Hey guys, I'm about to write a review on Gamefaqs for a fairly obscure game called "Monster Rancher Explorer", and I need help on deciding...

[FionordeQuester]

...a rating system for it. Basically, I'm trying to develop a system where things like storyline, gameplay, sound, and all that are given more priority in the final score based on the genre of the game. The quality of the story, for example, is a lot more important to an RPG like FF7 than it is to say, a puzzle game like Tetris Attack. Monster Rancher Explorer is defined as an Action game, so I've so far come up with the tentative system of....

Gameplay is worth 50% of the final score

Story is worth 25% of the final score

Sound is worth 12.5% of the final score

Graphics is worth 12.5% of the final score

Story is fairly important in an action game, right? If someone has any suggestions on this, that'd be appreciated. Then I'm also aiming to make this review....

-Long and Detailed, covering everything I can think and care about

-Informative and Helpful

-Well Written

-Humorous if the opportunity presents itself

I know it sounds like a rubric for a school assignment or something, but I really want to make a good review. You guys don't have to read it (though it'd be helpful for the feedback), but if you could at least help out with the rating system, that'd be great.

[Fruitloop Multipuck]

I'd be generally opposed to such a rubric since I don't see much point in ranking much other than gameplay and the other factors merely contributing to it, but if you must have one anyways...Personally, I'd say that if the story doesn't make itself intrusive in some way (unskippable cutscenes and such? Poor dialogue in a story-heavy RPG might be pretty intrusive though.) and the gameplay is awesome enough I wouldn't penalize a game for having a poor story. It might get extra points for a good story, though.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Destiny Puck

[Candlejack]

Be as brutally honest about it as you can.

Nobody ever got props for skimming lines. Look at Ben Croshaw. Accurate and goddamn honest in every review he writes.

People will flame you, but those people are either trolls or fanboys. Both of which you can heartily scoff at.

[FionordeQuester]

Well, that's kind of why I had Storyline be a significantly smaller chunk of the rubric, along with sound and graphics being an even smaller chunk. I've been thinking of this though, and I can kind of see your point. Basically, my thinking is that there are lots of games out there that have good gameplay, so if there wasn't anything else besides gameplay being rated, I'd kind of be giving out 9's and 10's left and right.

I'm actually thinking of having two final scores, one reflecting how much I enjoyed it with all my baises and tastes, and another one that's more "official" if you know what I mean, like how good is it as far as action games go. I've also started trying to be loose enough so that even if I give a game say, a 6/10, I'll point out that it can still be a very enjoyable game for "this and that" and "if you can get past this". Stuff like that.

Oh, and just so you know, this game DOES have unskippable cutscenes. Pretty poorly written or mediocre ones at that.

Be as brutally honest about it as you can.

Oh, trust me, I don't and won't have any problems with that.

Edited September 30, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Candlejack]

I'd give it a 5/10 or a 4/10.

Personally, though. Thought it got boring pretty fast.

[FionordeQuester]

You've played it?

[Candlejack]

Yeah. Rented it, though. From Blockbuster.

[FionordeQuester]

I see. How far did you make it?

[Agro]

When you rate a game, make to scores qualitative, not quantitative. Putting numbers into game reviews often introduces a certain kind of bias.

[Esau of Isaac]

...a rating system for it. Basically, I'm trying to develop a system where things like storyline, gameplay, sound, and all that are given more priority in the final score based on the genre of the game. The quality of the story, for example, is a lot more important to an RPG like FF7 than it is to say, a puzzle game like Tetris Attack. Monster Rancher Explorer is defined as an Action game, so I've so far come up with the tentative system of....

Gameplay is worth 50% of the final score

Story is worth 25% of the final score

Sound is worth 12.5% of the final score

Graphics is worth 12.5% of the final score

Story is fairly important in an action game, right? If someone has any suggestions on this, that'd be appreciated. Then I'm also aiming to make this review....

This is all attempting to quantify and objectively rate the portions of the game that are most important, and with any genre or title there's going to be various eccentricities that set it apart from its peers. Story's worth twenty-five percent of the score? So Tetris has an automatic 7.5, regardless if the other categories are perfect for the reviewer?

"No, certainly not," you'll say. "Tetris is a classic, and a revolutionary title whose gameplay is known by practically everyone and addictingly entertaining". And you'd be right, and then see that any and all of these are variable, even --yes, I'm not shitting you-- gameplay. You should look at the genre you're examining and then try to set a fair level of where each category should come in, but don't set it down to math so broadly. Numbers in and of themselves should mostly depart from the review. You're going to want to apply a rating to the baser parts of it, but not as though you're slabbing the thing up as though some sort of pie chart. It's akin to attempting to state that in self-portaits, noses are 14.677% of any total grade; it's not going to particularly assist when you're setting down a score.

-Long and Detailed, covering everything I can think and care about

-Informative and Helpful

-Well Written

-Humorous if the opportunity presents itself

All of these, perhaps even the last, should be mandatory in any review.

I know it sounds like a rubric for a school assignment or something, but I really want to make a good review. You guys don't have to read it (though it'd be helpful for the feedback), but if you could at least help out with the rating system, that'd be great.

Cut the review up into relevant parts, and try to explain pertinent areas to the viewers; blatantly obvious, yes, but that's about what makes up a review.

In addition, I would also factor in Playtime and Replayability as a viable portion of whatever reviews you're going to be submitting. The average Joe these days is usually looking for economy when buying games, and will often pass up good titles that are short or lack long-term enjoyment. For example, despite its repetitive nature, Assassin's Creed is a generally entertaining game. However, the short story, along with its almost entire lack of open-ended gameplay or difference upon subsequent playthroughs (fuck that collect the flag bullshit, spending hours looking for a random item is lame and worthless), gives a clearer look when deciding whether to spend money on it.

Finally, I'll recommend that rather than adding up scores and then averaging them, or some obscure mathematical model, simply give the overall game the score you think it deserves. If the average score, or whatever you're using, comes out to a seven but when looking at it from a general perspective you find it's worth an eight, slap it on there. Don't fall back on unreliable models when what you're doing isn't objective enough for them to matter. No one wants you tinging your review with overly large amounts of personal bias, but no one wants a title cut down to simple numbers that don't flesh out the title. That said, practically everyone appreciates some form of structure, so as said earlier, I would recommend finding a good balance between the two.

When you rate a game, make to scores qualitative, not quantitative. Putting numbers into game reviews often introduces a certain kind of bias.

Well that condenses a lot of what I said >__>

Edited October 3, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[FionordeQuester]

This is all attempting to quantify and objectively rate the portions of the game that are most important, and with any genre or title there's going to be various eccentricities that set it apart from its peers. Story's worth twenty-five percent of the score? So Tetris has an automatic 7.5, regardless if the other categories are perfect for the reviewer?

No, I said that this would be the grading rubric for an ACTION game, not for every game I ever play. Tetris is not an Action game. Also, I'm gonna be rating stuff like gameplay and graphics according to how good they were at they time they were made. Ninja Gaiden, for example, is one that's gonna be a perfect 10/10 in terms of Storyline, just because I was impressed by how epic and well made the story was compared to even a lot of the MODERN DAY platformers I've played.

Back then, you were lucky if games had an even somewhat decent story.

"No, certainly not," you'll say. "Tetris is a classic, and a revolutionary title whose gameplay is known by practically everyone and addictingly entertaining".

No I won't. Mainly because I had absolutely no idea that it was a classic and revolutionary title. All I knew is that it was a really old game, which gets a free pass on story because not only are stories fairly insignificant in puzzle games, but because back in those days, you were lucky if you even HAD any story at all!

And you'd be right, and then see that any and all of these are variable, even --yes, I'm not shitting you-- gameplay. You should look at the genre you're examining and then try to set a fair level of where each category should come in, but don't set it down to math so broadly. Numbers in and of themselves should mostly depart from the review. You're going to want to apply a rating to the baser parts of it, but not as though you're slabbing the thing up as though some sort of pie chart. It's akin to attempting to state that in self-portaits, noses are 14.677% of any total grade; it's not going to particularly assist when you're setting down a score.

I see, I think after your second to last paragraph, I figured out what you were trying to say. Could you see if I was correct or not?

All of these, perhaps even the last, should be mandatory in any review.

Humor is mandatory? I know it makes for some epically grand reviews like those on the scale of the AVGN, NC, and SpoonyOne, but I never saw it as mandatory. Now I'm thankful for the fact that I'm kind of a stickler for a good story.

Cut the review up into relevant parts, and try to explain pertinent areas to the viewers; blatantly obvious, yes, but that's about what makes up a review.

That was the generally idea.

In addition, I would also factor in Playtime and Replayability as a viable portion of whatever reviews you're going to be submitting. The average Joe these days is usually looking for economy when buying games, and will often pass up good titles that are short or lack long-term enjoyment. For example, despite its repetitive nature, Assassin's Creed is a generally entertaining game. However, the short story, along with its almost entire lack of open-ended gameplay or difference upon subsequent playthroughs (fuck that collect the flag bullshit, spending hours looking for a random item is lame and worthless), gives a clearer look when deciding whether to spend money on it.

Huh, never thought of it that way.

Finally, I'll recommend that rather than adding up scores and then averaging them, or some obscure mathematical model, simply give the overall game the score you think it deserves. If the average score, or whatever you're using, comes out to a seven but when looking at it from a general perspective you find it's worth an eight, slap it on there. Don't fall back on unreliable models when what you're doing isn't objective enough for them to matter. No one wants you tinging your review with overly large amounts of personal bias, but no one wants a title cut down to simple numbers that don't flesh out the title. That said, practically everyone appreciates some form of structure, so as said earlier, I would recommend finding a good balance between the two.

You know, your probably right. I think I'll just go into each aspect of the game, give them the individual scores that I think they deserve, then I'll give the overall score the score I think it deserves, without any math formulas using the individual scores involved. Is that what your saying?

<i>Well that condenses a lot of what I said >__></i>

No it doesn't. Well, kind of, but you explained it a lot better, which really helped a lot.

Also, interestingly enough, your new avatar looks a lot like the villain of the game I'm about to review, lol. Only thing significantly different is their outfits.

Edited October 3, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Agro]

Also, when writing a review remember that 5/10 actually means "not a waste of time" and 10/10 means "perfect in absolutely every regard". That would mean that you can't have any criticism about the game at all. Too many a time I see people give a game criticism and then give it a 10 - it just shows how the giving a game a quantitative score can introduce a lot of bias.

[FionordeQuester]

I'm aware of that.

[Hero]

If you want to give a year 2000 GameBoy Color game a quantitative score, there's one choice that you have to make and declare right in the beginning.

Is this review rating the game based on current standards, or the standards of its own time? Both types of reviews are alright, but you need to remain consistent throughout because it affects everything. One of the most extreme examples would be Dragon Warrior 3 for the NES, easily a 9 or maybe even 10 when compared to other games in 1990, but a 2 or 3 when compared to modern RPGs, including its own remakes.

[FionordeQuester]

I'm comparing it to the games made at the time it was made. That would just be flat out unfair if I did otherwise >_<

[Hero]

I'm comparing it to the games made at the time it was made. That would just be flat out unfair if I did otherwise >_<

Good, one of the reasons (other than obvious fanboyism/hatred, of course) that I often don't take GameFAQs reviews seriously is because they aren't consistent in this regard. It's a small distinction to make, but a crucial one.

[FionordeQuester]

Just an update on my review, I've gotten through the introduction of the game, with lots of complaints about it. However, I'm worried that I may have ranted a bit too much about the intro, so can one of you read it and check?

[Esau of Isaac]

Just an update on my review, I've gotten through the introduction of the game, with lots of complaints about it. However, I'm worried that I may have ranted a bit too much about the intro, so can one of you read it and check?

Sure. Let's see it.

[FionordeQuester]

Ok, so should I email it or just post it here?

[Esau of Isaac]

Ok, so should I email it or just post it here?

If you want a larger audience critiquing it, I would suggest posting it here.

If not, e-mail is acceptable for me. In that case, would you like me to post my thoughts on it here?

[FionordeQuester]

Well, no reason not to let others see it, so here it is...

Review of Monster Rancher Explorer

Never have I seen a game with a plot so horrible and unneeded, that it actually engineers the games downfall....until now that is...

First off, before I review this game, I’ll just let you know that I have never played a Monster Rancher game in my entire life besides this one, so for any fans of the series, if there’s something that I’ve missed when I attempt to explain what the series is about, please forgive me. I figured all this out via Wikipedia and a bit of Gamefaqs….also, if you just want to get straight to the review, just skip the first five paragraphs after this one.

As far as I can tell, the Monster Rancher series is a rather unique series of Monster vs. Monster based games started by a Japanese video game company called Tecmo. The world of Monster Rancher is one where a highly advanced technological civilization lived, one that was also highly skilled at genetic engineering. With that skill, they used gene manipulation to create special designer pets, whose genes they recorded on special devices called “disks” (apparently, they couldn’t come up with a less confusing name for those devices). How did they rematerialize the monsters from their genes? By way of special shrines that could, apparently, do this.

However, no soon realized that these pets could be used for war, and no sooner did they realize that when suddenly all the countries in this great civilization fought each other in a great war that was so ludicrously destructive, that it actually set back the world by hundreds of years by not only completely annihilating each other, but also bringing down so much of the worlds technology down with them that it literally took centuries before the people of the world even began rediscovering BASIC TECHNOLOGY!!

Holy crap. From the sounds of it, we could have a nuclear war with all of Asia right now, and it still wouldn’t be as destructive as whatever the heck happened in the great war of Monster Rancher… those must’ve been some pretty badass monsters!

When people finally began rediscovering technology, they also rediscovered the relics, disks, shrines, all that good stuff, and began recreating monsters from them. It was only through the power of the Phoenix (what phoenix? Wikipedia doesn’t say!) that these discs recreate living monsters. And so, the popular new sport, monster breeding, was born, where breeders/trainers raised monsters and competed with other trainers in tournaments to see who had the better monster.

I’m sure nothing bad could possibly come from giving what are possibly the worlds most apocalyptic super weapons to ever exist to a bunch of random people while giving them complete freedom to raise and train them however they want. Seriously, I’m just amazed at how lightly the monsters are taken, considering that they pretty much annihilated at least a good portion of the entire world just hundreds of years ago.

But enough of my nitpicking, lets get on to the actual game!

So, first off, what do I think of the game? Well, I thought it was a decent game…at first. It’s way too easy at first, but then becomes a pretty good challenge by the end. The music, although not bad and actually kind of catchy, is very repetitive, and you’ll pretty much be hearing the same two tunes throughout the entire game. There is just one rotten thing about this game however that takes all of these otherwise not so bad faults and multiplies them two fold…

This game actually tries to have a plot.

This isn’t just one of those plots that are so bad that it seems like nothing but an afterthought. Don’t get me wrong, it’s overwhelmingly clear that it was just an afterthought, but that’s not ALL of what makes it so horrible. I would tell you flat out, but I feel that it’s a nasty enough surprise that it deserves nothing less than a plethora of buildup in this section of the review…

Story:

Well, first order of business, lets see just what the heck this game is all about, as stated by the in-game introduction!

35 years before Monster Rancher. In a holy place over Mt. Sekitoba Stood a tall, white tower. It was said that The tower held a fabled monster.

Oh, wonderful, literally 15 seconds into the game (yes, I counted), we haven’t even read 4 sentences yet, and already there are two capitalization mistakes, the most amateur of all writing mistakes…

Also, how can this monster possibly be “fabled”? A fable is a short story not based on fact, in other words, similar to a legend. But this story is set in a modern world! If this monster existed, the military branch of this stories governing body should already know about it! And that’s not even counting the fact that according to “Monster Rancher”, it wasn’t until recently that the people found out that monsters even existed! You can’t possibly make fables about something that you didn’t even have any concept of until around a few years ago!

Don’t try to bring up the “well, they’re only just rediscovering technology, maybe they don’t have the means to do a proper investigation yet” argument, because I’ve skimmed a Faq about the game that came 35 years after. In that year, when trying to find stuff to beef up your monsters, you’ll see stuff like steroids, vitamins, pills, candy, and if you look inside some buildings in say Monster Rancher Advanced 2 (I looked at a Lets Play of it), the buildings are clearly modeled off of our present day buildings.

Heck, they may even be a bit ahead of our world if they’ve already figured out how to use DNA to artificially create monsters and devices to digitize their DNA. Point being? The concept of this world having all that, but the government not being able to do a simple investigation of a building they have every reason to investigate (powerful “fabled” monster) is pretty absurd, even if this is 35 years in the past.

I know I’m overanalyzing, but even before I really started analyzing, the concept of this monster being a fable seemed kind of odd to me, so I think I’m justified.

Many people gathered for the power of the monster. A student went to the tower to write his final paper. He’s Cox and he’s from Battle Cards. This was before Cox became an adventurer. The exciting journey made Cox an adventurer.

…Huh? What the heck is Battle Cards? They expect me to go out of my way to buy a game just so I know who the heck Cox is? They’re not even going to go out of their way to tell us what he’s like, why we should actually care about him, what he did in Battle Cards, nothing? Just imagine if the AVGNs theme song was like that…

An angry nerd went back to the past to review games. He’s the AVGN, and he’s from Gametrailers. These are the games that made him angry.

That’s some nice writing by the way isn’t it? Why is everything in sentence fragments? This isn’t a NES game from the early 1980’s! The whole thing could so easily be rewritten as “Many people sought the monsters power, including a student named Cox who came to write his final paper. It was this exciting journey that made him an adventurer”. It flows much better, it wouldn’t be as long, and it says basically the same thing. Why did the writer feel the need to tell us that Cox wasn’t yet an adventurer, then just flat out say that this adventure made him one? Nobody who doesn’t know who Cox is is even going to know that he’s supposed to be an adventurer anyway (whatever the h

If you’re playing this game, you’d better get used to this, because this introduction is the least of this game’s problems as far as writing is concerned. Oh believe me, it gets worse, I guarantee it.

Anyways, when you press start, you’ll be on a sort of overhead display where you can go to an Inn, where you can save your game, an editing room where you can do something that requires a link cable (never bothered to find out), or just go to the tower and try to enter it, only to get halted by a man.

“I’m Naji. The guard here. But I’m on vacation right now.

Then why are you still here? Also, they’re called commas game, use them.

“It’s useless to guard a place no one dares come. Village people tried to get rid the problem, but no one has returned”

Um…what problem? Shouldn’t I have learned everything I needed to know from the intro? Is there some sort of slang that I'm not hip to?

“Since one can’t do much, I’ve stayed behind to the brave young like you. But I have no strength left to fight Nada.”

Game, who the hell is Nada?! If this is the person I’m going to be fighting for the rest of the game, it sure would’ve been nice to have learned THAT from the intro!

“You have wits and courage to fight Nada. Help us? I am the best guide. Please help!”

You should not be a guide, you just said a moment ago that you were a guard, and it sounds like you have Asburgers syndrome.

What are your plans this time?

That’s it, the game has just suddenly decided that this game has a villain. No explanation given as to who Nada is or what she’s doing, just “Nada’s doing....something, and you need to stop her!” Now, to be fair, if you go to the inn, you do get...some backstory. Really, all you get is that a priest called Nada invaded the tower a few years ago and quote "filled it with Baddies" (because apparently, "Baddies" is a noun in this game). That's it. BUT, you still have no idea what she's after. If all she wants is the Phoenix, there's no reason for her to go out of her way and just fill it all up with "baddies". And once again, WHY WAS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF HER IN THE INTRO?! Seems like a really critical plot element to just skip over, don't you think?

Either way though, she's an obstacle to Cox's path, she's gotta go down, and once Naji asks what your plans are, you can immediately choose the "Climb" command, and then you can really get started on writing Cox's....paper!

Edited October 13, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Esau of Isaac]

First, I'd think of a better opening line. Catchier, if possible. I know, they can often be lame, but little hooks are better when prefacing your review. The more compact, the better, and making it relevant to the game is usually a good idea.

Onto the more grammatical areas. I'll bold all the areas that I am speaking, so it is easier to differentiate between your sentences and mine.:

"However, no soon realized that these pets could be used for war, and no sooner did they realize that when suddenly all the countries in this great civilization fought each other in a great war that was so ludicrously destructive, that it actually set back the world by hundreds of years by not only completely annihilating each other, but also bringing down so much of the worlds technology down with them that it literally took centuries before the people of the world even began rediscovering BASIC TECHNOLOGY!!" is poor, and needs some cleaning up. The sentence doesn't make sense, and it seems a little sloppy in general when it does. Something along the lines of "However, it was not long before their use for battle became apparent, and soon after a great war embroiled the nations of the world. It ended up being such a ludicrously destructive conflict that civilization regressed to a primitive state, the world taking centuries to rediscover basic technology," would probably be much more preferable.

"Nobody who doesn’t know who Cox is is even going to know that he’s supposed to be an adventurer anyway (whatever the h" is incomplete, though the final portions probably read "whatever the hell that is". Also, the sentence really doesn't roll off the mind's tongue. A better rendition of the sentence would probably be "No one who has yet to hear of Cox can possibly know that he's supposed to be an adventurer anyways."

In "You should not be a guide, you just said a moment ago that you were a guard, and it sounds like you have Asburgers syndrome," Asperger's is spelt incorrectly. Though perhaps this is a play on words.

"Really, all you get is that a priest called Nada invaded the tower a few years ago and quote "filled it with Baddies" (because apparently, "Baddies" is a noun in this game)." I believe you mean "proper noun".

Other than that and a few areas where you should be using apostrophes, it looks relatively fine. I would tell you to close up a lot of those lone areas and bring them together into paragraphs, but this is on GameFAQs, so it may be appreciated if they are smaller and easier on the eyes.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[FionordeQuester]

You know, I just realized that I never remembered to thank you for all your help on this review Esau. Thank you very much, this was exactly what I needed!

[Esau of Isaac]

No problem. If you need any other parts proof-read, don't be afraid to ask.