LIMBO (XBLA) Review - PAGE 1

- Monday, July 19th, 2010 Like Share

What's Next?

Get updates when we publish new articles
send article   newsletter   article comments (18)   print

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
Marc Jul 26, 10
I don't like it. Sidescrollers for me at least are vibrant and fun. Yes you can say how awesome the art design is (It really is) but the game doesn't do it in my book for 15 bucks. I recommend Monkey Island 2 and BF:1943 instead for that amount.
0 thumbs!
Milkenobi Jul 29, 10
quote RabidChinaGirl
quote Milkenobi
BTW, is the review system for Neo limited to the rating the games out of 100? Because I think it's a bit of a broken system personally.
Out of 10.

Feel free to elaborate on what you mean by "broken."
We're listening.

Well, if you do decimals of 10 you are rating games more or less out of 100. My main problem is that games rated from 0-10 (0-100) is that a majority of the scale goes unused.

If you have a record of the reviews you've written, try listing all of the scores. Most games will score between 7 and 9, in the most recent Gameinformer (and this trend spans most of the magazines I read the following scores were listed: 6,7,7,5,7,7,8,8,6,8,8,7,9,7,

Firstly, on a scale of 1 to 10, 5 should be average, 10 perfect and 1 the worst. In game reviews this is not the case. Average is 7, 8 is good, 9 is very good 10 is must buy. So the first half of the spectrum isn't even used. And if it was, what is the difference between a 5 and a 4? Nothing, they're both terrible scores. I don't think a gamer decides to buy something cause it's rated 5 instead of 4. And is there really a need to differentiate a 7.5 from a 7.6? I can understand breaking numbers into .25, .5 and .75 but then again you're technically rating games out of 1 to 40. So why have a scale of 1 to 10 if the first half isn't even used? Do we really need a scale that goes

1 = bad
2 = bad
3 = bad
4 = bad
5 = bad
6 = not so bad
7 = average
8 = good
9 = very good
10 = perfect

It's essentially a 1 to 5 star rating most reviewers use anyway which is hampered by the fact that most reviewers don't hand out 10s. So on a scale of 1 to 10, 95% most games will be rated between 7,8 and 9. That to me is broken. And in my mind decimals and half scores were always for me a way to sit on a fence without committing to a score (I've only written for street presses, no official publications). Do we really need 1 - 5, 5 whole ratings to describe just how bad a game is? No, if it's bad it's just plain bad, it doesn't need to be a '2 bad' or a '3 bad'.

I personally like 1 to 5 rating cause the middle '3' is actually the middle. I also like 1UP's letter grading E to A (with + and -) cause the middle, 'C' is truly an average experience.

Anyway, that's just what I think. Ultimately the value is in the text of the review and if I was editing a magazine I wouldn't even have a score cause everyone gets a different experience from a game and it's hard to put a number on an experience. The text that points out the pros and cons of a game should be the guiding factor for a review.

That or I would have a 1 - 4 rating of
  • avoid this game"
  • flawed but worth checking out
  • good quality solid game
  • highest quality experience
0 thumbs!
RabidChinaGirl Jul 30, 10
Thanks for the feedback guys.

Your ideas were actually discussed when the whole ratings system was implemented, but nothing is perfect.
Heck, anyone who's been with Neo for a while knows our review ratings system is fairly new.

We're always looking for new ways to improve, so keep the feedback coming.
0 thumbs!
Milkenobi Jul 30, 10
I guess the bottom line is that even though the 1-10 scale is abstract, a majority of gamers understand it anyway so it essentially works. One thing I can't stand however is a poorly written review despite the score. The reviews you do are anything but, they are great and very nicely written and I enjoy reading them even if I'm not interested in that particular game/genre.
Sort by date: ascending descending