<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_26_0636235</id>
	<title>Review Scores the "Least Important Factor" When Buying Games</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259231340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A recent report from a games industry analyst suggests that among a number of factors leading to the purchase of a video game &mdash; such as price, graphics and word of mouth &mdash; <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26223/Analyst\_Review\_Scores\_Least\_Important\_Factor\_For\_Game\_Purchases.php">the game's aggregated review score is the least important measure</a>. Analyst Doug Creutz said, "We believe that while Metacritic scores may be correlated to game quality and word of mouth, and thus somewhat predictive of title performance, they are unlikely in and of themselves to drive or undermine the success of a game. We note this, in part, because of persistent rumors that some game developers have been jawboning game reviewers into giving their games higher critical review scores. We believe the publishers are better served by spending their time on the development process than by 'grade-grubbing' after the fact."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A recent report from a games industry analyst suggests that among a number of factors leading to the purchase of a video game    such as price , graphics and word of mouth    the game 's aggregated review score is the least important measure .
Analyst Doug Creutz said , " We believe that while Metacritic scores may be correlated to game quality and word of mouth , and thus somewhat predictive of title performance , they are unlikely in and of themselves to drive or undermine the success of a game .
We note this , in part , because of persistent rumors that some game developers have been jawboning game reviewers into giving their games higher critical review scores .
We believe the publishers are better served by spending their time on the development process than by 'grade-grubbing ' after the fact .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A recent report from a games industry analyst suggests that among a number of factors leading to the purchase of a video game — such as price, graphics and word of mouth — the game's aggregated review score is the least important measure.
Analyst Doug Creutz said, "We believe that while Metacritic scores may be correlated to game quality and word of mouth, and thus somewhat predictive of title performance, they are unlikely in and of themselves to drive or undermine the success of a game.
We note this, in part, because of persistent rumors that some game developers have been jawboning game reviewers into giving their games higher critical review scores.
We believe the publishers are better served by spending their time on the development process than by 'grade-grubbing' after the fact.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235920</id>
	<title>Reviews are important for Wii owners!</title>
	<author>BuckoA51</author>
	<datestamp>1259240520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Owning a Wii, there are a bunch of really fantastic games and a whole lot of dross (though this is true to an extent on all platforms the Wii seems to suffer more than most). Without reviews, there would be no way to sift through all the chaff and find the good titles. Though the fact that terrible software continues to sell by the bucket load on the Wii suggests that the average joe probably doesn't read reviews at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Owning a Wii , there are a bunch of really fantastic games and a whole lot of dross ( though this is true to an extent on all platforms the Wii seems to suffer more than most ) .
Without reviews , there would be no way to sift through all the chaff and find the good titles .
Though the fact that terrible software continues to sell by the bucket load on the Wii suggests that the average joe probably does n't read reviews at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owning a Wii, there are a bunch of really fantastic games and a whole lot of dross (though this is true to an extent on all platforms the Wii seems to suffer more than most).
Without reviews, there would be no way to sift through all the chaff and find the good titles.
Though the fact that terrible software continues to sell by the bucket load on the Wii suggests that the average joe probably doesn't read reviews at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236884</id>
	<title>Re:Luckily with PC games you can test them for fre</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1259250360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In all, I would suggest people don't get consoles, as too much bargaining power is taken away from you in getting one, and too many games just aren't worth wasting money on.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Nonsense. There are plenty of good games that are worth your money on game consoles, and it's not hard to make out what's good judging from word of mouth/keyboard and reading reviews (fuck the scores, read the review!).</p><p>That it's a closed platform doesn't matter at all to the consumers. We don't have to upgrade our hardware, deal with technical issues, and we don't get invasive DRM.</p><p>Having said that, there are free demos for many games on PSN and Xbox Live!.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all , I would suggest people do n't get consoles , as too much bargaining power is taken away from you in getting one , and too many games just are n't worth wasting money on .
Nonsense. There are plenty of good games that are worth your money on game consoles , and it 's not hard to make out what 's good judging from word of mouth/keyboard and reading reviews ( fuck the scores , read the review !
) .That it 's a closed platform does n't matter at all to the consumers .
We do n't have to upgrade our hardware , deal with technical issues , and we do n't get invasive DRM.Having said that , there are free demos for many games on PSN and Xbox Live ! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all, I would suggest people don't get consoles, as too much bargaining power is taken away from you in getting one, and too many games just aren't worth wasting money on.
Nonsense. There are plenty of good games that are worth your money on game consoles, and it's not hard to make out what's good judging from word of mouth/keyboard and reading reviews (fuck the scores, read the review!
).That it's a closed platform doesn't matter at all to the consumers.
We don't have to upgrade our hardware, deal with technical issues, and we don't get invasive DRM.Having said that, there are free demos for many games on PSN and Xbox Live!.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30242528</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1259256060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do, of course, get the occasional game where the "professional" review scores seem a bit out of whack. Modern Warfare 2 felt like a bit of an example of this to me; I could have seen it as an 8/10 kind of game, but I suspect that review scores above that are being hype driven.</p></div><p>Oblivion? Bioshock?</p><p>Should I name others?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Totally agree with your points - I tend to comb reviews for insights into how the gameplay works, and any important flaws that would detract from the experience. So far it's kept me pretty safe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do , of course , get the occasional game where the " professional " review scores seem a bit out of whack .
Modern Warfare 2 felt like a bit of an example of this to me ; I could have seen it as an 8/10 kind of game , but I suspect that review scores above that are being hype driven.Oblivion ?
Bioshock ? Should I name others ?
: PTotally agree with your points - I tend to comb reviews for insights into how the gameplay works , and any important flaws that would detract from the experience .
So far it 's kept me pretty safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do, of course, get the occasional game where the "professional" review scores seem a bit out of whack.
Modern Warfare 2 felt like a bit of an example of this to me; I could have seen it as an 8/10 kind of game, but I suspect that review scores above that are being hype driven.Oblivion?
Bioshock?Should I name others?
:PTotally agree with your points - I tend to comb reviews for insights into how the gameplay works, and any important flaws that would detract from the experience.
So far it's kept me pretty safe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235746</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>RogueyWon</author>
	<datestamp>1259238660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that you need a scale that encompasses everything from "hideously bad" to "sublimely good", and very, very few commercially released games these days actually fall into the former category. Sure, the usual anti-modern-gaming crowd here on slashdot likes to decry the latest overhyped blockbuster as "worst game ever", but in reality, pretty much every such game is "mediocre" at worst, and actually reasonably good fun if considered in isolation, on its own merits. It's not really fair to score a game down for being overhyped - only to review the game in front of you.</p><p>Genuinely bad games with genuinely low review scores do exist. Even if you look at IGN, who are generally felt to "score high", you can use the review filters to find plenty of games with scores of 3.0/10 or less. These are mostly clustered on the PC, Wii, PS2 and handhelds - platforms with relatively low development costs prone to low-quality shovelware (which is by no means to decry all titles for those systems as low quality). However, the development costs for high-end games these days are such that you really can't afford to let an absolute stinker go out the door. This does make the odd rare exception that slips through, such as Lair, all the more deliciously awful.</p><p>So yes, it's not a big conspiracy that you tend to get a clustering of review scores around the 7-9/10 mark. It's just a fair reflection of the overall quality of most modern big-budget games. Reader reviews, on the other hand, often tend to be callibrated to a less objective scale, and to take more account of factors such as the degree to which the game had been hyped (and to the kind of emotive factors that the console wars stir up), leading to a wider variation.</p><p>You do, of course, get the occasional game where the "professional" review scores seem a bit out of whack. Modern Warfare 2 felt like a bit of an example of this to me; I could have seen it as an 8/10 kind of game, but I suspect that review scores above that are being hype driven.</p><p>Ultimately, I find that the best way to use reviews isn't to go off meta-critic rankings or composite scores. It's to find a review site whose tastes generally accord with my own and use this as a rough guide. I already know in advance broadly which games I'm interested in. If I read the review, I use it as a guide-post and look for issues mentioned that are of particular importance to me. If a review flags that a game has an overly restrictive save-system, then I won't buy it even if the score is good, because I hate repeating content I've already passed unnecessarily. If a review criticises and marks down a game for not including online play, however, I won't let that deter me; it's not usually a huge issue for me, as aside from WoW, I'm primarily a singleplayer gamer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that you need a scale that encompasses everything from " hideously bad " to " sublimely good " , and very , very few commercially released games these days actually fall into the former category .
Sure , the usual anti-modern-gaming crowd here on slashdot likes to decry the latest overhyped blockbuster as " worst game ever " , but in reality , pretty much every such game is " mediocre " at worst , and actually reasonably good fun if considered in isolation , on its own merits .
It 's not really fair to score a game down for being overhyped - only to review the game in front of you.Genuinely bad games with genuinely low review scores do exist .
Even if you look at IGN , who are generally felt to " score high " , you can use the review filters to find plenty of games with scores of 3.0/10 or less .
These are mostly clustered on the PC , Wii , PS2 and handhelds - platforms with relatively low development costs prone to low-quality shovelware ( which is by no means to decry all titles for those systems as low quality ) .
However , the development costs for high-end games these days are such that you really ca n't afford to let an absolute stinker go out the door .
This does make the odd rare exception that slips through , such as Lair , all the more deliciously awful.So yes , it 's not a big conspiracy that you tend to get a clustering of review scores around the 7-9/10 mark .
It 's just a fair reflection of the overall quality of most modern big-budget games .
Reader reviews , on the other hand , often tend to be callibrated to a less objective scale , and to take more account of factors such as the degree to which the game had been hyped ( and to the kind of emotive factors that the console wars stir up ) , leading to a wider variation.You do , of course , get the occasional game where the " professional " review scores seem a bit out of whack .
Modern Warfare 2 felt like a bit of an example of this to me ; I could have seen it as an 8/10 kind of game , but I suspect that review scores above that are being hype driven.Ultimately , I find that the best way to use reviews is n't to go off meta-critic rankings or composite scores .
It 's to find a review site whose tastes generally accord with my own and use this as a rough guide .
I already know in advance broadly which games I 'm interested in .
If I read the review , I use it as a guide-post and look for issues mentioned that are of particular importance to me .
If a review flags that a game has an overly restrictive save-system , then I wo n't buy it even if the score is good , because I hate repeating content I 've already passed unnecessarily .
If a review criticises and marks down a game for not including online play , however , I wo n't let that deter me ; it 's not usually a huge issue for me , as aside from WoW , I 'm primarily a singleplayer gamer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that you need a scale that encompasses everything from "hideously bad" to "sublimely good", and very, very few commercially released games these days actually fall into the former category.
Sure, the usual anti-modern-gaming crowd here on slashdot likes to decry the latest overhyped blockbuster as "worst game ever", but in reality, pretty much every such game is "mediocre" at worst, and actually reasonably good fun if considered in isolation, on its own merits.
It's not really fair to score a game down for being overhyped - only to review the game in front of you.Genuinely bad games with genuinely low review scores do exist.
Even if you look at IGN, who are generally felt to "score high", you can use the review filters to find plenty of games with scores of 3.0/10 or less.
These are mostly clustered on the PC, Wii, PS2 and handhelds - platforms with relatively low development costs prone to low-quality shovelware (which is by no means to decry all titles for those systems as low quality).
However, the development costs for high-end games these days are such that you really can't afford to let an absolute stinker go out the door.
This does make the odd rare exception that slips through, such as Lair, all the more deliciously awful.So yes, it's not a big conspiracy that you tend to get a clustering of review scores around the 7-9/10 mark.
It's just a fair reflection of the overall quality of most modern big-budget games.
Reader reviews, on the other hand, often tend to be callibrated to a less objective scale, and to take more account of factors such as the degree to which the game had been hyped (and to the kind of emotive factors that the console wars stir up), leading to a wider variation.You do, of course, get the occasional game where the "professional" review scores seem a bit out of whack.
Modern Warfare 2 felt like a bit of an example of this to me; I could have seen it as an 8/10 kind of game, but I suspect that review scores above that are being hype driven.Ultimately, I find that the best way to use reviews isn't to go off meta-critic rankings or composite scores.
It's to find a review site whose tastes generally accord with my own and use this as a rough guide.
I already know in advance broadly which games I'm interested in.
If I read the review, I use it as a guide-post and look for issues mentioned that are of particular importance to me.
If a review flags that a game has an overly restrictive save-system, then I won't buy it even if the score is good, because I hate repeating content I've already passed unnecessarily.
If a review criticises and marks down a game for not including online play, however, I won't let that deter me; it's not usually a huge issue for me, as aside from WoW, I'm primarily a singleplayer gamer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235900</id>
	<title>If you trust the reviews that goes a long way...</title>
	<author>jimbob666</author>
	<datestamp>1259240280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL reviews are one of the most important factors I base my purchases on. And here in the UK I go by Edge Magazine which I have been reading for 16 years. <br> <br> I can trust their reviews. Anything they give a 9/10 is a must buy (if you like the genre) and the rare 10/10 are no brainers. There have only been a handful of 10/10 in the magazines long history, including one this month: Bayonetta.
<br> <br>
Edge Magazine: <a href="http://www.edge-online.com/magazine" title="edge-online.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.edge-online.com/magazine</a> [edge-online.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL reviews are one of the most important factors I base my purchases on .
And here in the UK I go by Edge Magazine which I have been reading for 16 years .
I can trust their reviews .
Anything they give a 9/10 is a must buy ( if you like the genre ) and the rare 10/10 are no brainers .
There have only been a handful of 10/10 in the magazines long history , including one this month : Bayonetta .
Edge Magazine : http : //www.edge-online.com/magazine [ edge-online.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL reviews are one of the most important factors I base my purchases on.
And here in the UK I go by Edge Magazine which I have been reading for 16 years.
I can trust their reviews.
Anything they give a 9/10 is a must buy (if you like the genre) and the rare 10/10 are no brainers.
There have only been a handful of 10/10 in the magazines long history, including one this month: Bayonetta.
Edge Magazine: http://www.edge-online.com/magazine [edge-online.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237558</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1259255580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you explain Turning Point: Fail of Liberty? I picked that game up for a whole $3 and frankly it nor Blacksite: Area 51 was worth even the $3 each I paid for them. That is why I have started picking up my PC gaming from the Amazon bargain bin, so many of the games today are absolutely shitty console ports that at least if you pick it up for less than $10 you might be able to get your money back out of it in entertainment.</p><p>

 The truly great ones like Far Cry 1 and Bioshock quickly build enough word of mouth that by the time it hits the $30 price point you know it is a truly great game and worth the cash. But frankly most of these "multiplatform" games are frankly just giant cans o' fail, with a side order of suck. And if you do reviews can I ask-what was your scores for the above games?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you explain Turning Point : Fail of Liberty ?
I picked that game up for a whole $ 3 and frankly it nor Blacksite : Area 51 was worth even the $ 3 each I paid for them .
That is why I have started picking up my PC gaming from the Amazon bargain bin , so many of the games today are absolutely shitty console ports that at least if you pick it up for less than $ 10 you might be able to get your money back out of it in entertainment .
The truly great ones like Far Cry 1 and Bioshock quickly build enough word of mouth that by the time it hits the $ 30 price point you know it is a truly great game and worth the cash .
But frankly most of these " multiplatform " games are frankly just giant cans o ' fail , with a side order of suck .
And if you do reviews can I ask-what was your scores for the above games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you explain Turning Point: Fail of Liberty?
I picked that game up for a whole $3 and frankly it nor Blacksite: Area 51 was worth even the $3 each I paid for them.
That is why I have started picking up my PC gaming from the Amazon bargain bin, so many of the games today are absolutely shitty console ports that at least if you pick it up for less than $10 you might be able to get your money back out of it in entertainment.
The truly great ones like Far Cry 1 and Bioshock quickly build enough word of mouth that by the time it hits the $30 price point you know it is a truly great game and worth the cash.
But frankly most of these "multiplatform" games are frankly just giant cans o' fail, with a side order of suck.
And if you do reviews can I ask-what was your scores for the above games?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235722</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amiga Power used to hand out 1s and 2s... out of 100.</p><p>The games industry drove them out of business as a result.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga\_Power#Philosophy</p><p>But what is really funny about this story, at least the way the summary is phrased, is that they seem to be saying publishers shouldn't try to squeeze reviewers for a better score not because it is an immoral business practice - but because it is no longer effective because nobody trusts reviews anymore. If publishers took the advice, people would presumably start to trust reviews again, and the advice would then have to change.</p><p>Of course, I have not read TFA so it might just be a bad summary...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amiga Power used to hand out 1s and 2s... out of 100.The games industry drove them out of business as a result.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga \ _Power # PhilosophyBut what is really funny about this story , at least the way the summary is phrased , is that they seem to be saying publishers should n't try to squeeze reviewers for a better score not because it is an immoral business practice - but because it is no longer effective because nobody trusts reviews anymore .
If publishers took the advice , people would presumably start to trust reviews again , and the advice would then have to change.Of course , I have not read TFA so it might just be a bad summary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amiga Power used to hand out 1s and 2s... out of 100.The games industry drove them out of business as a result.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga\_Power#PhilosophyBut what is really funny about this story, at least the way the summary is phrased, is that they seem to be saying publishers shouldn't try to squeeze reviewers for a better score not because it is an immoral business practice - but because it is no longer effective because nobody trusts reviews anymore.
If publishers took the advice, people would presumably start to trust reviews again, and the advice would then have to change.Of course, I have not read TFA so it might just be a bad summary...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239408</id>
	<title>Re:Luckily with PC games you can test them for fre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259227620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the only current-gen system where piracy is impractical is the PS3. The 360, the Wii, the DS, and the PSP are all exceptionally pirate-friendly. Sorry, free-trial friendly. I also notice that the 'free trial' of MW2 was available for 360 quite a while before the PC version was available, and as for Assassin's Creed 2... Well these aren't games I'm interested in, but getting the 'free trials' for any games on these platforms is no more an issue than it is for PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the only current-gen system where piracy is impractical is the PS3 .
The 360 , the Wii , the DS , and the PSP are all exceptionally pirate-friendly .
Sorry , free-trial friendly .
I also notice that the 'free trial ' of MW2 was available for 360 quite a while before the PC version was available , and as for Assassin 's Creed 2... Well these are n't games I 'm interested in , but getting the 'free trials ' for any games on these platforms is no more an issue than it is for PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the only current-gen system where piracy is impractical is the PS3.
The 360, the Wii, the DS, and the PSP are all exceptionally pirate-friendly.
Sorry, free-trial friendly.
I also notice that the 'free trial' of MW2 was available for 360 quite a while before the PC version was available, and as for Assassin's Creed 2... Well these aren't games I'm interested in, but getting the 'free trials' for any games on these platforms is no more an issue than it is for PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236672</id>
	<title>Real reason here:</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1259248560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only a minority of gamers read reviews, get fact before buy. Theres a big group of people that just  buy a game based on the box. And this groups is probably the bigger.</p><p>I am tempted to say that very few people that buy games are gamers (!). I mean, gamers as people that have gaming as his hobby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a minority of gamers read reviews , get fact before buy .
Theres a big group of people that just buy a game based on the box .
And this groups is probably the bigger.I am tempted to say that very few people that buy games are gamers ( ! ) .
I mean , gamers as people that have gaming as his hobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a minority of gamers read reviews, get fact before buy.
Theres a big group of people that just  buy a game based on the box.
And this groups is probably the bigger.I am tempted to say that very few people that buy games are gamers (!).
I mean, gamers as people that have gaming as his hobby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237048</id>
	<title>Re:Trust</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1259251500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No mention of the bugs: a game might be full to the brim with bugs on release day and yet there is no mention of it or a passing reference to "the version we tested had some problems but this is a pre-release version and they should be solved before release" (not!)</p></div></blockquote><p>that's assuming they even reviewed the game and aren't just regurgitating the press release and images from the press pack</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of the bugs : a game might be full to the brim with bugs on release day and yet there is no mention of it or a passing reference to " the version we tested had some problems but this is a pre-release version and they should be solved before release " ( not !
) that 's assuming they even reviewed the game and are n't just regurgitating the press release and images from the press pack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of the bugs: a game might be full to the brim with bugs on release day and yet there is no mention of it or a passing reference to "the version we tested had some problems but this is a pre-release version and they should be solved before release" (not!
)that's assuming they even reviewed the game and aren't just regurgitating the press release and images from the press pack
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236640</id>
	<title>Re:I look at Gamefaqs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259248320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, yeah... Lets see, what are the top 10 DS games currently on Gamefaqs:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Pokemon Platinum<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Phantasy Star Zero<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Pokemon Diamond Version<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Day<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. Pokemon HeartGold Version<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's 2009<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7. New Super Mario Bros.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8. Mario &amp; Luigi: Bowser's<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9. Harvest Moon: Sunshine Islands<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 10. Legend of Zelda Spirit Tracks</p><p>Can you tell who the reviewers/audience is there?  I can and not a single one of those would be in my top 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , yeah... Lets see , what are the top 10 DS games currently on Gamefaqs :       1 .
Pokemon Platinum       2 .
Phantasy Star Zero       3 .
Pokemon Diamond Version       4 .
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Day       5 .
Pokemon HeartGold Version       6 .
Yu-Gi-Oh ! 5D 's 2009       7 .
New Super Mario Bros .       8 .
Mario &amp; Luigi : Bowser 's       9 .
Harvest Moon : Sunshine Islands     10 .
Legend of Zelda Spirit TracksCan you tell who the reviewers/audience is there ?
I can and not a single one of those would be in my top 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, yeah... Lets see, what are the top 10 DS games currently on Gamefaqs:
      1.
Pokemon Platinum
      2.
Phantasy Star Zero
      3.
Pokemon Diamond Version
      4.
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Day
      5.
Pokemon HeartGold Version
      6.
Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's 2009
      7.
New Super Mario Bros.
      8.
Mario &amp; Luigi: Bowser's
      9.
Harvest Moon: Sunshine Islands
    10.
Legend of Zelda Spirit TracksCan you tell who the reviewers/audience is there?
I can and not a single one of those would be in my top 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237584</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1259255820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Action 52.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Action 52 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Action 52.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30283494</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Mythrix</author>
	<datestamp>1259684100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/video/6086530/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing-video-review" title="gamespot.com" rel="nofollow">Big Rigs</a> [gamespot.com] got a score of 1 out of 10, although I'm assuming that is because GameSpot doesn't have a 0 score on their scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Rigs [ gamespot.com ] got a score of 1 out of 10 , although I 'm assuming that is because GameSpot does n't have a 0 score on their scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Rigs [gamespot.com] got a score of 1 out of 10, although I'm assuming that is because GameSpot doesn't have a 0 score on their scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238032</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Forge</author>
	<datestamp>1259259060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This phenomenon is not unique to Games.  I watched a TV Rerun of the Matrix last night and remembered that some Newspaper reviews were very harsh on it.  That I would watch it again after all these years and loosing count of how many times I have seen it suggests that the reviewer has standards incompatible with my own.  That is not the worse case however.
<br> <br>
There was the Mag Innovision letter to the editor after it's 17" monitor received the worst ranking in a roundup of 17" monitors.  The Editor's choice award went to a Gateway 2000 monitor.  The point of the complaint letter?  "This is the same monitor, we just print different labels on the ones we ship to Gateway 2000." Or words to that effect.
<br> <br>
So as a general rule I have very little use for published reviews of any product.  Word of mouth, and personal trials work best.  Also it's good to know what advertisers are allowed to lie about.
<br> <br>
"This POS is the best on the market"  -: Allowable lie.<br>
"This overpriced crap is great value for money" -: Acceptable lie.<br>
"This 500GB drive holds more data than 750GB of data without using compression" -: dangerous ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This phenomenon is not unique to Games .
I watched a TV Rerun of the Matrix last night and remembered that some Newspaper reviews were very harsh on it .
That I would watch it again after all these years and loosing count of how many times I have seen it suggests that the reviewer has standards incompatible with my own .
That is not the worse case however .
There was the Mag Innovision letter to the editor after it 's 17 " monitor received the worst ranking in a roundup of 17 " monitors .
The Editor 's choice award went to a Gateway 2000 monitor .
The point of the complaint letter ?
" This is the same monitor , we just print different labels on the ones we ship to Gateway 2000 .
" Or words to that effect .
So as a general rule I have very little use for published reviews of any product .
Word of mouth , and personal trials work best .
Also it 's good to know what advertisers are allowed to lie about .
" This POS is the best on the market " - : Allowable lie .
" This overpriced crap is great value for money " - : Acceptable lie .
" This 500GB drive holds more data than 750GB of data without using compression " - : dangerous ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This phenomenon is not unique to Games.
I watched a TV Rerun of the Matrix last night and remembered that some Newspaper reviews were very harsh on it.
That I would watch it again after all these years and loosing count of how many times I have seen it suggests that the reviewer has standards incompatible with my own.
That is not the worse case however.
There was the Mag Innovision letter to the editor after it's 17" monitor received the worst ranking in a roundup of 17" monitors.
The Editor's choice award went to a Gateway 2000 monitor.
The point of the complaint letter?
"This is the same monitor, we just print different labels on the ones we ship to Gateway 2000.
" Or words to that effect.
So as a general rule I have very little use for published reviews of any product.
Word of mouth, and personal trials work best.
Also it's good to know what advertisers are allowed to lie about.
"This POS is the best on the market"  -: Allowable lie.
"This overpriced crap is great value for money" -: Acceptable lie.
"This 500GB drive holds more data than 750GB of data without using compression" -: dangerous ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239410</id>
	<title>Re:Trust</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1259227680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Personally, I usually wait a while after the game is out and then go check user reviews</i> </p><p>
I like user reviews as well, and especially in combination with numbers of reviews.. It tells me much more when 80 people have reviewed something and given it a good score, than it does when 5 people have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I usually wait a while after the game is out and then go check user reviews I like user reviews as well , and especially in combination with numbers of reviews.. It tells me much more when 80 people have reviewed something and given it a good score , than it does when 5 people have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Personally, I usually wait a while after the game is out and then go check user reviews 
I like user reviews as well, and especially in combination with numbers of reviews.. It tells me much more when 80 people have reviewed something and given it a good score, than it does when 5 people have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238222</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259260560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know which of the two is more sad:</p><p>1. People don't bother informing themselves about the quality of games they might purchase.<br>2. Game reviewers are sellouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which of the two is more sad : 1 .
People do n't bother informing themselves about the quality of games they might purchase.2 .
Game reviewers are sellouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which of the two is more sad:1.
People don't bother informing themselves about the quality of games they might purchase.2.
Game reviewers are sellouts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236540</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259247600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone buy games without trying them first? For me, if there is no demo, there is no sale.</p></div><p>In addition to a demo, I like to wait a few weeks then check the forums.</p><p>Some games can have great demos, but with game-crippling bugs as you advance. (see <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=nfs+shift+bounce" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">NFS Shift</a> [google.com])</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone buy games without trying them first ?
For me , if there is no demo , there is no sale.In addition to a demo , I like to wait a few weeks then check the forums.Some games can have great demos , but with game-crippling bugs as you advance .
( see NFS Shift [ google.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone buy games without trying them first?
For me, if there is no demo, there is no sale.In addition to a demo, I like to wait a few weeks then check the forums.Some games can have great demos, but with game-crippling bugs as you advance.
(see NFS Shift [google.com])
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236590</id>
	<title>Re:Trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259248020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really certain about how much scores are creeping. There are a lot fewer really shit games out there these days, plenty of games I don't like, and plenty of let downs, but really shocking crap either doesn't make it or doesn't get reviewed. I've also seen games with huge full page adverts get panned in the same magazine, though I haven't read one in a few years.</p><p>Game bugs are a funny thing. Sometimes they're really massive game crippling bugs which should have been caught, but a lot of the times they're the result, especially on PC of odd hardware or software configurations, old equipment, or unexpected user behavior. If game studios can't find bugs with a huge team of testers and beta testers and everything else they do you can't really expect some single reviewer to find and mention every one. Add in the fact that if you're reviewing games for a living having a rig in reasonable condition at all times is a justifiable business expense(and also not an experimental toy), and you won't see an awful lot of reviewers running on 5 year old equipment or bleeding edge beta software.</p><p>Hype is always an issue, especially with games like Spore. Mostly because ideas always sound really really cool, and execution doesn't always live up to what it was supposed to be. Spore was a classic example of this, as is pretty much every game Peter Molyneux has ever produced. A lot of the hype comes before the actual game is reviewed, or before reviewers discover how eminently disappointing the actual feature is over the long term. Black and White is a perfect example of that sort of thing, the tutorial mission was absolutely awe inspiring, but they never really did anything with the idea.</p><p>Shallow reviews are a problem, but they're largely unavoidable. Review sites are commercial entities, that means they have to generate enough content to keep readers reading, and they have to review the latest greatest games while people are still interested. This means a reviewer can't spend a month exploring every aspect of a game, it's just not economically viable. Add in the fact that a lot of reviewers are probably sick to death of most game mechanics just because of the nature of their jobs, and you might find it's sometimes hard to tell when a mechanic is actually grating and tedious and when it just seems that way because you've played 150 WW2 shooters this month already.</p><p>DRM is an odd issue. Generally speaking, for the most part, if you follow the rules, it doesn't actually cause all that many problems for most people. Is it really a reviewers job to talk about the anti-piracy measures if they don't interfere with the game? Most PCs that are powerful enough for gaming are constantly connected to the internet these days anyway, and while I wasn't a huge fan of securom, and still am not, it's not really all that inconvenient if you've paid for all your software.</p><p>Personally I also prefer user reviews, particularly on consumer electronics, not necessarily because the users are any better at reviewing things, but because reading the reviews will give you an idea of what kind of problems you might encounter. If the worst the kind of rabid complainers who visit forums can complain about is something you can live with you can be fairly certain the problems aren't going to be all that bad. 99.999\% of the time you won't even experience those problems, but they do give you an idea of the worst you can expect.</p><p>Reviews aren't perfect, nothing which has to make money generally is. That said, in an area in which you are not an expert, reading a variety of reviews can give you a fairly good idea of whether a product is any good. This isn't so good for games(most people who buy games have a pretty good idea of what a good game is, and what they like playing), but for a lot of things where you aren't an expert, they're not half bad. I am not, for instance, a refrigerator or car expert. I don't buy them all that often, and they aren't my areas of expertise. I certainly wouldn't take everything in a review for either as gospel truth, but reviews are generally better than guessing, and I don't have time to become an auto mechanic just so I can properly judge a new car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really certain about how much scores are creeping .
There are a lot fewer really shit games out there these days , plenty of games I do n't like , and plenty of let downs , but really shocking crap either does n't make it or does n't get reviewed .
I 've also seen games with huge full page adverts get panned in the same magazine , though I have n't read one in a few years.Game bugs are a funny thing .
Sometimes they 're really massive game crippling bugs which should have been caught , but a lot of the times they 're the result , especially on PC of odd hardware or software configurations , old equipment , or unexpected user behavior .
If game studios ca n't find bugs with a huge team of testers and beta testers and everything else they do you ca n't really expect some single reviewer to find and mention every one .
Add in the fact that if you 're reviewing games for a living having a rig in reasonable condition at all times is a justifiable business expense ( and also not an experimental toy ) , and you wo n't see an awful lot of reviewers running on 5 year old equipment or bleeding edge beta software.Hype is always an issue , especially with games like Spore .
Mostly because ideas always sound really really cool , and execution does n't always live up to what it was supposed to be .
Spore was a classic example of this , as is pretty much every game Peter Molyneux has ever produced .
A lot of the hype comes before the actual game is reviewed , or before reviewers discover how eminently disappointing the actual feature is over the long term .
Black and White is a perfect example of that sort of thing , the tutorial mission was absolutely awe inspiring , but they never really did anything with the idea.Shallow reviews are a problem , but they 're largely unavoidable .
Review sites are commercial entities , that means they have to generate enough content to keep readers reading , and they have to review the latest greatest games while people are still interested .
This means a reviewer ca n't spend a month exploring every aspect of a game , it 's just not economically viable .
Add in the fact that a lot of reviewers are probably sick to death of most game mechanics just because of the nature of their jobs , and you might find it 's sometimes hard to tell when a mechanic is actually grating and tedious and when it just seems that way because you 've played 150 WW2 shooters this month already.DRM is an odd issue .
Generally speaking , for the most part , if you follow the rules , it does n't actually cause all that many problems for most people .
Is it really a reviewers job to talk about the anti-piracy measures if they do n't interfere with the game ?
Most PCs that are powerful enough for gaming are constantly connected to the internet these days anyway , and while I was n't a huge fan of securom , and still am not , it 's not really all that inconvenient if you 've paid for all your software.Personally I also prefer user reviews , particularly on consumer electronics , not necessarily because the users are any better at reviewing things , but because reading the reviews will give you an idea of what kind of problems you might encounter .
If the worst the kind of rabid complainers who visit forums can complain about is something you can live with you can be fairly certain the problems are n't going to be all that bad .
99.999 \ % of the time you wo n't even experience those problems , but they do give you an idea of the worst you can expect.Reviews are n't perfect , nothing which has to make money generally is .
That said , in an area in which you are not an expert , reading a variety of reviews can give you a fairly good idea of whether a product is any good .
This is n't so good for games ( most people who buy games have a pretty good idea of what a good game is , and what they like playing ) , but for a lot of things where you are n't an expert , they 're not half bad .
I am not , for instance , a refrigerator or car expert .
I do n't buy them all that often , and they are n't my areas of expertise .
I certainly would n't take everything in a review for either as gospel truth , but reviews are generally better than guessing , and I do n't have time to become an auto mechanic just so I can properly judge a new car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really certain about how much scores are creeping.
There are a lot fewer really shit games out there these days, plenty of games I don't like, and plenty of let downs, but really shocking crap either doesn't make it or doesn't get reviewed.
I've also seen games with huge full page adverts get panned in the same magazine, though I haven't read one in a few years.Game bugs are a funny thing.
Sometimes they're really massive game crippling bugs which should have been caught, but a lot of the times they're the result, especially on PC of odd hardware or software configurations, old equipment, or unexpected user behavior.
If game studios can't find bugs with a huge team of testers and beta testers and everything else they do you can't really expect some single reviewer to find and mention every one.
Add in the fact that if you're reviewing games for a living having a rig in reasonable condition at all times is a justifiable business expense(and also not an experimental toy), and you won't see an awful lot of reviewers running on 5 year old equipment or bleeding edge beta software.Hype is always an issue, especially with games like Spore.
Mostly because ideas always sound really really cool, and execution doesn't always live up to what it was supposed to be.
Spore was a classic example of this, as is pretty much every game Peter Molyneux has ever produced.
A lot of the hype comes before the actual game is reviewed, or before reviewers discover how eminently disappointing the actual feature is over the long term.
Black and White is a perfect example of that sort of thing, the tutorial mission was absolutely awe inspiring, but they never really did anything with the idea.Shallow reviews are a problem, but they're largely unavoidable.
Review sites are commercial entities, that means they have to generate enough content to keep readers reading, and they have to review the latest greatest games while people are still interested.
This means a reviewer can't spend a month exploring every aspect of a game, it's just not economically viable.
Add in the fact that a lot of reviewers are probably sick to death of most game mechanics just because of the nature of their jobs, and you might find it's sometimes hard to tell when a mechanic is actually grating and tedious and when it just seems that way because you've played 150 WW2 shooters this month already.DRM is an odd issue.
Generally speaking, for the most part, if you follow the rules, it doesn't actually cause all that many problems for most people.
Is it really a reviewers job to talk about the anti-piracy measures if they don't interfere with the game?
Most PCs that are powerful enough for gaming are constantly connected to the internet these days anyway, and while I wasn't a huge fan of securom, and still am not, it's not really all that inconvenient if you've paid for all your software.Personally I also prefer user reviews, particularly on consumer electronics, not necessarily because the users are any better at reviewing things, but because reading the reviews will give you an idea of what kind of problems you might encounter.
If the worst the kind of rabid complainers who visit forums can complain about is something you can live with you can be fairly certain the problems aren't going to be all that bad.
99.999\% of the time you won't even experience those problems, but they do give you an idea of the worst you can expect.Reviews aren't perfect, nothing which has to make money generally is.
That said, in an area in which you are not an expert, reading a variety of reviews can give you a fairly good idea of whether a product is any good.
This isn't so good for games(most people who buy games have a pretty good idea of what a good game is, and what they like playing), but for a lot of things where you aren't an expert, they're not half bad.
I am not, for instance, a refrigerator or car expert.
I don't buy them all that often, and they aren't my areas of expertise.
I certainly wouldn't take everything in a review for either as gospel truth, but reviews are generally better than guessing, and I don't have time to become an auto mechanic just so I can properly judge a new car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</id>
	<title>Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>DCFC</author>
	<datestamp>1259235720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.<br>But we don't do we ?</p><p>The researchers would find more utility in measuring the correlation between ad spend and score.</p><p>Anyone think these two variables don't correlate strongly ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100 , then we ought to see some 1 's and 2 's.But we do n't do we ? The researchers would find more utility in measuring the correlation between ad spend and score.Anyone think these two variables do n't correlate strongly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.But we don't do we ?The researchers would find more utility in measuring the correlation between ad spend and score.Anyone think these two variables don't correlate strongly ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235648</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>darthvader100</author>
	<datestamp>1259237520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>long live nag (www.nag.co.za) for giving leisure suit larry: box office bust a well deserved 10\%(and hte ponies award for lameness)</htmltext>
<tokenext>long live nag ( www.nag.co.za ) for giving leisure suit larry : box office bust a well deserved 10 \ % ( and hte ponies award for lameness )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>long live nag (www.nag.co.za) for giving leisure suit larry: box office bust a well deserved 10\%(and hte ponies award for lameness)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236748</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>aplusjimages</author>
	<datestamp>1259249340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go visit <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&amp;platform=1029&amp;mode=top&amp;tag=subnav;reviews" title="gamespot.com">Gamespots review page</a> [gamespot.com]. You'll see some low scores. Right off the bat there is Tony Hawk Ride only got a 3.5. I chose Gamespot because they were part of the whole <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff\_Gerstmann#Termination\_from\_GameSpot" title="wikipedia.org">Gerstmann firing</a> [wikipedia.org]. Not to say there aren't sites out there that don't do it to keep advertisers or to get preview copies first or to even get special treatment where if the reviewer gives it a good score then they are allowed to post their review before everyone else. 1up did a great article on this that I can't find. I guess my point is that their are some reviewers who take their job seriously, while others are in it for the monies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go visit Gamespots review page [ gamespot.com ] .
You 'll see some low scores .
Right off the bat there is Tony Hawk Ride only got a 3.5 .
I chose Gamespot because they were part of the whole Gerstmann firing [ wikipedia.org ] .
Not to say there are n't sites out there that do n't do it to keep advertisers or to get preview copies first or to even get special treatment where if the reviewer gives it a good score then they are allowed to post their review before everyone else .
1up did a great article on this that I ca n't find .
I guess my point is that their are some reviewers who take their job seriously , while others are in it for the monies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go visit Gamespots review page [gamespot.com].
You'll see some low scores.
Right off the bat there is Tony Hawk Ride only got a 3.5.
I chose Gamespot because they were part of the whole Gerstmann firing [wikipedia.org].
Not to say there aren't sites out there that don't do it to keep advertisers or to get preview copies first or to even get special treatment where if the reviewer gives it a good score then they are allowed to post their review before everyone else.
1up did a great article on this that I can't find.
I guess my point is that their are some reviewers who take their job seriously, while others are in it for the monies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236116</id>
	<title>How I read the reviews...</title>
	<author>WWWWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259243340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days, I usually assume that if a game gets released, it's at least not half bad. At least on console side, there's <em>some</em> quality control in place. If the game gets released with really, really, <em>really</em> damning flaws, I expect every reviewer to whine about it. Fortunately, here the reviewers are at least trying to keep up to some journalistic standard and aren't lying all the time.</p><p>I usually just read the reviews to see a few things: 1) did the game impress the reviewer whom I know is a fan of the genre and has seen many comparable examples? 2) just how much bullshit regarding the pre-release hype did the reviewer actually uncover, and would this affect my own expectations? Are the promised features that I was excited about still there? 3) Are there any big problems with the game that I should be aware of?</p><p>Score is ultimately an useless metric that depends on too many things. If our local prominent game mag gives the game 70 or up, it's usually a sign that the game is going to be at least somewhat fun and worth trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , I usually assume that if a game gets released , it 's at least not half bad .
At least on console side , there 's some quality control in place .
If the game gets released with really , really , really damning flaws , I expect every reviewer to whine about it .
Fortunately , here the reviewers are at least trying to keep up to some journalistic standard and are n't lying all the time.I usually just read the reviews to see a few things : 1 ) did the game impress the reviewer whom I know is a fan of the genre and has seen many comparable examples ?
2 ) just how much bullshit regarding the pre-release hype did the reviewer actually uncover , and would this affect my own expectations ?
Are the promised features that I was excited about still there ?
3 ) Are there any big problems with the game that I should be aware of ? Score is ultimately an useless metric that depends on too many things .
If our local prominent game mag gives the game 70 or up , it 's usually a sign that the game is going to be at least somewhat fun and worth trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, I usually assume that if a game gets released, it's at least not half bad.
At least on console side, there's some quality control in place.
If the game gets released with really, really, really damning flaws, I expect every reviewer to whine about it.
Fortunately, here the reviewers are at least trying to keep up to some journalistic standard and aren't lying all the time.I usually just read the reviews to see a few things: 1) did the game impress the reviewer whom I know is a fan of the genre and has seen many comparable examples?
2) just how much bullshit regarding the pre-release hype did the reviewer actually uncover, and would this affect my own expectations?
Are the promised features that I was excited about still there?
3) Are there any big problems with the game that I should be aware of?Score is ultimately an useless metric that depends on too many things.
If our local prominent game mag gives the game 70 or up, it's usually a sign that the game is going to be at least somewhat fun and worth trying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237162</id>
	<title>They're important to me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259252460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are probably the MOST important factor, aside from series which I love dearly, eg Halo, Metal Gear, Gran Turismo. Before I get any game, I always check the reviews on two or three different sites. I even shop for games that way. PS2 -&gt; RPG -&gt; Browse All -&gt; Sort by Review Score.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are probably the MOST important factor , aside from series which I love dearly , eg Halo , Metal Gear , Gran Turismo .
Before I get any game , I always check the reviews on two or three different sites .
I even shop for games that way .
PS2 - &gt; RPG - &gt; Browse All - &gt; Sort by Review Score .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are probably the MOST important factor, aside from series which I love dearly, eg Halo, Metal Gear, Gran Turismo.
Before I get any game, I always check the reviews on two or three different sites.
I even shop for games that way.
PS2 -&gt; RPG -&gt; Browse All -&gt; Sort by Review Score.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30310100</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ditto, end of discussion</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto , end of discussion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto, end of discussion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235824</id>
	<title>Demo's</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259239440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I buy games when I've enjoyed playing the demo. If there isn't a demo available, I don't buy it.<br> <br>Game world not designed to allow for demo-style play? Rubbish. You can sandbox an area of a GTA map, limit Dragon Age: Origins to one town, make level caps to prevent access to higher level play... It's just laziness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy games when I 've enjoyed playing the demo .
If there is n't a demo available , I do n't buy it .
Game world not designed to allow for demo-style play ?
Rubbish. You can sandbox an area of a GTA map , limit Dragon Age : Origins to one town , make level caps to prevent access to higher level play... It 's just laziness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy games when I've enjoyed playing the demo.
If there isn't a demo available, I don't buy it.
Game world not designed to allow for demo-style play?
Rubbish. You can sandbox an area of a GTA map, limit Dragon Age: Origins to one town, make level caps to prevent access to higher level play... It's just laziness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>clickclickdrone</author>
	<datestamp>1259237640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;But we don't do we ?<br>
There is a reason for that. It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed  long before they hit the shelves. I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times. Equally, 9 &amp; 10 is rare (for me). The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10. TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But we do n't do we ?
There is a reason for that .
It 's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally , the real dogs are killed long before they hit the shelves .
I 've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times .
Equally , 9 &amp; 10 is rare ( for me ) .
The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough ' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10 .
TBH , I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that 's truly bad , I 'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;But we don't do we ?
There is a reason for that.
It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed  long before they hit the shelves.
I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times.
Equally, 9 &amp; 10 is rare (for me).
The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10.
TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245216</id>
	<title>Re:Luckily with PC games you can test them for fre</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259335620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game demos are readily available for consoles since the time of PS1; over a decade.</p><p>Furthermore, the signal to noise ratio was actually kept high also, among other things, closed market (for devs) - with barriers of entry it was sensible to try harder. It was also sensible to focus more on gameplay, since you knew the rough limits in GFX. <i>Most importantly</i> there were strong forces at work - console manufacturers - that promoted development of very good games.</p><p>And...console games have generally better resale value, so stumbling on something not very good wasn't that big of a problem.</p><p>But hey, keep going if you want to feel more elitist, more wise than those stupid folks who were also buying consoles...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game demos are readily available for consoles since the time of PS1 ; over a decade.Furthermore , the signal to noise ratio was actually kept high also , among other things , closed market ( for devs ) - with barriers of entry it was sensible to try harder .
It was also sensible to focus more on gameplay , since you knew the rough limits in GFX .
Most importantly there were strong forces at work - console manufacturers - that promoted development of very good games.And...console games have generally better resale value , so stumbling on something not very good was n't that big of a problem.But hey , keep going if you want to feel more elitist , more wise than those stupid folks who were also buying consoles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game demos are readily available for consoles since the time of PS1; over a decade.Furthermore, the signal to noise ratio was actually kept high also, among other things, closed market (for devs) - with barriers of entry it was sensible to try harder.
It was also sensible to focus more on gameplay, since you knew the rough limits in GFX.
Most importantly there were strong forces at work - console manufacturers - that promoted development of very good games.And...console games have generally better resale value, so stumbling on something not very good wasn't that big of a problem.But hey, keep going if you want to feel more elitist, more wise than those stupid folks who were also buying consoles...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236078</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Vanderhoth</author>
	<datestamp>1259242920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always rent games I think I might like. You can't trust reviewers to give accurate reviews because 1) they could be in someone's pocket and 2) they normally have completely different taste. So I rent and decided if I like a game for myself... Of course if I saved the money I've spent renting games I felt were crappy or just knock offs of other games (after playing them) that are out there I could pretty much buy a new computer every other year. I find myself longing for the Super Nintendo days, there was such a large variety of different games and genres out there, now is seems games are first/third person shooters or sports.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always rent games I think I might like .
You ca n't trust reviewers to give accurate reviews because 1 ) they could be in someone 's pocket and 2 ) they normally have completely different taste .
So I rent and decided if I like a game for myself... Of course if I saved the money I 've spent renting games I felt were crappy or just knock offs of other games ( after playing them ) that are out there I could pretty much buy a new computer every other year .
I find myself longing for the Super Nintendo days , there was such a large variety of different games and genres out there , now is seems games are first/third person shooters or sports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always rent games I think I might like.
You can't trust reviewers to give accurate reviews because 1) they could be in someone's pocket and 2) they normally have completely different taste.
So I rent and decided if I like a game for myself... Of course if I saved the money I've spent renting games I felt were crappy or just knock offs of other games (after playing them) that are out there I could pretty much buy a new computer every other year.
I find myself longing for the Super Nintendo days, there was such a large variety of different games and genres out there, now is seems games are first/third person shooters or sports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235850</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.<br>But we don't do we ?"</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_Rigs:\_Over\_the\_Road\_Racing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Not true</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100 , then we ought to see some 1 's and 2 's.But we do n't do we ?
" Not true [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.But we don't do we ?
"Not true [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237246</id>
	<title>How to get the correct score</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1259253000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>return</b> ((score - (score\_max/2)) * 2);<br> <br>

50  = 0.<br>
60  = 20.<br>
75  = 50.<br>
95  = 90.<br> <br>

And so on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>return ( ( score - ( score \ _max/2 ) ) * 2 ) ; 50 = 0 .
60 = 20 .
75 = 50 .
95 = 90 .
And so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>return ((score - (score\_max/2)) * 2); 

50  = 0.
60  = 20.
75  = 50.
95  = 90.
And so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235786</id>
	<title>Amazon</title>
	<author>clickclickdrone</author>
	<datestamp>1259239020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to write Amazon reviews - you know, the bit before the buyers reviews but after the manufacturers descriptions? I was impressed when I signed up that made it clear I could slate a product if it really wasn't any good. Their only stipulation was that I should suggest another product on their site that was know to be better. Seemed fair enough to me. I stopped some years ago but if that policy is still in effect, it owuld add some weight to their value IMO. This was the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.co.uk - the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com had diffferent reviews and possibly different criteria.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to write Amazon reviews - you know , the bit before the buyers reviews but after the manufacturers descriptions ?
I was impressed when I signed up that made it clear I could slate a product if it really was n't any good .
Their only stipulation was that I should suggest another product on their site that was know to be better .
Seemed fair enough to me .
I stopped some years ago but if that policy is still in effect , it owuld add some weight to their value IMO .
This was the .co.uk - the .com had diffferent reviews and possibly different criteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to write Amazon reviews - you know, the bit before the buyers reviews but after the manufacturers descriptions?
I was impressed when I signed up that made it clear I could slate a product if it really wasn't any good.
Their only stipulation was that I should suggest another product on their site that was know to be better.
Seemed fair enough to me.
I stopped some years ago but if that policy is still in effect, it owuld add some weight to their value IMO.
This was the .co.uk - the .com had diffferent reviews and possibly different criteria.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236844</id>
	<title>It's A-F</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.
But we don't do we ?</p></div><p>My wife and I were having this same discussion the other day. I was going through some reviews of games that just came out, comparing them to older games in the series. When I spotted one and mentioned the poor review, my wife asked what was the score. "6 out of 10". She was confused that a bad game got such a high score.</p><p>I guess I've been reading these reviews for so long, I didn't think of it anymore. 10/10 is awesome, 9/10 is great, 8/10 is good, 7/10 is okay, 6/10 is poor, 5/10 and lower is terrible.</p><p>"But when was the last time you saw a 5/10?" I honestly didn't know. Even the big-name movie tie-ins that we all know to be awful will somehow manage to score "6.5". I actually had to go look up some reviews to find lower than "6" - <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/starwarstheclonewarsrepublicheroes/review.html" title="gamespot.com">but they are out there.</a> [gamespot.com] </p><p>I've started to view the "out of 10" or "out of 100" scores like the old A-F grading system we used in school. A is 9/10 or 10/10 ("A+"), B is 8/10, C is 7/10, D is 6/10<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... F is 5/10 or lower. It's not ideal to view games this way, but it makes sense of the review scores.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100 , then we ought to see some 1 's and 2 's .
But we do n't do we ? My wife and I were having this same discussion the other day .
I was going through some reviews of games that just came out , comparing them to older games in the series .
When I spotted one and mentioned the poor review , my wife asked what was the score .
" 6 out of 10 " .
She was confused that a bad game got such a high score.I guess I 've been reading these reviews for so long , I did n't think of it anymore .
10/10 is awesome , 9/10 is great , 8/10 is good , 7/10 is okay , 6/10 is poor , 5/10 and lower is terrible .
" But when was the last time you saw a 5/10 ?
" I honestly did n't know .
Even the big-name movie tie-ins that we all know to be awful will somehow manage to score " 6.5 " .
I actually had to go look up some reviews to find lower than " 6 " - but they are out there .
[ gamespot.com ] I 've started to view the " out of 10 " or " out of 100 " scores like the old A-F grading system we used in school .
A is 9/10 or 10/10 ( " A + " ) , B is 8/10 , C is 7/10 , D is 6/10 ... F is 5/10 or lower .
It 's not ideal to view games this way , but it makes sense of the review scores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.
But we don't do we ?My wife and I were having this same discussion the other day.
I was going through some reviews of games that just came out, comparing them to older games in the series.
When I spotted one and mentioned the poor review, my wife asked what was the score.
"6 out of 10".
She was confused that a bad game got such a high score.I guess I've been reading these reviews for so long, I didn't think of it anymore.
10/10 is awesome, 9/10 is great, 8/10 is good, 7/10 is okay, 6/10 is poor, 5/10 and lower is terrible.
"But when was the last time you saw a 5/10?
" I honestly didn't know.
Even the big-name movie tie-ins that we all know to be awful will somehow manage to score "6.5".
I actually had to go look up some reviews to find lower than "6" - but they are out there.
[gamespot.com] I've started to view the "out of 10" or "out of 100" scores like the old A-F grading system we used in school.
A is 9/10 or 10/10 ("A+"), B is 8/10, C is 7/10, D is 6/10 ... F is 5/10 or lower.
It's not ideal to view games this way, but it makes sense of the review scores.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235566</id>
	<title>Color me shocked</title>
	<author>Tar-Alcarin</author>
	<datestamp>1259236620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, while there certainly is correlation between the review score and purchase numbers, there's very limited (if any) causation?
With the immense integrity the game-review professionals command, who'da thunk it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , while there certainly is correlation between the review score and purchase numbers , there 's very limited ( if any ) causation ?
With the immense integrity the game-review professionals command , who'da thunk it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, while there certainly is correlation between the review score and purchase numbers, there's very limited (if any) causation?
With the immense integrity the game-review professionals command, who'da thunk it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236026</id>
	<title>Garrison Keillor says...</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1259242320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because at Lake Wobegone Software Publishing, all the secretaries are efficient, all the managers intelligent, and all the developers are above average.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because at Lake Wobegone Software Publishing , all the secretaries are efficient , all the managers intelligent , and all the developers are above average.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because at Lake Wobegone Software Publishing, all the secretaries are efficient, all the managers intelligent, and all the developers are above average.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239526</id>
	<title>Re:Why</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259228820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And why? Because the grade-grubbing means that as of about 10-15 years ago, reviews are nothing more than adverts, and ratings are nothing more than auctions to the highest bidder.</p></div><p>Exactly true.  Now, reviews are all about who can provide the most perks to the reviewers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why ?
Because the grade-grubbing means that as of about 10-15 years ago , reviews are nothing more than adverts , and ratings are nothing more than auctions to the highest bidder.Exactly true .
Now , reviews are all about who can provide the most perks to the reviewers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why?
Because the grade-grubbing means that as of about 10-15 years ago, reviews are nothing more than adverts, and ratings are nothing more than auctions to the highest bidder.Exactly true.
Now, reviews are all about who can provide the most perks to the reviewers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30242500</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259255760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you tried <a href="http://cloudjobs.net/" title="cloudjobs.net" rel="nofollow">http://cloudjobs.net/</a> [cloudjobs.net] ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried http : //cloudjobs.net/ [ cloudjobs.net ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried http://cloudjobs.net/ [cloudjobs.net] ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235626</id>
	<title>People SAY they are not influenced by reviews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259237100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you ask people if they are willing to pay more for quality 90\% will answer yes. However when the moment supreme is there to purchase for example a new notebook 80\% will go for the cheapest and don't care about long term stuff like quality.

I think there is a good chance this survey works the same; People SAY they are not influenced by reviews because 'Hey, I'm an original, I don't let anybody influence me'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask people if they are willing to pay more for quality 90 \ % will answer yes .
However when the moment supreme is there to purchase for example a new notebook 80 \ % will go for the cheapest and do n't care about long term stuff like quality .
I think there is a good chance this survey works the same ; People SAY they are not influenced by reviews because 'Hey , I 'm an original , I do n't let anybody influence me' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask people if they are willing to pay more for quality 90\% will answer yes.
However when the moment supreme is there to purchase for example a new notebook 80\% will go for the cheapest and don't care about long term stuff like quality.
I think there is a good chance this survey works the same; People SAY they are not influenced by reviews because 'Hey, I'm an original, I don't let anybody influence me'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30241534</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>FrozenFOXX</author>
	<datestamp>1259245620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember us hearing about "research" like this every six months or so.  Hasn't it been done to death?  The majority of people buying products of *any* kind, not just games, don't bother reading reviews.  It's simply not a significant factor.  X-Blades was rated terribly against any other game that came out at that time, yet we got it on Goozex.com once the price came down a bit and have a blast with it.  You know why it was panned?  Because it wasn't one of the "zomfg big game hype of the yearz!"<br> <br>

This doesn't even get into the fact that most review sites I've seen through metacritic <i>never even bother to really play</i> the titles anymore.  I started to notice IGN, 1up, and the other "big time" review sites were starting to complain about odd things...like "no discernable way to change difficulty level in Fallout 3" in I believe IGN's review (might've been TeamXBox, but it was a big site).  Right on the MAIN MENU under OPTIONS and even <i>during the game</i> you can at <b>any time</b> click "Options -&gt; Difficulty" and change to suit you.  You cannot tell me with a straight face that a professional reviewer of games who's done dozens, if not hundreds of reviews beforehand possibly missed something that simple that's been with us since the PS2 days.  There are quite a few other examples where it's clear the reviewer simply did *not* play through the game (like how no reviewers bothered mentioned the utter split-screen FAIL on Borderlands with the menus in-game.  Play it and you'll find out *immediately* what I'm talking about, they aren't resized so you can't navigate menus in-game).<br> <br>

People buy what their friends are going to buy, what hype tells them to buy, and what the box art tells them to buy.  Just like movies, books, cars, houses, and everything else.  Personally I think the whole review system is broken at the moment (working on my own, just need to get off my ass and buy a site for it) but even if it wasn't this just isn't news and hasn't been for some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember us hearing about " research " like this every six months or so .
Has n't it been done to death ?
The majority of people buying products of * any * kind , not just games , do n't bother reading reviews .
It 's simply not a significant factor .
X-Blades was rated terribly against any other game that came out at that time , yet we got it on Goozex.com once the price came down a bit and have a blast with it .
You know why it was panned ?
Because it was n't one of the " zomfg big game hype of the yearz !
" This does n't even get into the fact that most review sites I 've seen through metacritic never even bother to really play the titles anymore .
I started to notice IGN , 1up , and the other " big time " review sites were starting to complain about odd things...like " no discernable way to change difficulty level in Fallout 3 " in I believe IGN 's review ( might 've been TeamXBox , but it was a big site ) .
Right on the MAIN MENU under OPTIONS and even during the game you can at any time click " Options - &gt; Difficulty " and change to suit you .
You can not tell me with a straight face that a professional reviewer of games who 's done dozens , if not hundreds of reviews beforehand possibly missed something that simple that 's been with us since the PS2 days .
There are quite a few other examples where it 's clear the reviewer simply did * not * play through the game ( like how no reviewers bothered mentioned the utter split-screen FAIL on Borderlands with the menus in-game .
Play it and you 'll find out * immediately * what I 'm talking about , they are n't resized so you ca n't navigate menus in-game ) .
People buy what their friends are going to buy , what hype tells them to buy , and what the box art tells them to buy .
Just like movies , books , cars , houses , and everything else .
Personally I think the whole review system is broken at the moment ( working on my own , just need to get off my ass and buy a site for it ) but even if it was n't this just is n't news and has n't been for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember us hearing about "research" like this every six months or so.
Hasn't it been done to death?
The majority of people buying products of *any* kind, not just games, don't bother reading reviews.
It's simply not a significant factor.
X-Blades was rated terribly against any other game that came out at that time, yet we got it on Goozex.com once the price came down a bit and have a blast with it.
You know why it was panned?
Because it wasn't one of the "zomfg big game hype of the yearz!
" 

This doesn't even get into the fact that most review sites I've seen through metacritic never even bother to really play the titles anymore.
I started to notice IGN, 1up, and the other "big time" review sites were starting to complain about odd things...like "no discernable way to change difficulty level in Fallout 3" in I believe IGN's review (might've been TeamXBox, but it was a big site).
Right on the MAIN MENU under OPTIONS and even during the game you can at any time click "Options -&gt; Difficulty" and change to suit you.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that a professional reviewer of games who's done dozens, if not hundreds of reviews beforehand possibly missed something that simple that's been with us since the PS2 days.
There are quite a few other examples where it's clear the reviewer simply did *not* play through the game (like how no reviewers bothered mentioned the utter split-screen FAIL on Borderlands with the menus in-game.
Play it and you'll find out *immediately* what I'm talking about, they aren't resized so you can't navigate menus in-game).
People buy what their friends are going to buy, what hype tells them to buy, and what the box art tells them to buy.
Just like movies, books, cars, houses, and everything else.
Personally I think the whole review system is broken at the moment (working on my own, just need to get off my ass and buy a site for it) but even if it wasn't this just isn't news and hasn't been for some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238776</id>
	<title>Yes, stealing is the way to do it.</title>
	<author>AmazingRuss</author>
	<datestamp>1259264940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you'll grab a torrent of a hacked up game with viruses, play it all the way through all the while bitching on the forums that it runs like crap, righteously deny the devs payment, and go on to your next theft.</p><p>Then you'll bitch because nobody develops for the PC platform anymore.</p><p>As a dev and a pc gamer, all I have to say to you is "Fuck off and die, you fucking thief."</p><p>It's pathetic that you'll commit a felony for 60 bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 'll grab a torrent of a hacked up game with viruses , play it all the way through all the while bitching on the forums that it runs like crap , righteously deny the devs payment , and go on to your next theft.Then you 'll bitch because nobody develops for the PC platform anymore.As a dev and a pc gamer , all I have to say to you is " Fuck off and die , you fucking thief .
" It 's pathetic that you 'll commit a felony for 60 bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you'll grab a torrent of a hacked up game with viruses, play it all the way through all the while bitching on the forums that it runs like crap, righteously deny the devs payment, and go on to your next theft.Then you'll bitch because nobody develops for the PC platform anymore.As a dev and a pc gamer, all I have to say to you is "Fuck off and die, you fucking thief.
"It's pathetic that you'll commit a felony for 60 bucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235738</id>
	<title>Positive/Negative user reviews are the thing.</title>
	<author>quadrox</author>
	<datestamp>1259238600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the professional reviews only to get a detailed overview of what to expect. The buying decision is made after reading both the most positive and most negative user reviews - this usually gives you a fairly accurate idea of what to expect.</p><p>In the past I have bought too many games on hype alone, only to be disappointed because some aspect of the game was not (as good) as I expected. By reading the positive and negative user reviews you can be almost certain to learn about the quirkiest details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the professional reviews only to get a detailed overview of what to expect .
The buying decision is made after reading both the most positive and most negative user reviews - this usually gives you a fairly accurate idea of what to expect.In the past I have bought too many games on hype alone , only to be disappointed because some aspect of the game was not ( as good ) as I expected .
By reading the positive and negative user reviews you can be almost certain to learn about the quirkiest details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the professional reviews only to get a detailed overview of what to expect.
The buying decision is made after reading both the most positive and most negative user reviews - this usually gives you a fairly accurate idea of what to expect.In the past I have bought too many games on hype alone, only to be disappointed because some aspect of the game was not (as good) as I expected.
By reading the positive and negative user reviews you can be almost certain to learn about the quirkiest details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235938</id>
	<title>Bought reviews</title>
	<author>mseeger</author>
	<datestamp>1259240760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since it has been disclosed that good reviews are being bought (you are allowed to conduct a test early if you guarantee at least a score of X), you cannot rely on reviews in any way. Currently the publisher try to sell any game as much as possible on the first three days before the "real" reviews hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it has been disclosed that good reviews are being bought ( you are allowed to conduct a test early if you guarantee at least a score of X ) , you can not rely on reviews in any way .
Currently the publisher try to sell any game as much as possible on the first three days before the " real " reviews hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it has been disclosed that good reviews are being bought (you are allowed to conduct a test early if you guarantee at least a score of X), you cannot rely on reviews in any way.
Currently the publisher try to sell any game as much as possible on the first three days before the "real" reviews hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235760</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1259238780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's. But we don't do we ?</p><p>Why do you expect that? This isn't school where everybody gets a grade, if the game sucked so badly it'll bomb in the reviews, you just don't publish it because publishing costs lots of money and will tar your name. The only time you see epic fails being released is typically struggling or VC funded companies on their first game that has had their supply cut off, release now or file for bankrupcy.</p><p>I see the 1-10 scale more like a playability scale, and honestly most games, even the buggy, illogical and ugly ones are mostly playable these days. They're not good games, they're not fun games, but I don't see much unplayably bad games anymore. Just games I shouldn't waste my time on because there's better games to play.</p><p>In any case, review scores aren't that important to me but they are an important "sanity check", the game might sound great but if the reviews have low scores on quality then no go. Usually I look at one of the worst reviews - there's always a grumpy reviewer out there and see "what was the worst he came up with". If I don't think what he describes is a big deal, then it's usually a solid buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100 , then we ought to see some 1 's and 2 's .
But we do n't do we ? Why do you expect that ?
This is n't school where everybody gets a grade , if the game sucked so badly it 'll bomb in the reviews , you just do n't publish it because publishing costs lots of money and will tar your name .
The only time you see epic fails being released is typically struggling or VC funded companies on their first game that has had their supply cut off , release now or file for bankrupcy.I see the 1-10 scale more like a playability scale , and honestly most games , even the buggy , illogical and ugly ones are mostly playable these days .
They 're not good games , they 're not fun games , but I do n't see much unplayably bad games anymore .
Just games I should n't waste my time on because there 's better games to play.In any case , review scores are n't that important to me but they are an important " sanity check " , the game might sound great but if the reviews have low scores on quality then no go .
Usually I look at one of the worst reviews - there 's always a grumpy reviewer out there and see " what was the worst he came up with " .
If I do n't think what he describes is a big deal , then it 's usually a solid buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.
But we don't do we ?Why do you expect that?
This isn't school where everybody gets a grade, if the game sucked so badly it'll bomb in the reviews, you just don't publish it because publishing costs lots of money and will tar your name.
The only time you see epic fails being released is typically struggling or VC funded companies on their first game that has had their supply cut off, release now or file for bankrupcy.I see the 1-10 scale more like a playability scale, and honestly most games, even the buggy, illogical and ugly ones are mostly playable these days.
They're not good games, they're not fun games, but I don't see much unplayably bad games anymore.
Just games I shouldn't waste my time on because there's better games to play.In any case, review scores aren't that important to me but they are an important "sanity check", the game might sound great but if the reviews have low scores on quality then no go.
Usually I look at one of the worst reviews - there's always a grumpy reviewer out there and see "what was the worst he came up with".
If I don't think what he describes is a big deal, then it's usually a solid buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30241412</id>
	<title>Re:How do i do it?</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1259244600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>20\% - previous history with game franchise or developer</p></div><p>For me that'd be much more like 80\%</p><p>Eg; I'll NEVER EVER EVER buy a Funcom game ever again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 \ % - previous history with game franchise or developerFor me that 'd be much more like 80 \ % Eg ; I 'll NEVER EVER EVER buy a Funcom game ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20\% - previous history with game franchise or developerFor me that'd be much more like 80\%Eg; I'll NEVER EVER EVER buy a Funcom game ever again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30269186</id>
	<title>Re:How do i do it?</title>
	<author>easychord</author>
	<datestamp>1259591100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are buying 6 full price games a month then, sorry, but you are the last person I would go to for advice about spending money wisely on games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are buying 6 full price games a month then , sorry , but you are the last person I would go to for advice about spending money wisely on games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are buying 6 full price games a month then, sorry, but you are the last person I would go to for advice about spending money wisely on games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236272</id>
	<title>Except you just illiustrate the problem</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1259245080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you just illustrate the problem: something that's just "good enough" (which really just means "mediocre") gets an 8 out of 10. I'm sorry, but in a perfectly linear scale, "mediocre" would mean a 5. That's the kind of a number you could punch in a formula and get a correlation or anything else.</p><p>Plus, if it were just a case of a honest review and the bad ones being already cancelled, the results would look much like the right half of a bell curve. You know, the curve with the below average ones removed. For virtually any sitze out there, it doesn't. It looks like a bell curve centered on 8 or 9, and which pretty much starts at 6 or 7. Sorry, that's not a case of the bad ones being already removed, that's a clear sign of an offset scale. It's what you get when the occasional "something that's truly bad" means you get to give a 5 or a 6, not a 1 or 2.</p><p>And then there is the occasional reviewer whose curve looks like two spikes. The kind who churns 90\% to 99\% scores all year long, and then occasionally picks up some 10 year old freeware game so he can give \_something\_ a 5\% score and fix his street cred. Or publishes a yearly smack-talking "top 10 worst games of all time" -- conveniently all 20 years old and from publishers which are no longer in business -- just to show that he's that unbiased and can give a low score too.</p><p>But again, that's not being unbiased and fair at all, it's just trying to compensate one crap (or dishonest) job with another one skewed in the other direction. If it were a real fair and unbiased and non-skewed job, you'd get one bell curve centered in the right place, not two spikes centered near the extremes of the scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you just illustrate the problem : something that 's just " good enough " ( which really just means " mediocre " ) gets an 8 out of 10 .
I 'm sorry , but in a perfectly linear scale , " mediocre " would mean a 5 .
That 's the kind of a number you could punch in a formula and get a correlation or anything else.Plus , if it were just a case of a honest review and the bad ones being already cancelled , the results would look much like the right half of a bell curve .
You know , the curve with the below average ones removed .
For virtually any sitze out there , it does n't .
It looks like a bell curve centered on 8 or 9 , and which pretty much starts at 6 or 7 .
Sorry , that 's not a case of the bad ones being already removed , that 's a clear sign of an offset scale .
It 's what you get when the occasional " something that 's truly bad " means you get to give a 5 or a 6 , not a 1 or 2.And then there is the occasional reviewer whose curve looks like two spikes .
The kind who churns 90 \ % to 99 \ % scores all year long , and then occasionally picks up some 10 year old freeware game so he can give \ _something \ _ a 5 \ % score and fix his street cred .
Or publishes a yearly smack-talking " top 10 worst games of all time " -- conveniently all 20 years old and from publishers which are no longer in business -- just to show that he 's that unbiased and can give a low score too.But again , that 's not being unbiased and fair at all , it 's just trying to compensate one crap ( or dishonest ) job with another one skewed in the other direction .
If it were a real fair and unbiased and non-skewed job , you 'd get one bell curve centered in the right place , not two spikes centered near the extremes of the scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you just illustrate the problem: something that's just "good enough" (which really just means "mediocre") gets an 8 out of 10.
I'm sorry, but in a perfectly linear scale, "mediocre" would mean a 5.
That's the kind of a number you could punch in a formula and get a correlation or anything else.Plus, if it were just a case of a honest review and the bad ones being already cancelled, the results would look much like the right half of a bell curve.
You know, the curve with the below average ones removed.
For virtually any sitze out there, it doesn't.
It looks like a bell curve centered on 8 or 9, and which pretty much starts at 6 or 7.
Sorry, that's not a case of the bad ones being already removed, that's a clear sign of an offset scale.
It's what you get when the occasional "something that's truly bad" means you get to give a 5 or a 6, not a 1 or 2.And then there is the occasional reviewer whose curve looks like two spikes.
The kind who churns 90\% to 99\% scores all year long, and then occasionally picks up some 10 year old freeware game so he can give \_something\_ a 5\% score and fix his street cred.
Or publishes a yearly smack-talking "top 10 worst games of all time" -- conveniently all 20 years old and from publishers which are no longer in business -- just to show that he's that unbiased and can give a low score too.But again, that's not being unbiased and fair at all, it's just trying to compensate one crap (or dishonest) job with another one skewed in the other direction.
If it were a real fair and unbiased and non-skewed job, you'd get one bell curve centered in the right place, not two spikes centered near the extremes of the scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235668</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>FinchWorld</author>
	<datestamp>1259237820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About 10 years ago (MegaDrive/Genesis Era) I recall games getting 1,2 even a 0 out of 10. These days you give FIFA 2010 4 out of 10 for simply updating the graphics from the previous year and not touching anything else and EA will never send you a prerelease version of any game they have, or will ever have influence over again. Give it a 9/10 with a brief "Could have done more on gameplay" hidden in the review and your best of friends!</htmltext>
<tokenext>About 10 years ago ( MegaDrive/Genesis Era ) I recall games getting 1,2 even a 0 out of 10 .
These days you give FIFA 2010 4 out of 10 for simply updating the graphics from the previous year and not touching anything else and EA will never send you a prerelease version of any game they have , or will ever have influence over again .
Give it a 9/10 with a brief " Could have done more on gameplay " hidden in the review and your best of friends !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 10 years ago (MegaDrive/Genesis Era) I recall games getting 1,2 even a 0 out of 10.
These days you give FIFA 2010 4 out of 10 for simply updating the graphics from the previous year and not touching anything else and EA will never send you a prerelease version of any game they have, or will ever have influence over again.
Give it a 9/10 with a brief "Could have done more on gameplay" hidden in the review and your best of friends!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235504</id>
	<title>Why</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1259235960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why?  Because the grade-grubbing means that as of about 10-15 years ago, reviews are nothing more than adverts, and ratings are nothing more than auctions to the highest bidder.</p><p>I've *never* bought any game because of a review.  Not even back when they were a bit more honest (e.g. in the Spectrum days, it was very common to see sub-50\% and even sub-10\% scores of games, some of them were even immortalised in things like a "crap games collection").  Game preference is completely subjective and neither words nor pictures can convey how a game operates.</p><p>But it's not just games that suffer from the problem - I know someone who buys cameras, cars, all manner of electrical goods etc. on the basis of the Which? review.  I have seriously watched them buy something that costs a month's wages just because the Which? magazine said it was the best, only for them to discover that all the things *I* said about the brand / device / features etc. were true and it was useless to them.  What was even more annoying is that they asked my advice every time about PC's and electrical goods, then completely ignored it, bought what the Which? review recommended, then complained and expected me to provide support for the thing they just bought.</p><p>I read reviews as entertainment.  If I want to know about a game, I might read the review of it to pass the time and introduce me to the *suggested* features that it may have.  But I would never use them as a basis for a purchase... that's why you let other dummies buy it first and then hear first-hand from them after a month if they are still playing it and enjoying it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why ?
Because the grade-grubbing means that as of about 10-15 years ago , reviews are nothing more than adverts , and ratings are nothing more than auctions to the highest bidder.I 've * never * bought any game because of a review .
Not even back when they were a bit more honest ( e.g .
in the Spectrum days , it was very common to see sub-50 \ % and even sub-10 \ % scores of games , some of them were even immortalised in things like a " crap games collection " ) .
Game preference is completely subjective and neither words nor pictures can convey how a game operates.But it 's not just games that suffer from the problem - I know someone who buys cameras , cars , all manner of electrical goods etc .
on the basis of the Which ?
review. I have seriously watched them buy something that costs a month 's wages just because the Which ?
magazine said it was the best , only for them to discover that all the things * I * said about the brand / device / features etc .
were true and it was useless to them .
What was even more annoying is that they asked my advice every time about PC 's and electrical goods , then completely ignored it , bought what the Which ?
review recommended , then complained and expected me to provide support for the thing they just bought.I read reviews as entertainment .
If I want to know about a game , I might read the review of it to pass the time and introduce me to the * suggested * features that it may have .
But I would never use them as a basis for a purchase... that 's why you let other dummies buy it first and then hear first-hand from them after a month if they are still playing it and enjoying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why?
Because the grade-grubbing means that as of about 10-15 years ago, reviews are nothing more than adverts, and ratings are nothing more than auctions to the highest bidder.I've *never* bought any game because of a review.
Not even back when they were a bit more honest (e.g.
in the Spectrum days, it was very common to see sub-50\% and even sub-10\% scores of games, some of them were even immortalised in things like a "crap games collection").
Game preference is completely subjective and neither words nor pictures can convey how a game operates.But it's not just games that suffer from the problem - I know someone who buys cameras, cars, all manner of electrical goods etc.
on the basis of the Which?
review.  I have seriously watched them buy something that costs a month's wages just because the Which?
magazine said it was the best, only for them to discover that all the things *I* said about the brand / device / features etc.
were true and it was useless to them.
What was even more annoying is that they asked my advice every time about PC's and electrical goods, then completely ignored it, bought what the Which?
review recommended, then complained and expected me to provide support for the thing they just bought.I read reviews as entertainment.
If I want to know about a game, I might read the review of it to pass the time and introduce me to the *suggested* features that it may have.
But I would never use them as a basis for a purchase... that's why you let other dummies buy it first and then hear first-hand from them after a month if they are still playing it and enjoying it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236136</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259243580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;But we don't do we ?

There is a reason for that. It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed  long before they hit the shelves. I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times. Equally, 9 &amp; 10 is rare (for me). The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10. TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.</p></div><p>And this is exactly the mentality that has invalidated reviewer sites: you're looking out for the developers of these games, not the consumers who are your audience. Who cares if "it was a lot of hard work" when that hard work amounts to shit? If it's shit, say so, don't pretend its worthy because it was effortful shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But we do n't do we ?
There is a reason for that .
It 's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally , the real dogs are killed long before they hit the shelves .
I 've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times .
Equally , 9 &amp; 10 is rare ( for me ) .
The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough ' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10 .
TBH , I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that 's truly bad , I 'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.And this is exactly the mentality that has invalidated reviewer sites : you 're looking out for the developers of these games , not the consumers who are your audience .
Who cares if " it was a lot of hard work " when that hard work amounts to shit ?
If it 's shit , say so , do n't pretend its worthy because it was effortful shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;But we don't do we ?
There is a reason for that.
It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed  long before they hit the shelves.
I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times.
Equally, 9 &amp; 10 is rare (for me).
The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10.
TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.And this is exactly the mentality that has invalidated reviewer sites: you're looking out for the developers of these games, not the consumers who are your audience.
Who cares if "it was a lot of hard work" when that hard work amounts to shit?
If it's shit, say so, don't pretend its worthy because it was effortful shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236286</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259245200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't read his comment. What he said wasn't "because it's hard work making a game, I don't give it a shit grade". What he said was "because making a game is hard work, publishers kill the really terrible games long before they hit the shelves. Therefore, most games deserving of a shit grade never even make the shelves".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't read his comment .
What he said was n't " because it 's hard work making a game , I do n't give it a shit grade " .
What he said was " because making a game is hard work , publishers kill the really terrible games long before they hit the shelves .
Therefore , most games deserving of a shit grade never even make the shelves " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't read his comment.
What he said wasn't "because it's hard work making a game, I don't give it a shit grade".
What he said was "because making a game is hard work, publishers kill the really terrible games long before they hit the shelves.
Therefore, most games deserving of a shit grade never even make the shelves".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236646</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>LordAndrewSama</author>
	<datestamp>1259248380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Daikatana?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Daikatana ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daikatana?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235540</id>
	<title>I look at Gamefaqs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I personally buy a game, I look at gamefaqs user reviews instead of Metacritic. When looking at the main page of a game on gamefaqs, the first two averaged review numbers are exceptionally useful to me. They seem to give a very strong feel of what the general reaction to a game is - anything under a 7 is probably not worth my money. Also, user reviewers seem to me to play the games more thoroughly than someone who does reviews for a job, and game depth/replayability is a big point for me.
Although, if I think about it, I generally buy games for Nintendo DS - price is pretty uniform and graphics can only get so good. In order to look up the game at all I had to have heard about it from my friends or some sites, so my experience doesn't really contradict his research at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I personally buy a game , I look at gamefaqs user reviews instead of Metacritic .
When looking at the main page of a game on gamefaqs , the first two averaged review numbers are exceptionally useful to me .
They seem to give a very strong feel of what the general reaction to a game is - anything under a 7 is probably not worth my money .
Also , user reviewers seem to me to play the games more thoroughly than someone who does reviews for a job , and game depth/replayability is a big point for me .
Although , if I think about it , I generally buy games for Nintendo DS - price is pretty uniform and graphics can only get so good .
In order to look up the game at all I had to have heard about it from my friends or some sites , so my experience does n't really contradict his research at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I personally buy a game, I look at gamefaqs user reviews instead of Metacritic.
When looking at the main page of a game on gamefaqs, the first two averaged review numbers are exceptionally useful to me.
They seem to give a very strong feel of what the general reaction to a game is - anything under a 7 is probably not worth my money.
Also, user reviewers seem to me to play the games more thoroughly than someone who does reviews for a job, and game depth/replayability is a big point for me.
Although, if I think about it, I generally buy games for Nintendo DS - price is pretty uniform and graphics can only get so good.
In order to look up the game at all I had to have heard about it from my friends or some sites, so my experience doesn't really contradict his research at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237136</id>
	<title>This is why I love the slash crowd</title>
	<author>vosester</author>
	<datestamp>1259252280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are a smart bunch, but so dumb some times. I say the average I.Q is what 130+ and yet we are so egotistical that we think advertisement does not work on us.</p><p>Of course the dumb rating system will not work on us, but they get us other ways.</p><p>I will use the iPhone as the best example of this, we ignore the silly ads. you know the lame ones that are comply unrealistic. They get to us through nerd speak,specs, and its almost like we get off on it. Then we got out and buy it. Knowing the limitations and the bad points.<br>No mater how bad because it is cool tech. Since everyone in the tech crow has one, the dumb adverts now work on the average customer.</p><p>Gaming is still a young market they will grow up, but for now this still works.</p><p>Compare two reviews one for P.C games and one for console games and the focus be will completely different, yet they are selling the same thing.</p><p>Adverts and reviews are make for the target audience that will most likely buy the product.</p><p>You can tell how well a market is doing by it&rsquo;s adverts, Razors are still sold to you like your twelve and it still works.</p><p>Sent form my iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are a smart bunch , but so dumb some times .
I say the average I.Q is what 130 + and yet we are so egotistical that we think advertisement does not work on us.Of course the dumb rating system will not work on us , but they get us other ways.I will use the iPhone as the best example of this , we ignore the silly ads .
you know the lame ones that are comply unrealistic .
They get to us through nerd speak,specs , and its almost like we get off on it .
Then we got out and buy it .
Knowing the limitations and the bad points.No mater how bad because it is cool tech .
Since everyone in the tech crow has one , the dumb adverts now work on the average customer.Gaming is still a young market they will grow up , but for now this still works.Compare two reviews one for P.C games and one for console games and the focus be will completely different , yet they are selling the same thing.Adverts and reviews are make for the target audience that will most likely buy the product.You can tell how well a market is doing by it    s adverts , Razors are still sold to you like your twelve and it still works.Sent form my iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are a smart bunch, but so dumb some times.
I say the average I.Q is what 130+ and yet we are so egotistical that we think advertisement does not work on us.Of course the dumb rating system will not work on us, but they get us other ways.I will use the iPhone as the best example of this, we ignore the silly ads.
you know the lame ones that are comply unrealistic.
They get to us through nerd speak,specs, and its almost like we get off on it.
Then we got out and buy it.
Knowing the limitations and the bad points.No mater how bad because it is cool tech.
Since everyone in the tech crow has one, the dumb adverts now work on the average customer.Gaming is still a young market they will grow up, but for now this still works.Compare two reviews one for P.C games and one for console games and the focus be will completely different, yet they are selling the same thing.Adverts and reviews are make for the target audience that will most likely buy the product.You can tell how well a market is doing by it’s adverts, Razors are still sold to you like your twelve and it still works.Sent form my iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236046</id>
	<title>Wait a few days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259242500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most games are at best mediocre and at worst shovelware crap. It doesn't hurt to wait a day or two after release and gather consensus whether a game is worth purchasing or not. I don't get the urgency that some people attach to getting a game the minute it is released. If the game is THAT GOOD, then the reviews and consensus will bear that out, and if it doesn't, well you've just saved yourself a chunk of money.
<p>
Be extra suspicious of games that embargo reviews, or allow just a handful of "exclusive" reviews to break the embargo. More often than not those reviews have been paid for in one way or another. Just like with other kinds of media there is usually a very good reason that publishers don't want you to know upfront what a game is like - because the product sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most games are at best mediocre and at worst shovelware crap .
It does n't hurt to wait a day or two after release and gather consensus whether a game is worth purchasing or not .
I do n't get the urgency that some people attach to getting a game the minute it is released .
If the game is THAT GOOD , then the reviews and consensus will bear that out , and if it does n't , well you 've just saved yourself a chunk of money .
Be extra suspicious of games that embargo reviews , or allow just a handful of " exclusive " reviews to break the embargo .
More often than not those reviews have been paid for in one way or another .
Just like with other kinds of media there is usually a very good reason that publishers do n't want you to know upfront what a game is like - because the product sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most games are at best mediocre and at worst shovelware crap.
It doesn't hurt to wait a day or two after release and gather consensus whether a game is worth purchasing or not.
I don't get the urgency that some people attach to getting a game the minute it is released.
If the game is THAT GOOD, then the reviews and consensus will bear that out, and if it doesn't, well you've just saved yourself a chunk of money.
Be extra suspicious of games that embargo reviews, or allow just a handful of "exclusive" reviews to break the embargo.
More often than not those reviews have been paid for in one way or another.
Just like with other kinds of media there is usually a very good reason that publishers don't want you to know upfront what a game is like - because the product sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238686</id>
	<title>We don't see ones and twos because....</title>
	<author>AmazingRuss</author>
	<datestamp>1259264280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if its obviously a piece of crap, the reviewer isn't even going to bother with it.</p><p>I think 6/10 is the low limit for anything to get reviewed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if its obviously a piece of crap , the reviewer is n't even going to bother with it.I think 6/10 is the low limit for anything to get reviewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if its obviously a piece of crap, the reviewer isn't even going to bother with it.I think 6/10 is the low limit for anything to get reviewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236434</id>
	<title>Re:Trust</title>
	<author>rpillala</author>
	<datestamp>1259246580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul> <li>Creeping scores: games coming out now get higher average scores than games that came out 2 or 3 years ago</li></ul></div><p>Of course they're better: they're <i>newer</i> </p><p>Duh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creeping scores : games coming out now get higher average scores than games that came out 2 or 3 years agoOf course they 're better : they 're newer Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Creeping scores: games coming out now get higher average scores than games that came out 2 or 3 years agoOf course they're better: they're newer Duh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235694</id>
	<title>Review Scores are all payola....</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1259238120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depending on how much the parent company spends in ads on the site/magazine, the score will be inflated higher. The few times that an editor or reviewer really did stand up and score a bad game as such, they were immediately fired by the advertising department. There was a big scandal a few years back when the editor actually spoke out against one such firing... I am too tired to look it up myself right now.<br> <br>Anyway, reviews anymore from the "gaming press" are total garbage due to this mechanic. The ads in the magazine are more important to the company than the reviews themselves. When was the last time you saw an EA game get a 1 out of 10.... And trust me, there are many deserving candidates, like the yearly sports rehash which change nothing in the game, just which player is on which team. Or Race Driver Grid, or Darkar 2009, or Rally Stars.... The magazines would just not post a review of a game when it gets bad because they don't want to potentially lose their ads from the publisher...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on how much the parent company spends in ads on the site/magazine , the score will be inflated higher .
The few times that an editor or reviewer really did stand up and score a bad game as such , they were immediately fired by the advertising department .
There was a big scandal a few years back when the editor actually spoke out against one such firing... I am too tired to look it up myself right now .
Anyway , reviews anymore from the " gaming press " are total garbage due to this mechanic .
The ads in the magazine are more important to the company than the reviews themselves .
When was the last time you saw an EA game get a 1 out of 10.... And trust me , there are many deserving candidates , like the yearly sports rehash which change nothing in the game , just which player is on which team .
Or Race Driver Grid , or Darkar 2009 , or Rally Stars.... The magazines would just not post a review of a game when it gets bad because they do n't want to potentially lose their ads from the publisher.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on how much the parent company spends in ads on the site/magazine, the score will be inflated higher.
The few times that an editor or reviewer really did stand up and score a bad game as such, they were immediately fired by the advertising department.
There was a big scandal a few years back when the editor actually spoke out against one such firing... I am too tired to look it up myself right now.
Anyway, reviews anymore from the "gaming press" are total garbage due to this mechanic.
The ads in the magazine are more important to the company than the reviews themselves.
When was the last time you saw an EA game get a 1 out of 10.... And trust me, there are many deserving candidates, like the yearly sports rehash which change nothing in the game, just which player is on which team.
Or Race Driver Grid, or Darkar 2009, or Rally Stars.... The magazines would just not post a review of a game when it gets bad because they don't want to potentially lose their ads from the publisher...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30246304</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1259342820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing ever lives up to the hype, don't buy into the bullshit of "best game ever" and you won't be disappointed as easily.  Plenty of games that don't live up to the pre-release hype are still very enjoyable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing ever lives up to the hype , do n't buy into the bullshit of " best game ever " and you wo n't be disappointed as easily .
Plenty of games that do n't live up to the pre-release hype are still very enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing ever lives up to the hype, don't buy into the bullshit of "best game ever" and you won't be disappointed as easily.
Plenty of games that don't live up to the pre-release hype are still very enjoyable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236934</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1259250720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with reviews is that they are strongly subjective.</p><p>On the other hand, sites such as Criticker (for movies) that make recommendations based on *your* defined ranking seem more useful for me.</p><p>For example, from the first 5 "best" games for the Wii (from metacritic):<br>1 Super Mario Galaxy      2007      97<br>2 Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The     2006     95<br>3 World of Goo     2008     94<br>4 Super Smash Bros. Brawl     2008     93<br>5 Rock Band 2</p><p>I bought mario galaxy and thought it was just OK, nothing worth of an 80 or so.</p><p>I bought L. of Zelda along with my Wii when it was first released, however I stopped playing it<br>after about 2 hours because I got bored as hell.</p><p>I played SuperSmash Bros brawl at a friend's house and didn't like it at all. See, I was raised with Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 1 and 2, thus, the "one button does everything" gameplay of SSBB just does not cut it for me.</p><p>As of "Rockband 2", I play the real guitar, I tried this mock-guitar playing in an arcade some years ago and after the first two or three games it lost the novelty (I also installed FretsOnFire and gave it a try, I just do not find such kind of game amusing).</p><p>So, that only leaves World of Goo, which was a good game, albeit a bit short. The sad think, for the wii I guess, is that a "side-project" game as world of goo ends among the first 5 of the platform...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with reviews is that they are strongly subjective.On the other hand , sites such as Criticker ( for movies ) that make recommendations based on * your * defined ranking seem more useful for me.For example , from the first 5 " best " games for the Wii ( from metacritic ) : 1 Super Mario Galaxy 2007 972 Legend of Zelda : Twilight Princess , The 2006 953 World of Goo 2008 944 Super Smash Bros. Brawl 2008 935 Rock Band 2I bought mario galaxy and thought it was just OK , nothing worth of an 80 or so.I bought L. of Zelda along with my Wii when it was first released , however I stopped playing itafter about 2 hours because I got bored as hell.I played SuperSmash Bros brawl at a friend 's house and did n't like it at all .
See , I was raised with Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 1 and 2 , thus , the " one button does everything " gameplay of SSBB just does not cut it for me.As of " Rockband 2 " , I play the real guitar , I tried this mock-guitar playing in an arcade some years ago and after the first two or three games it lost the novelty ( I also installed FretsOnFire and gave it a try , I just do not find such kind of game amusing ) .So , that only leaves World of Goo , which was a good game , albeit a bit short .
The sad think , for the wii I guess , is that a " side-project " game as world of goo ends among the first 5 of the platform.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with reviews is that they are strongly subjective.On the other hand, sites such as Criticker (for movies) that make recommendations based on *your* defined ranking seem more useful for me.For example, from the first 5 "best" games for the Wii (from metacritic):1 Super Mario Galaxy      2007      972 Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The     2006     953 World of Goo     2008     944 Super Smash Bros. Brawl     2008     935 Rock Band 2I bought mario galaxy and thought it was just OK, nothing worth of an 80 or so.I bought L. of Zelda along with my Wii when it was first released, however I stopped playing itafter about 2 hours because I got bored as hell.I played SuperSmash Bros brawl at a friend's house and didn't like it at all.
See, I was raised with Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 1 and 2, thus, the "one button does everything" gameplay of SSBB just does not cut it for me.As of "Rockband 2", I play the real guitar, I tried this mock-guitar playing in an arcade some years ago and after the first two or three games it lost the novelty (I also installed FretsOnFire and gave it a try, I just do not find such kind of game amusing).So, that only leaves World of Goo, which was a good game, albeit a bit short.
The sad think, for the wii I guess, is that a "side-project" game as world of goo ends among the first 5 of the platform...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236838</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been doing game reviews online for about a decade now, and as I look back over my reviews I find the ratings pretty much hit the full spectrum from 95\% (Bioshock) all the way down to 14\% (Dukes of Hazard - Racing for Home).  I'm also a constant consumer of game reviews for games that I buy that I don't review.  I think for all reviews that have a high degree of opinion (movies, books, videogames) it is important to find a couple of reviewers who feel like you do and stick with them.  It's clear that specifically to the videogame realm there is a high degree of sellout (I won't name names) but here's a hint - avoid a review for a game that has a banner ad for that game on the same page as the review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been doing game reviews online for about a decade now , and as I look back over my reviews I find the ratings pretty much hit the full spectrum from 95 \ % ( Bioshock ) all the way down to 14 \ % ( Dukes of Hazard - Racing for Home ) .
I 'm also a constant consumer of game reviews for games that I buy that I do n't review .
I think for all reviews that have a high degree of opinion ( movies , books , videogames ) it is important to find a couple of reviewers who feel like you do and stick with them .
It 's clear that specifically to the videogame realm there is a high degree of sellout ( I wo n't name names ) but here 's a hint - avoid a review for a game that has a banner ad for that game on the same page as the review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been doing game reviews online for about a decade now, and as I look back over my reviews I find the ratings pretty much hit the full spectrum from 95\% (Bioshock) all the way down to 14\% (Dukes of Hazard - Racing for Home).
I'm also a constant consumer of game reviews for games that I buy that I don't review.
I think for all reviews that have a high degree of opinion (movies, books, videogames) it is important to find a couple of reviewers who feel like you do and stick with them.
It's clear that specifically to the videogame realm there is a high degree of sellout (I won't name names) but here's a hint - avoid a review for a game that has a banner ad for that game on the same page as the review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1259239260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, name me one single game that deserves a 1 or 2 out of a 100 score.<br>Games may be bad, but their production value is rarely low enough to warant such low scores.<br>If I were to publish a single picture of a maze, that would still be entertaining enough to score atleast a 3.<br>Perhaps a virus would score a 1 or 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , name me one single game that deserves a 1 or 2 out of a 100 score.Games may be bad , but their production value is rarely low enough to warant such low scores.If I were to publish a single picture of a maze , that would still be entertaining enough to score atleast a 3.Perhaps a virus would score a 1 or 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, name me one single game that deserves a 1 or 2 out of a 100 score.Games may be bad, but their production value is rarely low enough to warant such low scores.If I were to publish a single picture of a maze, that would still be entertaining enough to score atleast a 3.Perhaps a virus would score a 1 or 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236242</id>
	<title>I never read reviews as reviews.</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1259244840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never read reviews as reviews.</p><p>A review to me contains two or three things: advertising for the game, some more details about the gameplay that might be missing from the full-page graphic laden ad or TV spot, and possible it might compare the game to relevant reference points (other games, other relevant media, etc.). If I want an opinion beyond those bits of factual information I will look elsewhere - within days of a game being release there will be many opinions out there to pick from. Admittedly you have to assess each as there will be a mix of astro-turfers and particular-company-haters-who-don't-even-know-the-product-they-are-bashing but if you can find a good active discussion or two you can usually get a good gauge of the state of play.</p><p>You also have to remember that the person writing the review isn't you. Your opinions may differ greatly when you actually get hold of the game, so try to read the facts upon which the opinion is based more than the opinion itself. Have a look at Zero Punctuation's reviews - if nothing else he rants entertainingly (IMO), and while the reviews are slanted towards the negative (intentionally so) he will mix in what good points he finds. For instance the BioShock review which if you don't pay attention at the beginning (where he lists the games major good points) you'd mistake a "good and very pretty, but not close to the hype" review fro a complete slating. When he does say something nice you know he means it (as being nasty is what gets him his viewers and therefore his paycheck). Of course I disagree with some of his views, because as stated above he is not me - I liked DeadSpace a lot more than he did (the trick being not to expect too much depth in what is essentially an interactive action flick) but didn't much like PainKiller when I tried it on a friends machine (though a lot of that is based on "what it my kind of game" and "what mood I was in" as much as the game itself.</p><p>In summary: you are never going to get a true impression of how much you will like a game from any one review or collection of reviews, so stop trying. "Out of 10" and similar scores are even less (far, far, far less) meaningful.</p><p>Caveat: I buy at most on or two of major games most years, and sometimes those are last year's games or earlier (which are now at little as 25\% original full price) and occasionally pay for a good indie "casual" distraction, so I'm not really the industries key target audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never read reviews as reviews.A review to me contains two or three things : advertising for the game , some more details about the gameplay that might be missing from the full-page graphic laden ad or TV spot , and possible it might compare the game to relevant reference points ( other games , other relevant media , etc. ) .
If I want an opinion beyond those bits of factual information I will look elsewhere - within days of a game being release there will be many opinions out there to pick from .
Admittedly you have to assess each as there will be a mix of astro-turfers and particular-company-haters-who-do n't-even-know-the-product-they-are-bashing but if you can find a good active discussion or two you can usually get a good gauge of the state of play.You also have to remember that the person writing the review is n't you .
Your opinions may differ greatly when you actually get hold of the game , so try to read the facts upon which the opinion is based more than the opinion itself .
Have a look at Zero Punctuation 's reviews - if nothing else he rants entertainingly ( IMO ) , and while the reviews are slanted towards the negative ( intentionally so ) he will mix in what good points he finds .
For instance the BioShock review which if you do n't pay attention at the beginning ( where he lists the games major good points ) you 'd mistake a " good and very pretty , but not close to the hype " review fro a complete slating .
When he does say something nice you know he means it ( as being nasty is what gets him his viewers and therefore his paycheck ) .
Of course I disagree with some of his views , because as stated above he is not me - I liked DeadSpace a lot more than he did ( the trick being not to expect too much depth in what is essentially an interactive action flick ) but did n't much like PainKiller when I tried it on a friends machine ( though a lot of that is based on " what it my kind of game " and " what mood I was in " as much as the game itself.In summary : you are never going to get a true impression of how much you will like a game from any one review or collection of reviews , so stop trying .
" Out of 10 " and similar scores are even less ( far , far , far less ) meaningful.Caveat : I buy at most on or two of major games most years , and sometimes those are last year 's games or earlier ( which are now at little as 25 \ % original full price ) and occasionally pay for a good indie " casual " distraction , so I 'm not really the industries key target audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never read reviews as reviews.A review to me contains two or three things: advertising for the game, some more details about the gameplay that might be missing from the full-page graphic laden ad or TV spot, and possible it might compare the game to relevant reference points (other games, other relevant media, etc.).
If I want an opinion beyond those bits of factual information I will look elsewhere - within days of a game being release there will be many opinions out there to pick from.
Admittedly you have to assess each as there will be a mix of astro-turfers and particular-company-haters-who-don't-even-know-the-product-they-are-bashing but if you can find a good active discussion or two you can usually get a good gauge of the state of play.You also have to remember that the person writing the review isn't you.
Your opinions may differ greatly when you actually get hold of the game, so try to read the facts upon which the opinion is based more than the opinion itself.
Have a look at Zero Punctuation's reviews - if nothing else he rants entertainingly (IMO), and while the reviews are slanted towards the negative (intentionally so) he will mix in what good points he finds.
For instance the BioShock review which if you don't pay attention at the beginning (where he lists the games major good points) you'd mistake a "good and very pretty, but not close to the hype" review fro a complete slating.
When he does say something nice you know he means it (as being nasty is what gets him his viewers and therefore his paycheck).
Of course I disagree with some of his views, because as stated above he is not me - I liked DeadSpace a lot more than he did (the trick being not to expect too much depth in what is essentially an interactive action flick) but didn't much like PainKiller when I tried it on a friends machine (though a lot of that is based on "what it my kind of game" and "what mood I was in" as much as the game itself.In summary: you are never going to get a true impression of how much you will like a game from any one review or collection of reviews, so stop trying.
"Out of 10" and similar scores are even less (far, far, far less) meaningful.Caveat: I buy at most on or two of major games most years, and sometimes those are last year's games or earlier (which are now at little as 25\% original full price) and occasionally pay for a good indie "casual" distraction, so I'm not really the industries key target audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235982</id>
	<title>a modest proposal</title>
	<author>Bazzargh</author>
	<datestamp>1259241600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the publishers are so keen on getting 8/10 reviews, lets replace the stars with a scoring system that just gives them more of what they want.</p><p>A good game gets one (8/10).</p><p>A mediocre game gets 3: (8/10)(8/10)(8/10)</p><p>And a terrible game gets a whopping 10: (8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the publishers get what they want, and anyone with a calculator to hand <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)(8\%2F10)&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.co.uk">knows what we really mean</a> [google.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the publishers are so keen on getting 8/10 reviews , lets replace the stars with a scoring system that just gives them more of what they want.A good game gets one ( 8/10 ) .A mediocre game gets 3 : ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) And a terrible game gets a whopping 10 : ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ( 8/10 ) ... the publishers get what they want , and anyone with a calculator to hand knows what we really mean [ google.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the publishers are so keen on getting 8/10 reviews, lets replace the stars with a scoring system that just gives them more of what they want.A good game gets one (8/10).A mediocre game gets 3: (8/10)(8/10)(8/10)And a terrible game gets a whopping 10: (8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10)(8/10) ... the publishers get what they want, and anyone with a calculator to hand knows what we really mean [google.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238736</id>
	<title>I don't think they're all 'bought'.</title>
	<author>AmazingRuss</author>
	<datestamp>1259264580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just released a game that has been getting some really nice reviews, and have spent very little on promotion (we don't have any money).  Everybody has different tastes.  Perhaps your tastes just happen to clash with those of the reviewers you read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just released a game that has been getting some really nice reviews , and have spent very little on promotion ( we do n't have any money ) .
Everybody has different tastes .
Perhaps your tastes just happen to clash with those of the reviewers you read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just released a game that has been getting some really nice reviews, and have spent very little on promotion (we don't have any money).
Everybody has different tastes.
Perhaps your tastes just happen to clash with those of the reviewers you read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237322</id>
	<title>How do i do it?</title>
	<author>jaggeh</author>
	<datestamp>1259253480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an avid gamer with multiple platforms (360, DS, PC) im usually buying 3-6 games per month depending on releases.</p><p>I use the metacritic websites aggregated score to get a feel for what people are thinking.</p><p>if i see something compelling i check for video footage to see if i like the art direction, usually on gametrailers or similar site.</p><p>Then i read some reviews OR i speak to people i know have played it or have worked on it.</p><p>Lastly if its a sequel that i have played before i replay it or use my memories of it to decided wether or not to buy.</p><p>tl;dr<br>my decision on buying games is based on<br>10\% - aggregated review scores<br>30\% - video footage<br>40\% - word of mouth/in depth review<br>20\% - previous history with game franchise or developer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an avid gamer with multiple platforms ( 360 , DS , PC ) im usually buying 3-6 games per month depending on releases.I use the metacritic websites aggregated score to get a feel for what people are thinking.if i see something compelling i check for video footage to see if i like the art direction , usually on gametrailers or similar site.Then i read some reviews OR i speak to people i know have played it or have worked on it.Lastly if its a sequel that i have played before i replay it or use my memories of it to decided wether or not to buy.tl ; drmy decision on buying games is based on10 \ % - aggregated review scores30 \ % - video footage40 \ % - word of mouth/in depth review20 \ % - previous history with game franchise or developer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an avid gamer with multiple platforms (360, DS, PC) im usually buying 3-6 games per month depending on releases.I use the metacritic websites aggregated score to get a feel for what people are thinking.if i see something compelling i check for video footage to see if i like the art direction, usually on gametrailers or similar site.Then i read some reviews OR i speak to people i know have played it or have worked on it.Lastly if its a sequel that i have played before i replay it or use my memories of it to decided wether or not to buy.tl;drmy decision on buying games is based on10\% - aggregated review scores30\% - video footage40\% - word of mouth/in depth review20\% - previous history with game franchise or developer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237598</id>
	<title>Actually, most bugs are just bugs</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1259255940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the vast majority of the bugs I've encountered in various games were just plain old fashioned bugs in their code, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the drivers or hardware configuration. They were script bugs (e.g., a dialog option remaining active when it should be gone), pathing bugs, collision or physics bugs, balance problems, AI bugs, interface problems, the occasional race condition, memory leaks, etc.</p><p>E.g., if you think that any hardware or drivers could stop WoW from having bugged enemies that evade every single attack, I have some logging rights in Sahara to sell.</p><p>Even when installing a different version of the drivers solved anything, it is often just a case of moving the timings a bit so the race condition hits you at a different time, or some call with wrong parameters that only incidentally doesn't crash a particular driver version, or various such. In short, still program bugs, rather than actual driver bugs.</p><p>That's really what annoys me about the PC. Too often that variability in drivers or hardware is used just as a blanket excuse to do a half-arsed QA job before releasing, or as a blanket excuse for reviewers to not mention the bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the vast majority of the bugs I 've encountered in various games were just plain old fashioned bugs in their code , and had nothing whatsoever to do with the drivers or hardware configuration .
They were script bugs ( e.g. , a dialog option remaining active when it should be gone ) , pathing bugs , collision or physics bugs , balance problems , AI bugs , interface problems , the occasional race condition , memory leaks , etc.E.g. , if you think that any hardware or drivers could stop WoW from having bugged enemies that evade every single attack , I have some logging rights in Sahara to sell.Even when installing a different version of the drivers solved anything , it is often just a case of moving the timings a bit so the race condition hits you at a different time , or some call with wrong parameters that only incidentally does n't crash a particular driver version , or various such .
In short , still program bugs , rather than actual driver bugs.That 's really what annoys me about the PC .
Too often that variability in drivers or hardware is used just as a blanket excuse to do a half-arsed QA job before releasing , or as a blanket excuse for reviewers to not mention the bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the vast majority of the bugs I've encountered in various games were just plain old fashioned bugs in their code, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the drivers or hardware configuration.
They were script bugs (e.g., a dialog option remaining active when it should be gone), pathing bugs, collision or physics bugs, balance problems, AI bugs, interface problems, the occasional race condition, memory leaks, etc.E.g., if you think that any hardware or drivers could stop WoW from having bugged enemies that evade every single attack, I have some logging rights in Sahara to sell.Even when installing a different version of the drivers solved anything, it is often just a case of moving the timings a bit so the race condition hits you at a different time, or some call with wrong parameters that only incidentally doesn't crash a particular driver version, or various such.
In short, still program bugs, rather than actual driver bugs.That's really what annoys me about the PC.
Too often that variability in drivers or hardware is used just as a blanket excuse to do a half-arsed QA job before releasing, or as a blanket excuse for reviewers to not mention the bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235480</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe it's the other way around... You only have to buy a sucky game *once* based on a raving review to *never* trust those reviews again. While your friends can comment properly on the game without some obscure metric like '8/10 overall'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe it 's the other way around... You only have to buy a sucky game * once * based on a raving review to * never * trust those reviews again .
While your friends can comment properly on the game without some obscure metric like '8/10 overall' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe it's the other way around... You only have to buy a sucky game *once* based on a raving review to *never* trust those reviews again.
While your friends can comment properly on the game without some obscure metric like '8/10 overall'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642</id>
	<title>Luckily with PC games you can test them for free.</title>
	<author>boombaard</author>
	<datestamp>1259237340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luckily with games, there are free demos available on every major torrent site.<br>
Having said that, I do realise that this applies less to console owners, who are in a more difficult position because they generally can't test games before purchasing it, meaning they will have to live with a lower signal-to-noise ratio. (But then, they were the ones who chose to invest in a closed platform.)<br>
Anyway, I'm fairly happy that most games are available for free testing (I'm usually not really in a rush to get any particular game), because - looking back - I can't really say that I found very many games that would've been worth my money if I had bought them (not even when they were sold at half 'list' price).. For the last couple of years the list would pretty much be limited to Portal, EU3, World in Conflict, Vampire: Bloodlines and Civ4 (and Arkham Asylum was OK too, just not at the current prices). Not a very long list, I might note.<br>
In all, I would suggest people don't get consoles, as too much bargaining power is taken away from you in getting one, and too many games just aren't worth wasting money on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily with games , there are free demos available on every major torrent site .
Having said that , I do realise that this applies less to console owners , who are in a more difficult position because they generally ca n't test games before purchasing it , meaning they will have to live with a lower signal-to-noise ratio .
( But then , they were the ones who chose to invest in a closed platform .
) Anyway , I 'm fairly happy that most games are available for free testing ( I 'm usually not really in a rush to get any particular game ) , because - looking back - I ca n't really say that I found very many games that would 've been worth my money if I had bought them ( not even when they were sold at half 'list ' price ) .. For the last couple of years the list would pretty much be limited to Portal , EU3 , World in Conflict , Vampire : Bloodlines and Civ4 ( and Arkham Asylum was OK too , just not at the current prices ) .
Not a very long list , I might note .
In all , I would suggest people do n't get consoles , as too much bargaining power is taken away from you in getting one , and too many games just are n't worth wasting money on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily with games, there are free demos available on every major torrent site.
Having said that, I do realise that this applies less to console owners, who are in a more difficult position because they generally can't test games before purchasing it, meaning they will have to live with a lower signal-to-noise ratio.
(But then, they were the ones who chose to invest in a closed platform.
)
Anyway, I'm fairly happy that most games are available for free testing (I'm usually not really in a rush to get any particular game), because - looking back - I can't really say that I found very many games that would've been worth my money if I had bought them (not even when they were sold at half 'list' price).. For the last couple of years the list would pretty much be limited to Portal, EU3, World in Conflict, Vampire: Bloodlines and Civ4 (and Arkham Asylum was OK too, just not at the current prices).
Not a very long list, I might note.
In all, I would suggest people don't get consoles, as too much bargaining power is taken away from you in getting one, and too many games just aren't worth wasting money on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237298</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Alpha Soixante-Neuf</author>
	<datestamp>1259253360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My answer to this is it's time to re-think your scale. Absolutely everything that goes sub 6 on your current scale should get an automatic 0. 0 means too far below industry standards to be considered a viable option. After that re-orient your 6-10 on a 1-10 scale. Nobody reading reviews gives a crap about the differences between a current 1 and a current 4. they are both equally unbuyable products and I see no reason for a reviewer to differentiate between them. However, there are lots of reasons to make small distinctions between a 6, a 6.5, and a 7 and I'd much rather have those difference given more weight so they exist on a 3-6 or 3-7 plane. It's all the little things reviewers know about that would help people make decisions. Are there other similar titles that do it better? Graphics subtleties, small control issues, bugs etc... <br> <br>
Now it's frustrating because if you're the only one using a scale like this your reviews sound incredibly harsh, but to me there's no reason to give a spectrum at the bottom of the scale where the threshold for even considering buying it is way more like 4-5 at the lowest. To me a 1 should be the generic genre game that super fanboys will play and enjoy, but if you don't play like 20 games of the same style every year, then buy a different one. Then work your way up from there. There's no reason anything lower on the scale deserves it's own spot. It shouldn't be paid for under any circumstances and the fact that people can make games even worse than it doesn't mean the've accomplished anything either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My answer to this is it 's time to re-think your scale .
Absolutely everything that goes sub 6 on your current scale should get an automatic 0 .
0 means too far below industry standards to be considered a viable option .
After that re-orient your 6-10 on a 1-10 scale .
Nobody reading reviews gives a crap about the differences between a current 1 and a current 4. they are both equally unbuyable products and I see no reason for a reviewer to differentiate between them .
However , there are lots of reasons to make small distinctions between a 6 , a 6.5 , and a 7 and I 'd much rather have those difference given more weight so they exist on a 3-6 or 3-7 plane .
It 's all the little things reviewers know about that would help people make decisions .
Are there other similar titles that do it better ?
Graphics subtleties , small control issues , bugs etc.. . Now it 's frustrating because if you 're the only one using a scale like this your reviews sound incredibly harsh , but to me there 's no reason to give a spectrum at the bottom of the scale where the threshold for even considering buying it is way more like 4-5 at the lowest .
To me a 1 should be the generic genre game that super fanboys will play and enjoy , but if you do n't play like 20 games of the same style every year , then buy a different one .
Then work your way up from there .
There 's no reason anything lower on the scale deserves it 's own spot .
It should n't be paid for under any circumstances and the fact that people can make games even worse than it does n't mean the 've accomplished anything either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My answer to this is it's time to re-think your scale.
Absolutely everything that goes sub 6 on your current scale should get an automatic 0.
0 means too far below industry standards to be considered a viable option.
After that re-orient your 6-10 on a 1-10 scale.
Nobody reading reviews gives a crap about the differences between a current 1 and a current 4. they are both equally unbuyable products and I see no reason for a reviewer to differentiate between them.
However, there are lots of reasons to make small distinctions between a 6, a 6.5, and a 7 and I'd much rather have those difference given more weight so they exist on a 3-6 or 3-7 plane.
It's all the little things reviewers know about that would help people make decisions.
Are there other similar titles that do it better?
Graphics subtleties, small control issues, bugs etc...  
Now it's frustrating because if you're the only one using a scale like this your reviews sound incredibly harsh, but to me there's no reason to give a spectrum at the bottom of the scale where the threshold for even considering buying it is way more like 4-5 at the lowest.
To me a 1 should be the generic genre game that super fanboys will play and enjoy, but if you don't play like 20 games of the same style every year, then buy a different one.
Then work your way up from there.
There's no reason anything lower on the scale deserves it's own spot.
It shouldn't be paid for under any circumstances and the fact that people can make games even worse than it doesn't mean the've accomplished anything either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237782</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1259257260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is 7-8 reasonable for "good enough". Back in my non-US university days 8/10 would be a Distinction grade, and 7/10 would be a Credit grade.</p><p>Surely "good enough" is a simple Pass, ie: 5-6/10?</p><p>And "not good enough" would be 0-4/10 or a Fail.</p><p>Averaging 8/10 would get you into the honours program of the degree, which should take more than "good enough". Heck it'd get you into the phd program.</p><p>You must have got an amazing number of good games, the majority of games I've played I would be giving a score of less than 4 if I was assigning scores rather than just being bored to death and wasting an hour or two before giving up and never bothering with it again. But that was back in the days of actually having free time and downloading essentially every new game to try.</p><p>You do have your scale calibrated right?!? There's no point not using half the numbers available, or are all 9/10 games *exactly* the same in score worthyness? If you don't use 0-4 then expand rework the numbers so that your games rated 5-6 in the old system get scores of 2-4, old scores of 7-8 get 5-7, games rated 9-10 previously now get 8-10, and the "handful" who got less than four now have 0-1.</p><p>Now that I have less free time (and more money) I just don't buy new releases, I wait a few months (at least) to see what the post hype opinions are and hopefully only end up buying games that will be fun enough to be worth spending my free time on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is 7-8 reasonable for " good enough " .
Back in my non-US university days 8/10 would be a Distinction grade , and 7/10 would be a Credit grade.Surely " good enough " is a simple Pass , ie : 5-6/10 ? And " not good enough " would be 0-4/10 or a Fail.Averaging 8/10 would get you into the honours program of the degree , which should take more than " good enough " .
Heck it 'd get you into the phd program.You must have got an amazing number of good games , the majority of games I 've played I would be giving a score of less than 4 if I was assigning scores rather than just being bored to death and wasting an hour or two before giving up and never bothering with it again .
But that was back in the days of actually having free time and downloading essentially every new game to try.You do have your scale calibrated right ? ! ?
There 's no point not using half the numbers available , or are all 9/10 games * exactly * the same in score worthyness ?
If you do n't use 0-4 then expand rework the numbers so that your games rated 5-6 in the old system get scores of 2-4 , old scores of 7-8 get 5-7 , games rated 9-10 previously now get 8-10 , and the " handful " who got less than four now have 0-1.Now that I have less free time ( and more money ) I just do n't buy new releases , I wait a few months ( at least ) to see what the post hype opinions are and hopefully only end up buying games that will be fun enough to be worth spending my free time on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is 7-8 reasonable for "good enough".
Back in my non-US university days 8/10 would be a Distinction grade, and 7/10 would be a Credit grade.Surely "good enough" is a simple Pass, ie: 5-6/10?And "not good enough" would be 0-4/10 or a Fail.Averaging 8/10 would get you into the honours program of the degree, which should take more than "good enough".
Heck it'd get you into the phd program.You must have got an amazing number of good games, the majority of games I've played I would be giving a score of less than 4 if I was assigning scores rather than just being bored to death and wasting an hour or two before giving up and never bothering with it again.
But that was back in the days of actually having free time and downloading essentially every new game to try.You do have your scale calibrated right?!?
There's no point not using half the numbers available, or are all 9/10 games *exactly* the same in score worthyness?
If you don't use 0-4 then expand rework the numbers so that your games rated 5-6 in the old system get scores of 2-4, old scores of 7-8 get 5-7, games rated 9-10 previously now get 8-10, and the "handful" who got less than four now have 0-1.Now that I have less free time (and more money) I just don't buy new releases, I wait a few months (at least) to see what the post hype opinions are and hopefully only end up buying games that will be fun enough to be worth spending my free time on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237498</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1259254920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.<br>But we don't do we ?</p></div></blockquote><p>With magazines, traditionally, no.  If a game is THAT bad, the magazine won't bother to print a review of it.  Not that there isn't plenty of inflation going on, but there are other less-nefarious reasons you don't see terrible reviews.</p><p>Same goes for restaurant reviews from respected restaurant critics; if you see a really awful one, it's generally going to be of a well-known place which you'd expect better from; if the critic goes to a really awful new or obscure place, they just won't bother with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100 , then we ought to see some 1 's and 2 's.But we do n't do we ? With magazines , traditionally , no .
If a game is THAT bad , the magazine wo n't bother to print a review of it .
Not that there is n't plenty of inflation going on , but there are other less-nefarious reasons you do n't see terrible reviews.Same goes for restaurant reviews from respected restaurant critics ; if you see a really awful one , it 's generally going to be of a well-known place which you 'd expect better from ; if the critic goes to a really awful new or obscure place , they just wo n't bother with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a magazine or website is really scoring out of 10 or out of 100, then we ought to see some 1's and 2's.But we don't do we ?With magazines, traditionally, no.
If a game is THAT bad, the magazine won't bother to print a review of it.
Not that there isn't plenty of inflation going on, but there are other less-nefarious reasons you don't see terrible reviews.Same goes for restaurant reviews from respected restaurant critics; if you see a really awful one, it's generally going to be of a well-known place which you'd expect better from; if the critic goes to a really awful new or obscure place, they just won't bother with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235692</id>
	<title>I almost always look at reviews</title>
	<author>ET3D</author>
	<datestamp>1259238000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read both media and user reviews, though mainly for games I'm thinking of buying because they're on sale on Steam or the like. If the reviews aren't good, I'm less likely to buy the game. The other way though, review causing me to buy a game, is less likely, simply because I don't tend to read reviews if I don't yet have an interest in the game.</p><p>I was surprised that advertising visuals are the next most important factor after genre, playing a previous version and price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read both media and user reviews , though mainly for games I 'm thinking of buying because they 're on sale on Steam or the like .
If the reviews are n't good , I 'm less likely to buy the game .
The other way though , review causing me to buy a game , is less likely , simply because I do n't tend to read reviews if I do n't yet have an interest in the game.I was surprised that advertising visuals are the next most important factor after genre , playing a previous version and price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read both media and user reviews, though mainly for games I'm thinking of buying because they're on sale on Steam or the like.
If the reviews aren't good, I'm less likely to buy the game.
The other way though, review causing me to buy a game, is less likely, simply because I don't tend to read reviews if I don't yet have an interest in the game.I was surprised that advertising visuals are the next most important factor after genre, playing a previous version and price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245270</id>
	<title>Just One Gamer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259335920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly this is the sorry state of the game review factions out there.....anyone see any similarities between gaming reviews and movie reviews? Soon the tired old numeric scores will be gone and everything will be two thumbs up from two guys who couldn't even make it past the first race in the Nintendo classic Excitebike. And shame on all the reviewers out there who hand out good reviews in exchange for advertising money or invitations to studios and events...I know this because I used to work for a site that adopted these very same tactics when writing up a review. Needless to say I was out of there shortly after I found out, and yes they are on Metacritic. RULE OF THUMB.....RENT FIRST.....BUY LATER....because buying a sixty dollar piece of crap is worse than renting a ten dollar piece of crap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly this is the sorry state of the game review factions out there.....anyone see any similarities between gaming reviews and movie reviews ?
Soon the tired old numeric scores will be gone and everything will be two thumbs up from two guys who could n't even make it past the first race in the Nintendo classic Excitebike .
And shame on all the reviewers out there who hand out good reviews in exchange for advertising money or invitations to studios and events...I know this because I used to work for a site that adopted these very same tactics when writing up a review .
Needless to say I was out of there shortly after I found out , and yes they are on Metacritic .
RULE OF THUMB.....RENT FIRST.....BUY LATER....because buying a sixty dollar piece of crap is worse than renting a ten dollar piece of crap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly this is the sorry state of the game review factions out there.....anyone see any similarities between gaming reviews and movie reviews?
Soon the tired old numeric scores will be gone and everything will be two thumbs up from two guys who couldn't even make it past the first race in the Nintendo classic Excitebike.
And shame on all the reviewers out there who hand out good reviews in exchange for advertising money or invitations to studios and events...I know this because I used to work for a site that adopted these very same tactics when writing up a review.
Needless to say I was out of there shortly after I found out, and yes they are on Metacritic.
RULE OF THUMB.....RENT FIRST.....BUY LATER....because buying a sixty dollar piece of crap is worse than renting a ten dollar piece of crap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235758</id>
	<title>Re:Review Scores are all payola....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is certainlhy an issue with US based sites/magazines. Over in the UK it's less driven by advertising spend (in my experience, at least). I've given fairly bad reviews to a few products and I still get new stuff from them to look at. Equally, I've had software from the US where they've asked outright if the review will be looked upon favourably if they advertisise with us. They seemed amazed that I was adamant advertising and editorial don't talk to each other. They can't, otherwise the whole point of reviewing is null and void.<br>
There is possibly an argument that because some firms let you keep the kit (sometimes quite expensive kit) and others always want it sent back, that this could affect your scoring but I try hard not to fall into that trap. That said, I often request review items I actually have a need for and this can actively work against it if it doesn't do what I'd hoped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is certainlhy an issue with US based sites/magazines .
Over in the UK it 's less driven by advertising spend ( in my experience , at least ) .
I 've given fairly bad reviews to a few products and I still get new stuff from them to look at .
Equally , I 've had software from the US where they 've asked outright if the review will be looked upon favourably if they advertisise with us .
They seemed amazed that I was adamant advertising and editorial do n't talk to each other .
They ca n't , otherwise the whole point of reviewing is null and void .
There is possibly an argument that because some firms let you keep the kit ( sometimes quite expensive kit ) and others always want it sent back , that this could affect your scoring but I try hard not to fall into that trap .
That said , I often request review items I actually have a need for and this can actively work against it if it does n't do what I 'd hoped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is certainlhy an issue with US based sites/magazines.
Over in the UK it's less driven by advertising spend (in my experience, at least).
I've given fairly bad reviews to a few products and I still get new stuff from them to look at.
Equally, I've had software from the US where they've asked outright if the review will be looked upon favourably if they advertisise with us.
They seemed amazed that I was adamant advertising and editorial don't talk to each other.
They can't, otherwise the whole point of reviewing is null and void.
There is possibly an argument that because some firms let you keep the kit (sometimes quite expensive kit) and others always want it sent back, that this could affect your scoring but I try hard not to fall into that trap.
That said, I often request review items I actually have a need for and this can actively work against it if it doesn't do what I'd hoped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245364</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>zdickinson</author>
	<datestamp>1259336820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use gamespot.com and they give out scores of 1, 2, and 3 a lot.  Plus a lot of average scores for average games.  Since '96 I've found them to be accurate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use gamespot.com and they give out scores of 1 , 2 , and 3 a lot .
Plus a lot of average scores for average games .
Since '96 I 've found them to be accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use gamespot.com and they give out scores of 1, 2, and 3 a lot.
Plus a lot of average scores for average games.
Since '96 I've found them to be accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235548</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1259236380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, here in Portugal our only magazine dedicated to PC games (there's no market for more than one, really) gives plenty of low scores, and you're right, that's one of the reasons I trust their reviews. Besides the full text, the scores range from 0 to 100, and a few months ago they gave 4 to one game. Most games get between 50 to 60, but there are plenty of 30s and 40s.</p><p>I actually like the magazine very much, and had it subscribed a few years ago, but I end up playing only one or two AAA games each year, so it's not worth it. I hope they don't go under, though. We never had a strong PC games market, but now I fear it's reducing to new lows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , here in Portugal our only magazine dedicated to PC games ( there 's no market for more than one , really ) gives plenty of low scores , and you 're right , that 's one of the reasons I trust their reviews .
Besides the full text , the scores range from 0 to 100 , and a few months ago they gave 4 to one game .
Most games get between 50 to 60 , but there are plenty of 30s and 40s.I actually like the magazine very much , and had it subscribed a few years ago , but I end up playing only one or two AAA games each year , so it 's not worth it .
I hope they do n't go under , though .
We never had a strong PC games market , but now I fear it 's reducing to new lows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, here in Portugal our only magazine dedicated to PC games (there's no market for more than one, really) gives plenty of low scores, and you're right, that's one of the reasons I trust their reviews.
Besides the full text, the scores range from 0 to 100, and a few months ago they gave 4 to one game.
Most games get between 50 to 60, but there are plenty of 30s and 40s.I actually like the magazine very much, and had it subscribed a few years ago, but I end up playing only one or two AAA games each year, so it's not worth it.
I hope they don't go under, though.
We never had a strong PC games market, but now I fear it's reducing to new lows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235710</id>
	<title>Review - yes. Score - no.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1259238300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have three tiers of deciding on purchase of the game.</p><p>1. I read the review about what the game contains. I thoroughly ignore any "positive personal thoughts" about the game as marketing fluff. The negative ones do add to the value of the review but aren't all that important. I just read what is the concept of the game, and whether it is anything original, with potential - a good idea. If the review talks loads about graphics and sound and development time and prior franchise, even in total superlatives, it means the game is junk. A reviewer would concentrate on the really good points if it had any.</p><p>2.I check some Internet fora to see what people complain about. If there is a number of complaints about the same thing, it may turn me away again. The thing being "awful execution of the wonderful idea" is one of possible choices.</p><p>3. Then I grab the game off a torrent. After I'm through with it, I look back at how it felt. The only deciding factor is "I enjoyed it". Yeah, I enjoyed Stalker: Clear Sky, despite hopeless story, dull ending and reuse of content. I enjoyed Oblivion despite being dumbed down to knees level of Morrowind.</p><p>If the game passes the three tiers of classification, I buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have three tiers of deciding on purchase of the game.1 .
I read the review about what the game contains .
I thoroughly ignore any " positive personal thoughts " about the game as marketing fluff .
The negative ones do add to the value of the review but are n't all that important .
I just read what is the concept of the game , and whether it is anything original , with potential - a good idea .
If the review talks loads about graphics and sound and development time and prior franchise , even in total superlatives , it means the game is junk .
A reviewer would concentrate on the really good points if it had any.2.I check some Internet fora to see what people complain about .
If there is a number of complaints about the same thing , it may turn me away again .
The thing being " awful execution of the wonderful idea " is one of possible choices.3 .
Then I grab the game off a torrent .
After I 'm through with it , I look back at how it felt .
The only deciding factor is " I enjoyed it " .
Yeah , I enjoyed Stalker : Clear Sky , despite hopeless story , dull ending and reuse of content .
I enjoyed Oblivion despite being dumbed down to knees level of Morrowind.If the game passes the three tiers of classification , I buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have three tiers of deciding on purchase of the game.1.
I read the review about what the game contains.
I thoroughly ignore any "positive personal thoughts" about the game as marketing fluff.
The negative ones do add to the value of the review but aren't all that important.
I just read what is the concept of the game, and whether it is anything original, with potential - a good idea.
If the review talks loads about graphics and sound and development time and prior franchise, even in total superlatives, it means the game is junk.
A reviewer would concentrate on the really good points if it had any.2.I check some Internet fora to see what people complain about.
If there is a number of complaints about the same thing, it may turn me away again.
The thing being "awful execution of the wonderful idea" is one of possible choices.3.
Then I grab the game off a torrent.
After I'm through with it, I look back at how it felt.
The only deciding factor is "I enjoyed it".
Yeah, I enjoyed Stalker: Clear Sky, despite hopeless story, dull ending and reuse of content.
I enjoyed Oblivion despite being dumbed down to knees level of Morrowind.If the game passes the three tiers of classification, I buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30244436</id>
	<title>Re:Review - yes. Score - no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259325180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're justifying something very wrong, I have no problem with piracy of games, but if you play a game all the way to the end to decide if it's good enough for you to buy.... you are  really taking the piss  ( it's either good or bad ). If it is good enough to play to the end, then it is good enough to buy. Stop lying to yourself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're justifying something very wrong , I have no problem with piracy of games , but if you play a game all the way to the end to decide if it 's good enough for you to buy.... you are really taking the piss ( it 's either good or bad ) .
If it is good enough to play to the end , then it is good enough to buy .
Stop lying to yourself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're justifying something very wrong, I have no problem with piracy of games, but if you play a game all the way to the end to decide if it's good enough for you to buy.... you are  really taking the piss  ( it's either good or bad ).
If it is good enough to play to the end, then it is good enough to buy.
Stop lying to yourself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582</id>
	<title>Trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all boils down to trust (or more specifically lack of it) on the Game review sites.</p><p>I'm not overly surprised that people don't base their buying decisions primarily on the review scores from game-sites. In most sites I've seen one or all of the following:</p><ul><li>Creeping scores: games coming out now get higher average scores than games that came out 2 or 3 years ago</li><li>No mention of the bugs: a game might be full to the brim with bugs on release day and yet there is no mention of it or a passing reference to "the version we tested had some problems but this is a pre-release version and they should be solved before release" (not!)</li><li>Hype: game sites are the main culprits in creating/maintaining hype on often undeserving games. For example, before release Spore was being hyped to death by most game sites as a grand, revolutionary game - as it turns out, it wasn't even that much of a fun game and after release the hype-machine went suddenly quiet</li><li>Shallow reviews on just the beginning of the game: a lot of reviews sound like the person doing it just played the game for a couple of hours and then wrote the review. Plenty of games out there become pointless and boring after a couple of hours playing them, and yet that's often not mentioned in the game reviews</li><li>No mention of intrusive DRM: often enough the games come out with crazy phone-home, only works if Internet is always on, DVD-Writer-breaking DRM which installs a rootkit in our machine and yet not a peep about it in the main gaming sites. I suppose <i>some</i> might mention it if the activation process involved "chop your grandmother into little pieces and send them to the following address<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." but must would not</li></ul><p>Personally, I usually wait a while after the game is out and then go check <b>user</b> reviews. If your discount the "100\%, great thing since sliced bread" ones (which come from fanboys) you'll usually be able to get a good picture of all the above mentioned points that the game sites miss (bugs, long-term (re)playability, intrusive DRM, hands-on-beyond-hype experience)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all boils down to trust ( or more specifically lack of it ) on the Game review sites.I 'm not overly surprised that people do n't base their buying decisions primarily on the review scores from game-sites .
In most sites I 've seen one or all of the following : Creeping scores : games coming out now get higher average scores than games that came out 2 or 3 years agoNo mention of the bugs : a game might be full to the brim with bugs on release day and yet there is no mention of it or a passing reference to " the version we tested had some problems but this is a pre-release version and they should be solved before release " ( not !
) Hype : game sites are the main culprits in creating/maintaining hype on often undeserving games .
For example , before release Spore was being hyped to death by most game sites as a grand , revolutionary game - as it turns out , it was n't even that much of a fun game and after release the hype-machine went suddenly quietShallow reviews on just the beginning of the game : a lot of reviews sound like the person doing it just played the game for a couple of hours and then wrote the review .
Plenty of games out there become pointless and boring after a couple of hours playing them , and yet that 's often not mentioned in the game reviewsNo mention of intrusive DRM : often enough the games come out with crazy phone-home , only works if Internet is always on , DVD-Writer-breaking DRM which installs a rootkit in our machine and yet not a peep about it in the main gaming sites .
I suppose some might mention it if the activation process involved " chop your grandmother into little pieces and send them to the following address ... " but must would notPersonally , I usually wait a while after the game is out and then go check user reviews .
If your discount the " 100 \ % , great thing since sliced bread " ones ( which come from fanboys ) you 'll usually be able to get a good picture of all the above mentioned points that the game sites miss ( bugs , long-term ( re ) playability , intrusive DRM , hands-on-beyond-hype experience )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all boils down to trust (or more specifically lack of it) on the Game review sites.I'm not overly surprised that people don't base their buying decisions primarily on the review scores from game-sites.
In most sites I've seen one or all of the following:Creeping scores: games coming out now get higher average scores than games that came out 2 or 3 years agoNo mention of the bugs: a game might be full to the brim with bugs on release day and yet there is no mention of it or a passing reference to "the version we tested had some problems but this is a pre-release version and they should be solved before release" (not!
)Hype: game sites are the main culprits in creating/maintaining hype on often undeserving games.
For example, before release Spore was being hyped to death by most game sites as a grand, revolutionary game - as it turns out, it wasn't even that much of a fun game and after release the hype-machine went suddenly quietShallow reviews on just the beginning of the game: a lot of reviews sound like the person doing it just played the game for a couple of hours and then wrote the review.
Plenty of games out there become pointless and boring after a couple of hours playing them, and yet that's often not mentioned in the game reviewsNo mention of intrusive DRM: often enough the games come out with crazy phone-home, only works if Internet is always on, DVD-Writer-breaking DRM which installs a rootkit in our machine and yet not a peep about it in the main gaming sites.
I suppose some might mention it if the activation process involved "chop your grandmother into little pieces and send them to the following address ..." but must would notPersonally, I usually wait a while after the game is out and then go check user reviews.
If your discount the "100\%, great thing since sliced bread" ones (which come from fanboys) you'll usually be able to get a good picture of all the above mentioned points that the game sites miss (bugs, long-term (re)playability, intrusive DRM, hands-on-beyond-hype experience)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236508</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>LordAndrewSama</author>
	<datestamp>1259247300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't finished reading your post, I just want to disagree with you.  I think games should be marked down for being overhyped, as the gamer will be disappointed when they get the game and it's not the holy grail of gaming the adverts promised.  reviews are for the \_gamer\_ not the publisher, and overhype kinda ruins the gamers experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't finished reading your post , I just want to disagree with you .
I think games should be marked down for being overhyped , as the gamer will be disappointed when they get the game and it 's not the holy grail of gaming the adverts promised .
reviews are for the \ _gamer \ _ not the publisher , and overhype kinda ruins the gamers experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't finished reading your post, I just want to disagree with you.
I think games should be marked down for being overhyped, as the gamer will be disappointed when they get the game and it's not the holy grail of gaming the adverts promised.
reviews are for the \_gamer\_ not the publisher, and overhype kinda ruins the gamers experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237534</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259255280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never trusted them to be honest for this reason. The fact is reviews are just a form of protection racket.</p><p>I've played plenty of low rated games that were far better than high rated games with many of the high rated games being awful.</p><p>It basically comes down to whichever publishers/developers have sent across their protection racket money to all the reviewers, those that haven't get shit reviews and shit numbers on their site, those who pay up or send the required sweeteners beforehand are guaranteed an 80\%+ or 90\%+.</p><p>Either way, review scores whichever metric you use have absolutely nothing to do with how good or bad a game actually is, or isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never trusted them to be honest for this reason .
The fact is reviews are just a form of protection racket.I 've played plenty of low rated games that were far better than high rated games with many of the high rated games being awful.It basically comes down to whichever publishers/developers have sent across their protection racket money to all the reviewers , those that have n't get shit reviews and shit numbers on their site , those who pay up or send the required sweeteners beforehand are guaranteed an 80 \ % + or 90 \ % + .Either way , review scores whichever metric you use have absolutely nothing to do with how good or bad a game actually is , or is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never trusted them to be honest for this reason.
The fact is reviews are just a form of protection racket.I've played plenty of low rated games that were far better than high rated games with many of the high rated games being awful.It basically comes down to whichever publishers/developers have sent across their protection racket money to all the reviewers, those that haven't get shit reviews and shit numbers on their site, those who pay up or send the required sweeteners beforehand are guaranteed an 80\%+ or 90\%+.Either way, review scores whichever metric you use have absolutely nothing to do with how good or bad a game actually is, or isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone buy games without trying them first? For me, if there is no demo, there is no sale.<br><br>I haven't even read a review in 20 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone buy games without trying them first ?
For me , if there is no demo , there is no sale.I have n't even read a review in 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone buy games without trying them first?
For me, if there is no demo, there is no sale.I haven't even read a review in 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236908</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've obviously never played Extreme Paintbrawl before. I remember PC Gamer in 1998 giving it a review score of 6/100, with the only redeeming quality of it being the box it came in was recyclable. And I'm sure that was just them being generous too. The game is really that terrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've obviously never played Extreme Paintbrawl before .
I remember PC Gamer in 1998 giving it a review score of 6/100 , with the only redeeming quality of it being the box it came in was recyclable .
And I 'm sure that was just them being generous too .
The game is really that terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've obviously never played Extreme Paintbrawl before.
I remember PC Gamer in 1998 giving it a review score of 6/100, with the only redeeming quality of it being the box it came in was recyclable.
And I'm sure that was just them being generous too.
The game is really that terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236384</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone really believe the scores ?</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1259246160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a tester who works with rating scales, I have to point out that a scale that has values that are never used is a pointless scale. If the range of scores reported by raters is from 5-10, then you don't have a 10-point scale; you have a 6-point scale. Also, if you're only using a few bands on the scale, you need to decide whether the raters need to be trained to discriminate more bands of the scale, or if your scale needs to be rewritten to allow such discriminations to occur, or if such discriminations cannot really be made (probably the case in video game reviews).

</p><p>Furthermore, Metacritic's scaling system, though a step in the right direction, is highly, highly suspect. All they really do is take ratings and interpolate them to a 100-point-scale, with no regard to the individual scales they came from. This could be addressed via many-facet Rasch modeling without too much trouble, but I'm probably the only one who cares!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a tester who works with rating scales , I have to point out that a scale that has values that are never used is a pointless scale .
If the range of scores reported by raters is from 5-10 , then you do n't have a 10-point scale ; you have a 6-point scale .
Also , if you 're only using a few bands on the scale , you need to decide whether the raters need to be trained to discriminate more bands of the scale , or if your scale needs to be rewritten to allow such discriminations to occur , or if such discriminations can not really be made ( probably the case in video game reviews ) .
Furthermore , Metacritic 's scaling system , though a step in the right direction , is highly , highly suspect .
All they really do is take ratings and interpolate them to a 100-point-scale , with no regard to the individual scales they came from .
This could be addressed via many-facet Rasch modeling without too much trouble , but I 'm probably the only one who cares !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a tester who works with rating scales, I have to point out that a scale that has values that are never used is a pointless scale.
If the range of scores reported by raters is from 5-10, then you don't have a 10-point scale; you have a 6-point scale.
Also, if you're only using a few bands on the scale, you need to decide whether the raters need to be trained to discriminate more bands of the scale, or if your scale needs to be rewritten to allow such discriminations to occur, or if such discriminations cannot really be made (probably the case in video game reviews).
Furthermore, Metacritic's scaling system, though a step in the right direction, is highly, highly suspect.
All they really do is take ratings and interpolate them to a 100-point-scale, with no regard to the individual scales they came from.
This could be addressed via many-facet Rasch modeling without too much trouble, but I'm probably the only one who cares!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30283494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30244436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30310100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30269186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30246304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30242528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30241412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0636235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30283494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30310100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30246304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30242528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30239408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30236884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30245216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30238776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30237322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30241412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30269186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0636235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30235710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0636235.30244436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
