. Create new thread if you wish to continue this discussion.
But, in the simplest possible way: Do you have an empirical study that compares frame advantage between games which clearly proves a positive correlatation between defined dependent variable ("good" game, defined by criteria) and independent variable ("good" frame advantage, defined by criteria)? If at any point during that question you answered "no," you are still caught in epistemological limbo.
Vanity Assassin
Active Member
I give it a 9 because of the online right now, other then that the game is awesome
Ooobe
Active Member
Please stop calling golf a sport - It's a game. SNL best qualified it when Kristen Wiig said that any game where a 60+ years old white man has a chance against asian and black men in their 20's - 30's can't possibly be a sport.
I feel strongly about this.
On topic - I also feel strongly about not reducing a game to a number. DOA is the only video game I'm playing, but I have mixed feelings about it at the moment. Not enough to not highly recommend it though
I feel strongly about this.
On topic - I also feel strongly about not reducing a game to a number. DOA is the only video game I'm playing, but I have mixed feelings about it at the moment. Not enough to not highly recommend it though