NHL 12 Review (360/PS3)

[FBeaule04]

I'm falling in the same trap again I should say. So far, my NHL 12 experience is pretty fun. I would say that out of the box, I have more fun than with NHL 11 mainly because it took me around 3 games last year to see some AI dumbness that made the game unplayable for me.

Problem is that the more I play with this game, the more I find things that are close to what I was seeing last year, just not as terrible. For exemple, the AI D won't pin themselves on the board without pressure, but they will do odd things this year like shooting at their own net to change side.

I guess that with reviews, you have to be carefull too. My NHL 11 review last year when I got the game would have been a 7.5. This year, it's more of a 8.5 simply because I have fun. Come January last year, my review of NHL 11 would have been a 6.5, no more. With NHL 12, I will have to see, but at least, so far, I not see myself playing while making asbtaction of things ruining the game experience since the AI is doing just enough to prevent it when lock.

Reviews are like movie ratings. You have to take them for what they are, the view of the person writing it.

[nddurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by Retropyro

The bug infested NCAA 12 gets an 8.5, and this gets an 8? I'm speechless.

I think NCAA deserves a better score because, despite gameplay AI issues and bugs, which could possibly be patched, its dynasty mode is LIGHT YEARS ahead of NHL's Be A GM, IMO. It's much deeper and does a better job of immersing you in a virtual dynasty. NHL's version is clunky and issues that have plagued it since its inception in NHL 10 are still there (bad trading/roster AI, lack of depth).

So, while NCAA might have its bugs, overall it's a better product IMO and deserves a better score. I agree with 8 out of 10 for NHL. Great game, but severely stale and lacking in areas for a couple of years now.

[Spanky]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

Guys, just as with the Madden review, the links about the new scoring scale and review process are no joke -- we do not score games like other sites so the 8 you are thinking of is NOT what the game is scored.

Makes no sense. If 8 is not what the game is scored then what the hell is the game scored? And was the numeral 8 placed there?

If 8 out of 10 qualifies as "great,'' then what is 8.5, or 9.0 or 9.5?

I'll give this scoring system a 3, but that's not what this scoring system is scored.

[CPRoark]

Quote: Originally Posted by Spanky

Makes no sense. If 8 is not what the game is scored then what the hell is the game scored? And was the numeral 8 placed there? If 8 out of 10 qualifies as "great,'' then what is 8.5, or 9.0 or 9.5? I'll give this scoring system a 3, but that's not what this scoring system is scored.

Spanky, the rubric is right there at the top of the page, and answers what an 8.5, 9, and 9.5 would be.

I think Chris meant that the 8 is not what you are used to seeing on other sites; sites that typically only use the top five or six numbers of there scale.

In other words, this isn't school. A 7 (or 70%) isn't average. 5 is average, making an 8 a pretty good score. Check all of the links at the top of the page...your questions have all been answered.

[Ceteris Paribus]

Quote: Originally Posted by CPRoark

Spanky, the rubric is right there at the top of the page, and answers what an 8.5, 9, and 9.5 would be. I think Chris meant that the 8 is not what you are used to seeing on other sites; sites that typically only use the top five or six numbers of there scale. In other words, this isn't school. A 7 (or 70%) isn't average. 5 is average, making an 8 a pretty good score. Check all of the links at the top of the page...your questions have all been answered.

I appreciate the reasoning behind the change. But when your scores fail to convey what you mean to the reader, then the rubric is just wrong. And since gamers have a different scale for every other site they read, it just mens this will never be intuitive, and always convey the wrong impression to your readers.

Just drop to a five point scales if this is so hard. Your 8/10 would be a 4/5, and no one complains. Your 8.5 would have been a 4, as I doubt you would have gone to 4.5 for NCAA 12. Or you could go 4.25, but that would be weird.

In fact,the main issue is not what the score is, it's that you have a score. Scores are the least descriptive part of the review, but it is the one readers obsess about the most. By using a scale that is so far out of line from the rest of the industry (as you guys admit) you are just drawing more attention to something that shouldn't really matter.

[CPRoark]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ceteris Paribus

I appreciate the reasoning behind the change. But when your scores fail to convey what you mean to the reader, then the rubric is just wrong. And since gamers have a different scale for every other site they read, it just mens this will never be intuitive, and always convey the wrong impression to your readers. Just drop to a five point scales if this is so hard. Your 8/10 would be a 4/5, and no one complains. Your 8.5 would have been a 4, as I doubt you would have gone to 4.5 for NCAA 12. Or you could go 4.25, but that would be weird. In fact,the main issue is not what the score is, it's that you have a score. Scores are the least descriptive part of the review, but it is the one readers obsess about the most. By using a scale that is so far out of line from the rest of the industry (as you guys admit) you are just drawing more attention to something that shouldn't really matter.

Well, that's the conundrum, right? Scores ARE the least descriptive part of any game review, but the one that carries the most weight with many readers--and game companies. And one reason that they aren't descriptive is that the whole industry has been using a system that's really evolved to be so.

The problem with the 10 point scale as you know it are that only 6-10 mean anything. Could you really tell me what the difference between a 2 and 4 reviewed game is? Pretty much any thing under a 6 is not worth buying. And your suggestion of a 5 point scale is not really different if you proceed to then break it down as far as .25 hundredths of a point.

So, since the scores are so important, OS has tweaked the system to make it more descriptive than the way other sites currently do it. Yes, it is out of line, but that's sort of the point. Why continue to use something that has become so...limited?

To your point, my score conveys exactly what I mean to a reader who has taken the time to understand what our scores mean. More than if I were just using the top four numbers of a scale, anyway. And I trust that our most vocal and passionate fans are committed and intelligent enough to understand that this score adjustment better fits our in-depth coverage better than the traditional method.

[Ceteris Paribus]

Quote: Originally Posted by CPRoark

To your point, my score conveys exactly what I mean to a reader who has taken the time to understand what our scores mean. More than if I were just using the top four numbers of a scale, anyway. And I trust that our most vocal and passionate fans are committed and intelligent enough to understand that this score adjustment better fits our in-depth coverage better than the traditional method.

I really do appreciate why you guys made the change. Your reasoning is dead on.

Honestly, I think X-Play has been the most dead-on when it comes to giving a review a number. Limiting it to 1-5, and just using whole numbers actually provides a really good barometer. Fives are rare. Fours are excellent. Threes are worth your time. Two's are weak. And ones, also rare, are a total mess.

Like I said, both NCAA and NHL would have gotten 4's, and I don' think you would get many complaints, short of the late realization that NCAA had some problems that had not reared their heads yet. Breaking it down to anything more precise actually devalues the entire process because it is so subjective.

But in the final analysis, most of the reviews on this site are pretty fair, regardless of the number that is placed on them.

[jayenomics]

Twas a good game it was...just god something was lacking.