PSNOT 2.0 - I kind of want to subscribe to IndieBox.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crunchewy said:
Somebody answer that Baseball Stars question, please! I'd be up for a good arcade baseball game and I've always heard these were good, but which is the better one?
Click to expand...
I only played the original so I dont know personally but 2 sounds better than Professional from the below. I played the shit out of the Little League game mentioned on the bottom. It was more fun than any of the Baseball Stars, but that may be because I was a kid that played in Little League myself.

Sequels

In 1991, a sequel, Baseball Stars 2,[13] was released by Romstar, but it was far less popular than the original. Reasons for this included the inability to change the name of a gamer-created team or names of the players on a gamer-created team, and unimproved graphics over the original. Two more sequels were made for SNK's console, the Neo-Geo:

  • Baseball Stars Professional (1990, one of the first Neo-Geo games published) featured all the teams in the original Baseball Stars for the NES, but the teams' features could not be changed, gamers could only play as them.
  • Baseball Stars 2 (1992) featured 18 teams across 2 leagues (exciting league & fighting league) and put more emphasis on graphics and actual gameplay (for example, being able to change pitchers or batters and powering up batters which increased the size of your bat).
Two additional games were made with the Baseball Stars title for SNK's handheld systems, Neo Geo Pocket and Neo Geo Pocket Color: Baseball Stars and Baseball Stars Color.

Finally, there were two other Nintendo baseball games with the same "engine" that was featured in Baseball Stars 1 and 2, though not "officially" Baseball Stars games:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crunchewy said:
Maybe I'll pickup Baseball Stars 2. Thanks, pharm!
Click to expand...
No problem, though after watching the videos of Professional and 2 on the Sony store I would probably like the gameplay of Professional better as it looks like the Little League game I remember. You may like 2 better though due to better graphics etc. Just a word of warning. Hopefully they discount each to $2 or less and I will buy both and play them just to see myself.

 
tylerh1701 said:
That is the cheapest I've seen Bound by Flame, but Gamestop's video review was enough to get me to back away.
Click to expand...
I had a $5 GF coupon expiring at the end of the month and couldn't find anything else for cheap that I didn't already own, so despite Derek's doomsaying I went ahead and got it. I'll give my impressions when I pry it from the backlog in 2018.

 
Sophrosync said:
I had a $5 GF coupon expiring at the end of the month and couldn't find anything else for cheap that I didn't already own, so despite Derek's doomsaying I went ahead and got it. I'll give my impressions when I pry it from the backlog in 2018.
Click to expand...
Yeah if I could get the game for $5 I'd probably still get it. Game resell values don't dip too much below that for the most part, so even if you never played it and just resold it you can recoup most of what you spent.

 
The cheapest Harmony of Despair can be is like $6.  I wish it would be a little cheaper, seems like it might be a fun game to play with some CAGs.  I know Velo and a few others have played it before.

 
tylerh1701 said:
Why do people hate Metacritic so much? I've never understood that one bit. They just take all the game reviews with scores, average them out, and then share what that number is. What is there to hate? It's like hating Batting Average in baseball.

Gamers are so fucking stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989126
Click to expand...
I dont care either way but I always used gamerankings.com instead of metacritic. But metacritic does what you say so no reason to hate it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tylerh1701 said:
The cheapest Harmony of Despair can be is like $6. I wish it would be a little cheaper, seems like it might be a fun game to play with some CAGs. I know Velo and a few others have played it before.
Click to expand...
i'd buy it again if we had a group. spent 60+ hours on it on 360, but everyone left after they got all the achievements/ones they could get.

 
tylerh1701 said:
Why do people hate Metacritic so much? I've never understood that one bit. They just take all the game reviews with scores, average them out, and then share what that number is. What is there to hate? It's like hating Batting Average in baseball.

Gamers are so fucking stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989126
Click to expand...
Their answer? It's damaging to the industry because so many parts of a studio's success depends on the cumulative review scores of metacritic including pay, ability to fund a sequel, future business, reputation, etc. Plus, numerical scoring will eventually devour and ruin the indie gaming scene, just like it... did... with... cinema...

The real reason? They're all butthurt because geometry wars has a higher score than the resident evil remaster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derextreme said:
i'd buy it again if we had a group. spent 60+ hours on it on 360, but everyone left after they got all the achievements/ones they could get.
Click to expand...
It just hit me that HoD was Destiny before Destiny was Destiny. 6 players. You pick up items to increase levels.

It's also way cooler than Destiny.

 
Harmony has 6-player coop? That's cool, but I don't have as much time to game as most here so you'd probably not want me holding things up. Ask pharm. Still, I might get it if it's $6.

 
MildObstruction said:
Their answer? It's damaging to the industry because so many parts of a studio's success depends on the cumulative review scores of metacritic including pay, ability to fund a sequel, future business, reputation, etc. Plus, numerical scoring will eventually devour and ruin the indie gaming scene, just like it... did... with... cinema...

The real reason? They're all butthurt because geometry wars has a higher score than the resident evil remaster.
Click to expand...
Yeah I figured that was the only argument and it's stupid. Are MLB GM's not supposed to use batting average and other stats when evaluating what players they want, how much to offer them, etc?

"He's 0 for his last 196 at bats, but he has a good heart and he's a niche player so let's go ahead and give him a max contract for 3 years."

 
tylerh1701 said:
Well yeah I'm gonna recommend it but even then only two of said buddies could play at the same time. I'd still have to find other buddies.
Click to expand...
I'd be down to play if you end up getting it. The game's a total chore solo but with other people (especially with mics) it's surprisingly fun.

 
tylerh1701 said:
Why do people hate Metacritic so much? I've never understood that one bit. They just take all the game reviews with scores, average them out, and then share what that number is. What is there to hate? It's like hating Batting Average in baseball.

Gamers are so fucking stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989126
Click to expand...
I thought I read some article about how Metacritic gave some reviewers higher weight in the overall Meta score. Like all the numbers in the reviews didn't actually average out to what the Meta score was. It also said something about Meta having their own secret formula used to determine the score and that caused people to raise their one eyebrow in skepticism.

You also have to get approved by them to have your reviews show up there. GameGravy is currently in the process of getting on there. We applied last year and got denied because not enough traffic. We're currently under observation and might get added in a month or two if we do good. We're also under this same kind of probation with GameRankings, but we actually show up there during the probation period.

 
tylerh1701 said:
Why do people hate Metacritic so much? I've never understood that one bit. They just take all the game reviews with scores, average them out, and then share what that number is. What is there to hate? It's like hating Batting Average in baseball.

Gamers are so fucking stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989126
Click to expand...
Batting average is objective and can be calculated based on very specific criteria. Reviews are subjective and have different scales depending on the reviewer/site. There's no mechanism that can be used to correctly get an average the way Metacritic attempts. Metacritic also does not publish the criteria it uses to calculate those averages, so whether the numbers are fair or accurate is difficult to determine. Metacritic isn't completely worthless, but its subjective nature causes problems.

This article is pretty interesting: http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218

It makes a pretty good case for publishers and the like doing some shady stuff to manipulate scores.

 
tylerh1701 said:
Yeah I figured that was the only argument and it's stupid. Are MLB GM's not supposed to use batting average and other stats when evaluating what players they want, how much to offer them, etc?

"He's 0 for his last 196 at bats, but he has a good heart and he's a niche player so let's go ahead and give him a max contract for 3 years."
Click to expand...
Na, the hardcore gamer nerds just like to think they are the majority when they are really just the high pitched, nasily minority sitting in the corner.

The fact is if you make a game that a mass amount of people want to pay for you will get what you deserve. If you make a game no one wants to play you will have to go find another line of work.

 
tylerh1701 said:
Why do people hate Metacritic so much? I've never understood that one bit. They just take all the game reviews with scores, average them out, and then share what that number is. What is there to hate? It's like hating Batting Average in baseball.

Gamers are so fucking stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989126
Click to expand...
If I ever look at anything you could even put in the review category, it is the aggregate score from metacritic. I just do not give a fuck what any one person in "gaming journalism" says about a game. Most of the time if I even bother to check metacritic, I tend to look at the overall user rank more than what the reviewers said. It seems to be more accurate for me (assuming there is a large number of voters). If a game is widely praised in the thread it will cause me to take a look if I had never paid attention to it before, but in general I know what genres I will probably like and make my own decisions based on gameplay videos.

I am glad people can make a living off of reviewing things. It must be a nice life, but I can not understand why anyone gives a fuck about someone else's review unless it is a person you know quite a bit about that has similar tastes in games or is so widely viewed as a great game you decide to take a chance on it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I believe Metacritic doesn't just do a straight up average. They usually give higher weight scores to sites like IGN or Polygon than they do to smaller sites like GameGravy (if/when they get added).

I like the idea of reviewers dropping the numbered score in favor of a summary with a list of pros/cons.

 
DietCokeJunkey said:
Yeah, I believe Metacritic doesn't just do a straight up average. They usually give higher weight scores to sites like IGN or Polygon than they do to smaller sites like GameGravy (if/when they get added).

I like the idea of reviewers dropping the numbered score in favor of a summary with a list of pros/cons.
Click to expand...
Engadget tried dropping numeric scores, but eventually they brought them back, probably for those of us that skip to the end and look at the number, then decide whether or not to actually read the review.

 
Thermopyle said:
Batting average is objective and can be calculated based on very specific criteria. Reviews are subjective and have different scales depending on the reviewer/site. There's no mechanism that can be used to correctly get an average the way Metacritic attempts. Metacritic also does not publish the criteria it uses to calculate those averages, so whether the numbers are fair or accurate is difficult to determine. Metacritic isn't completely worthless, but its subjective nature causes problems.

This article is pretty interesting: http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218

It makes a pretty good case for publishers and the like doing some shady stuff to manipulate scores.
Click to expand...
Liked for objective/subjective making a thread comeback, didn't read the rest of the post
 
When it comes to reviews, I tend to listen to some people in this thread since I've come to understand their tastes in gaming. Tyler was super spot on when it came to Far Cry 4. 

 
Crunchewy said:
Engadget tried dropping numeric scores, but eventually they brought them back, probably for those of us that skip to the end and look at the number, then decide whether or not to actually read the review.
Click to expand...
I think IGN did the same thing. I usually just scroll to the bottom to see the number as well, but I like seeing a list of pro's and con's with that number.

 
Here's one of the examples from the Kotaku article:

More recently, the website Polygon, which uses an adjustable review scale, gave SimCity a 9.5 out of 10 before it launched. On launch day, when crippling server errors rendered the game unplayable for most, Polygon changed their score to an 8. A few days later, as the catastrophic problems continued, they switched it to a 4. It's currently a 6.5.

Yet anyone who goes to SimCity's Metacritic page will still see the 9.5.
Click to expand...
There's quite a few quotes from industry people and other examples as well. Worth reading IMO.

 
I think there's three types of people:
- the person that just looks at the cumulative metacritic score and makes a judgment on the game
- the person that looks at what each site says that makes up the cumulative score and looks for unifying themes that help form their opinion (bad controls, good plot, etc)
- these noisy ass bitches who look at the cumulative score and no matter what it is call it biased bullshit with unfair weighting and probably monetary kickbacks or other shady dealings because capitalism

I guess the fourth person doesn't care or know about metacritic, which is probably like 80% of human beings on earth.
 
tylerh1701 said:
Why do people hate Metacritic so much? I've never understood that one bit. They just take all the game reviews with scores, average them out, and then share what that number is. What is there to hate? It's like hating Batting Average in baseball.

Gamers are so fucking stupid.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989126
Click to expand...
Batting AVG in baseball is acutally kinda a shit statistic, a better one is OBP.

An even better one is WAR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DietCokeJunkey said:
When it comes to reviews, I tend to listen to some people in this thread since I've come to understand their tastes in gaming. Tyler was super spot on when it came to Far Cry 4.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the most valuable by far and why I'll happily encourage anyone in here to stream/write their thoughts on what they're playing.
 
I rarely even check reviews for games. I just look at the gameplay and pay attention to comments in the various forums I visit. Depending on the system and game it can be hard to find good gameplay videos, though.

 
kilik64 said:
Batting AVG in baseball is acutally kinda a shit statistic, a better one is OBP.

An even better one is WAR.
Click to expand...
All baseball stats are automatically shit because they are associated with baseball.

I wish basketball was starting now instead of half over. That way we wouldn't have that large part of the year with nothing but spitting and scratching on ESPN.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top