The Video Game Critic reviews Aetherbyte's Insanity

[Gentlegamer]

 Despite what its name would imply Insanity is remarkably slow and mundane.  It doesn't get remotely challenging until about the 10-minute mark, and by then a lot of gamers will have lost interest.

http://videogamecritic.com/t16el.htm?e=22838#rev4430

He rates it "D" ... surely a Berzerk clone is better than that?

[Arkhan Asylum]

It's at least a D+.

Really though, the thing about people who assign arbitrary letter grades is, well, they're arbitrary.

Without providing some sort of point breakdown, it's just some dumbass letter that's been assigned with no real explanation.   I prefer it when the review actually has some kind of point-thingy-breakdown. 



The art comment made me LOL pretty hard.   He's basically correct there.

They only got 18,000 points, though.  So, clearly, they suck at the game.   If you haven't gotten to the teal robots, you is a chump.

[cjameslv]

What i don't get is how the guy says his favorite classic game is berserk then goes on to say how Insanity looks like a 3rd grader doodle. Wtf does he think the original Berserk looks like then 

[CGQuarterly]

The fact that all of his screenshots are in widescreen format really takes away from his credibility.

[NecroPhile]

I agree that the art is pretty basic and the action is kinda slow in the beginning, but it deserves better than a D.  Valis III and Alien Crush both got Ds as well, though, so I guess Insanity has good company.

The fact that all of his screenshots are in widescreen format really takes away from his credibility.

[Arkhan Asylum]

INSANITY IS AS GOOD AS VALIS III

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[ClodBusted]

INSANITY IS AS GOOD AS VALIS III

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Quote of the month.

[BigusSchmuck]

This is coming from a guy who didn't like Guardian Heroes for the Saturn. Enough said.

[PukeSter]

This is coming from a guy who didn't like Guardian Heroes for the Saturn. Enough said.

He's reviewed thousands of games. Everyone has their tastes.

You can also submit game ideas for him to do. He's discovered both SonSon II and Parasol Stars (both were rated B+) because of me.

[esteban]

I will not even read the review. This reviewer has no credibility, but, sadly, he is at the top of the Google rankings for many TG-16 searches.

Oh well.

[Arkhan Asylum]

This is coming from a guy who didn't like Guardian Heroes for the Saturn. Enough said.

He's reviewed thousands of games. Everyone has their tastes.

You can also submit game ideas for him to do. He's discovered both SonSon II and Parasol Stars (both were rated B+) because of me.

Tastes are one thing.  Inconsistencies are another.

My crappy game received the same letter grade as Valis III and Alien Crush.

Keith Courage scored less.


All the shmups scored higher.

If you can't approach the reviews without letting your personal preferences sway the votes, you shouldn't be reviewing.

[Gentlegamer]

If you can't approach the reviews without letting your personal preferences sway the votes, you shouldn't be reviewing.

I disagree with this strongly. He's giving his personal take on the games, there's no better basis than his personal preferences.

Don't forget, he gave China Warrior and Bravoman B-, calling both hidden gems.

[Arkhan Asylum]

I prefer objective reviews.    A reviewer who scores my doofy game the same as Valis III is really not someone who's opinion I'd take seriously lol.

[Gentlegamer]

Do you disagree with any of the text of the review?

[Arkhan Asylum]

Yeah.  It gets challenging before 10 minutes.

Anyway though, the tone of his review sounds like he likes the game quite a bit, and then applies a D rating, arbitrarily.

So, this makes no sense really.   An explanation of where the letter grade was derived from would be useful.

Or just ditch the letter grades, as they're not really valid, nor do they seem to line up with the review text.

[Gentlegamer]

His letter grades are based on a curve compared to the system's library. So that means while Insanity (and Valis III) aren't "bad," they are "below average" compared to the other games he's played (and likes better).

Whether I agree or disagree with the letter grade assigned, I greatly prefer this to the "7-10" scale "mainstream" reviewers use. Of course it's subjective, the entire concept of review score itself is subjective. As long as the text conveys the opinion well, and generally gives the reader enough information to judge, I'm fine with it. For me, a Berzerk clone automatically starts as an "A," but that's just my own taste.

[NecroPhile]

"Insanity is not bad...", yet it gets a grade of D.  Who thinks a D is good?  If someone says they have a 1.0 GPA, are you gonna say "Hey, not bad!"? 

I just don't like the guy's reviews.  They stink of ignorance, his complete lack of skills, and/or him not spending much time with the game.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Wait wait, Valis III is at the bottom end of the PCE library?

huuuh

[PukeSter]

His letter grades are based on a curve compared to the system's library. So that means while Insanity (and Valis III) aren't "bad," they are "below average" compared to the other games he's played (and likes better).

Does this mean everything is based on Gate of Thunder and Galaga 88'? Both of those games were A+.

[esteban]

His letter grades are based on a curve compared to the system's library. So that means while Insanity (and Valis III) aren't "bad," they are "below average" compared to the other games he's played (and likes better).

Does this mean everything is based on Gate of Thunder and Galaga 88'? Both of those games were A+.

Yes.

[VestCunt]

I disagree with this strongly. He's giving his personal take on the games, there's no better basis than his personal preferences.

Nope. Meaningful reviews demand an objective basis. Without it, criticism becomes completely idiosyncratic and readers don't have a reference point. Personal preference is a seasoning that can sway the final score a couple of points and make for an entertaining review. Nothing more. Objectivity is what separates interesting critics from the thousands of know-nothing cuss buckets slagging games on Youtube.

[Gentlegamer]

Objectivity implies there is some kind of scientific method for determining the true review score.

[esteban]

Objectivity implies there is some kind of scientific method for determining the true review score.

Objectivity, in game reviews, implies that the reviewer systematically evaluates different aspects of a game in a manner that is fair.

(1) Harping on a minor element of a game, for example, without acknowledging that it represented a minor element, might be the result of an ignorant, sloppy, biased or dishonest reviewer.

(2) Conversely, downplaying, excusing or minimizing a serious flaw or shortcoming in a game, without explaining why it should not be a deal breaker, is problematic. If the reviewer were to explain why this flaw is not a deal-breaker, readers could evaluate the logic/reasoning of critic to see if it had any merit.

(3) Consistency across games/genres/platforms/etc. We expect a reviewer to exhibit consistency...

[NightWolve]

INSANITY IS AS GOOD AS VALIS III

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[CGQuarterly]

I just don't like the guy's reviews.  They stink of ignorance, his complete lack of skills, and/or him not spending much time with the game.

Take a look at how often the guy updates his site with new reviews.  It's quite clear that he doesn't spend much time with each game, unless that site is his full-time job.  Which I'm sure it isn't.  I would call what he does "quick impressions", not reviews.  And I agree that he should ditch the letter grades.

[A Black Falcon]

This is coming from a guy who didn't like Guardian Heroes for the Saturn. Enough said.

He's reviewed thousands of games. Everyone has their tastes.

You can also submit game ideas for him to do. He's discovered both SonSon II and Parasol Stars (both were rated B+) because of me.

Tastes are one thing.  Inconsistencies are another.

My crappy game received the same letter grade as Valis III and Alien Crush.

Keith Courage scored less.


All the shmups scored higher.

If you can't approach the reviews without letting your personal preferences sway the votes, you shouldn't be reviewing.

Reviews are all about personal preferences.  I mean, yeah, sometimes I think the Video Game Critic's reviews are good, other times completely wrong (been reading the site for several years now), but reviews are always an opinion.  An entirely objective review would say almost nothing about the game other than the plain basics of how it plays -- any statement of quality, "this is good" or "this is bad" in a game, is an opinion.   There is no such thing as an "objective" review.  Just because most people dislike some game mechanic doesn't mean it is "objectively bad", for example.  I do think that some games are better "objectively" and others are worse, but I'm just saying, you cannot entirely remove opinion from reviews, they are central to the concept, and what "better objectively" even means is something that can be argued about for sure!  I don't think all things are relative, so I think that's a worthwhile question to ask, but it's definitely very difficult.

His letter grades are based on a curve compared to the system's library. So that means while Insanity (and Valis III) aren't "bad," they are "below average" compared to the other games he's played (and likes better).

Whether I agree or disagree with the letter grade assigned, I greatly prefer this to the "7-10" scale "mainstream" reviewers use. Of course it's subjective, the entire concept of review score itself is subjective. As long as the text conveys the opinion well, and generally gives the reader enough information to judge, I'm fine with it. For me, a Berzerk clone automatically starts as an "A," but that's just my own taste.

How are the two any different, though?  They really are just two ways of saying the same thing.

I mean, in the US at least, an F = 0-59, a D is 60-69, a C is 70-79, a B is 80-89, and an A is 90+.  Just turn those number scores into the equivalent letter grade and presto, you have a letter grade like he uses, while still using the standard 6-10 grading scale you usually see.

And yes, this is how I think of scores; if I see number scores I think of them in terms of the equivalent letter grade that number represents, and vice versa for letter grades.  I don't like the "50% is average" system for this reason -- when I see a score under 60, I think 'that's a failing grade'.

I just don't like the guy's reviews.  They stink of ignorance, his complete lack of skills, and/or him not spending much time with the game.

Take a look at how often the guy updates his site with new reviews.  It's quite clear that he doesn't spend much time with each game, unless that site is his full-time job.  Which I'm sure it isn't.  I would call what he does "quick impressions", not reviews.  And I agree that he should ditch the letter grades. 

I like the site, but yeah, this is a fair criticism.  I mean, I like the 'paragraph or two about a game' system.  I've done that myself with my Game Opinion Summary posts (I post them on a few forums (not this one usually) and my website).  But I don't call those reviews (or give review grades or scores for the games) for exactly that reason -- I think a review should be of a game you have finished, or at least played a lot.  If you haven't played it that much, don't call it a review.  I definitely have a problem with the idea of "full reviews" which clearly aren't based on playing most of the game, and it happens a lot I think.

I mean, I can like the "review" anyway, but not as a real review, just as an opinion piece based on playing the game for a little while.

[CGQuarterly]

I like the site, but yeah, this is a fair criticism.  I mean, I like the 'paragraph or two about a game' system.  I've done that myself with my Game Opinion Summary posts.  But I don't call those reviews (or give review grades or scores for the games) for exactly that reason -- I think a review should be of a game you have finished, or at least played a lot.  If you haven't played it that much, don't call it a review.  I definitely have a problem with the idea of "full reviews" which clearly aren't based on playing most of the game, and it happens a lot I think.

I mean, I can like the "review" anyway, but not as a real review, just as an opinion piece based on playing the game for a little while.

We'll it's funny because the reviews section of my website is basically a ripoff of his whole website.  The difference is that even though I am only writing a paragraph about a game, I play the living shit out of it because I don't want anyone to get the impression that the opinion about the game that I am publishing on the internet for all to see was based on me playing said game for like an hour or less.  I am not comfortable giving a review score to a game that I haven't played the whole way through, unless the game was so bad that I didn't want to play it anymore.

[esteban]

I think a fair grading system would be to compare each game to a food item. Gate of thunder would be fillet mingon, deep blue would be a can of sardines, and gunboat would be Beluga caviar.

Almost there.

Gate of Thunder = Fillet Mignon + gravy
Deep Blue = Tin of Sardines + mercury/lead testing kit
Gunboat = Beluga Caviar + Grey Poupon

[Gentlegamer]

How are the two any different, though?  They really are just two ways of saying the same thing.

I mean, in the US at least, an F = 0-59, a D is 60-69, a C is 70-79, a B is 80-89, and an A is 90+.  Just turn those number scores into the equivalent letter grade and presto, you have a letter grade like he uses, while still using the standard 6-10 grading scale you usually see.

It isn't the same because the grade distribution is on a curve, meaning there are roughly the same number of Fs as As, Ds and Bs, centered around C as average. If you look at the reviews for each system, this is roughly the case. The 7-10 grade scale means 7 is a C, anything below that is essentially F for failed, and is very rarely given.

It means a game that isn't broken and has decent production values will get no lower than 7 or C, turning the review into a mere consumer reports product review. That's not what The Critic does. He uses the whole scale, kind of like Tom Chick, who gave Halo 4 1 out of 5 stars for being boring, http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/11/04/halo-4-is-half-the-game-it-should-be/

And yes, this is how I think of scores; if I see number scores I think of them in terms of the equivalent letter grade that number represents, and vice versa for letter grades.  I don't like the "50% is average" system for this reason -- when I see a score under 60, I think 'that's a failing grade'.

Then that's your problem for not appreciating how a grade curve works.

I take it none of you here attended law school. It's brutal to do very well, and get a C or D because of the curve.

If there were no scores, would any of you have a problem with his capsule reviews?

[Sarumaru]

[NecroPhile]

If there were no scores, would any of you have a problem with his capsule reviews?

Of course I would.  The letter grades aren't what makes me think that he sucks at playing, spends little time actually playing each game before writing a review, and generally doesn't know what he's talking about.

[esteban]

If there were no scores, would any of you have a problem with his capsule reviews?

I have a problem with his writing...they don't even qualify as a "capsule first impression" ...

The letter grade is just adding insult to injury.

His brief "blurbs" are like 99.99% of the CRAPPAGGIO that exists (written or otherwise): no depth.

[Arkhan Asylum]

The letter grades would at least make the reviews a little less non-sensical.

My game got a better score than Keith Courage.   I'm still trying to wrap my ahead around that.

[InfraMan]

The letter grades would at least make the reviews a little less non-sensical.

My game got a better score than Keith Courage. I'm still trying to wrap my ahead around that.

I would rather play Insanity than Keith Courage, so there's that.

[ApolloBoy]

Wait wait, Valis III is at the bottom end of the PCE library?

huuuh

This is the same guy who gave Metal Storm on the NES an "F" so he can shove it for all I care.

[A Black Falcon]

How are the two any different, though?  They really are just two ways of saying the same thing.

I mean, in the US at least, an F = 0-59, a D is 60-69, a C is 70-79, a B is 80-89, and an A is 90+.  Just turn those number scores into the equivalent letter grade and presto, you have a letter grade like he uses, while still using the standard 6-10 grading scale you usually see.

It isn't the same because the grade distribution is on a curve, meaning there are roughly the same number of Fs as As, Ds and Bs, centered around C as average. If you look at the reviews for each system, this is roughly the case. The 7-10 grade scale means 7 is a C, anything below that is essentially F for failed, and is very rarely given.

It means a game that isn't broken and has decent production values will get no lower than 7 or C, turning the review into a mere consumer reports product review. That's not what The Critic does. He uses the whole scale, kind of like Tom Chick, who gave Halo 4 1 out of 5 stars for being boring, http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/11/04/halo-4-is-half-the-game-it-should-be/

Are you saying the Video Game Critic uses a scale for his reviews?  If he does, I don't like that either.  Design your review system so that 7/C is average, yes, but don't actually scale reviews based on trying to portion out scores evenly, I don't think that's right!  Scores should be based on performance, and how other games (or people, for school) did shouldn't matter.  If the average isn't average, that's not something you should often fix by scaling the scores afterwards.

Also, it's not 7-10, it's 6-10.  A 6 is a below average but passing score.

And yes, this is how I think of scores; if I see number scores I think of them in terms of the equivalent letter grade that number represents, and vice versa for letter grades.  I don't like the "50% is average" system for this reason -- when I see a score under 60, I think 'that's a failing grade'.

Then that's your problem for not appreciating how a grade curve works.

I take it none of you here attended law school. It's brutal to do very well, and get a C or D because of the curve.

If there were no scores, would any of you have a problem with his capsule reviews?

I have a masters', but no, grades were not scaled.  As I said I don't like that idea, either.

Wait wait, Valis III is at the bottom end of the PCE library?

huuuh

This is the same guy who gave Metal Storm on the NES an "F" so he can shove it for all I care.

That would certainly be one of those completely, totally wrong reviews of his, yes.  That game's one of the better games on the NES.

[Ayce]

This is a game that I'm actually wanting to buy when I get some extra cash.

[Lochlan]

A good article on the topic of review scores: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/

[Bernie]

Insanity is a damn good game for what it is.  A Homebrew that went from paper to press in a year.  Its a fun little game to pass time, hell I even got it for the Xbox 360.  Its not meant to compete, never was.  I seriously doubt that was ever Arks intent.  For a first time Homebrew, id say its freaking awesome.  Way better than other homebrews I've seen...from more experienced devs...   Thats my 2 cents.

Not brought to you by tapatalk.

[Psycho Punch]

A good article on the topic of review scores: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/

This guy makes some good points in his article and in his "Deus Ex only RPG" one but he's a megalomaniac, and even scammer if I recall correctly. His forums require $$$ to post on (kinda like a mini Something Awful), but 90% of the posts in there are like the ending dialog of Osman. A total weirdo.

Rants aside, I think it's impossible to do reviews without pissing someone off, but that's different than making gross mistakes and showing that you only played a game for half an hour and couldn't care less. A grade/rank system can only have be a negative factor in a review if the review itself is crap.

[roflmao]

Insanity is a damn good game for what it is.  A Homebrew that went from paper to press in a year.  Its a fun little game to pass time, hell I even got it for the Xbox 360.  Its not meant to compete, never was.  I seriously doubt that was ever Arks intent.  For a first time Homebrew, id say its freaking awesome.  Way better than other homebrews I've seen...from more experienced devs...   Thats my 2 cents.

Not brought to you by tapatalk.

+1

[esteban]

A good article on the topic of review scores: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/

I read some of this. I will have to read the whole thing tomorrow.