Hey guys, Lin here with an explanation on how I rate anime and video games on SR. First off, keep in mind I'm going to be calling both of them 'games', as a means to make everything sound a little smoother. So don't think I just mean video games when I make this post...I mean both!
Okay, so if you've read any of my review posts, you'll already know that I use a scale of 1-10, where 1 is the lowest and 10 is the highest. When people see that I give something a 5, they think it's a low score, but that's not true. A 2 is a low score. A 3 is a disappointment. When I give something a 5, I mean the number between 1 and 10. It is average.
"But Lin, what does average mean?"
It means that the game fulfilled the criteria to at least keep up with the game out around it's year of development or current games in it's genre, depending on when it was made. There is not particularly anything bad about it, yet not anything spectacular. It is not inspiring in its genre of games. Scores that fall in this range usually are aspects that are not really talked about because they don't make a big difference. They are easily forgotten or overshadowed by very good things or very bad things. It is simply average.
"Okay, what makes a excellent game? What can give a game a 10/10? Is it even possible?"
Yes, games can absolutely get a 10/10, but in order to do that they must demonstrate an idea that is fresh and new in their genre, for their console or in general to the video game industry and succeed with that idea along with being able to excel in all the other criteria. Success does not mean that the idea is incorporated and they can do absolute shit to the rest of the game. This is most difficult to obtain in the gameplay criteria. The idea or mechanic must get acknowledgment, experimented and played with sufficiently, and then accepted positively in order to be considered a success.
"How can a game absolutely bomb?"
There are plenty of ways to do that. An example is doing lower than the expectations of it's year or genre. Sometimes indie games are in a gray area because they're not able to produce graphics as well as big game companies like Naughty Dog or Bethesda. Another easy way is to just lower the quality on everything they do: music and sounds are either not well placed or have disappeared entirely, game play is wonky and filled with bugs. There are tons of ways to absolutely fail in a game, which is why game development is such a slippery slope.
"But bugs can be..."
Fixed. I know. People tell me this all the time. But when I do a review, there's a little thing called a date that's gets stamped on my post...people read reviews in the present time, not with hopes in the future that the bug will be fixed. If you wanted to do that, offer to fund a promising kickstarter instead, because you're essentially justifying throwing money at companies for giving you incomplete, half-assed games and that's simply unacceptable.
The way I look at it is this: if there are several major bugs in the game (lookin at you Battlefield 4), the game developers did not have the game tested enough as they should have. If the developer doesn't have the game tested enough, they're not doing it right. When BF4 came out, it was if they're throwing a piece of unrefined garbage at us and expecting us to like it just because it had the name of Battlefield on it. It becomes a issue of disrespect for fans of the franchise, which may and may not be the developer's fault (read: Electronic Arts as a publisher).
"Okay then what are the criteria for each video game?"
Aaaand that's where I end it. "Rating Anime and Video Games, An Explanation, Part 2" coming soon!
