Tempo

[Melf]

Happy Thanksgiving! As we all sit to give thanks for the massive gorging we're about to enjoy, let us also show gratitude for another Sega-16 review! After you've polished off that bird and stuffing, sit back with our write up of Sega's off-the-wall platformer Tempo. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll feel bloated as you slowly digest all the food you scarfed down.

[j_factor]

I sure wasn't expecting a Stretch Panic bashing in the opening paragraph! LOL

Anyway, I would've rated it higher, but that's just me.

[Vorty]

What? Higher? Tempo is a crap game.

[Melf]

I think a seven is about right, since the game doesn't really do anything wrong except not impress. It's strictly average.

[Vorty]

7 is not an average. Giving a game 7 inclines that the game is way above average but not exactly brilliant. Since we're using the 1-10 scale here then technically a score of 5 would be an average as its bang in the middle.

You're just rating it a 7 because it was the only 32X game aside from Chaotix and Blackthorne that actually had an interesting premise. If it had been on a console that was rife with other games, you probably would've lowered the score. Yeah, you were right in saying that does little to separate itself from other platform games and that has poor level design but surely those qualities alone should be enough to knock the score down to a five or a four. I'm not arguing with your opinion, you are entitled to your own but the fact that you slated the game and even admitted yourself that it's average but still gave it a 7/10 is pretty poor reviewing.

[Drixxel]

5 is not an 'average' score on a 1-10 point scale for game reviews. Flip through any gaming mag or check the scores on a somewhat credible gaming site and you'll find the majority of games clocking in between the sixes and eights. See, to me a 5/10 implies that the game is just barely passable, perhaps suffering from seriously flawed/frustrating gameplay or other random handicaps that render the experience nearly unpleasant. After all, a 50% grade says that half of the final product is garbage. I don't consider that average at all.

A 6 or a 7 on the other hand show that the good outweighs the bad (especially a 7) to the extent that the game is fun in spite of its obvious shortcomings, be they unoriginal level design, a lack of innovation, poor audio/visuals, control issues, etc. etc. Many more games fall into that 6-7 category than 4-5, and the holy pantheon of 8-10 should always be heftier than 3 and below unless we're heading towards another video game crash.

...and if you're suggesting that Melf's scored Tempo like he did simply because it's one of the few 32x platformers.. well, maybe that's the case. Read the review, acknowledge the positives and negatives covered by the writer, and from the content of the review decide if the score awarded to the game is justified by the written review itself. That's the most important thing to look for in any review, whether what's written supports the score given, not if a disembodied "7" agrees with the numerical value you yourself have branded on a particular game.

Then there's that bodybuilder/Vienna sausage analogy.. oh man, that one's a true winner.

...and Splatterhouse 2? I like it so much I think I'll play it right now.

[Melf]

On a scale of 1-10, 7 is equal to a 70%, which is a C average. Anything less than that would have been a negative. Sure, the game has poor level design and is wholey generic, but it's also not a truly bad game overall, and is among the few decent platformers for the 32X. You can't look at a 5/10 as being right in the middle, as it's only 50%. This is one of the issues I've had with using a scale of ten points, and have been considering changing it to a five point score.

And I didn't "slate" the game. I mentioned the positive along with the negative and clearly stated several times that Tempo's biggest flaw is it's utter mediocrity.


*Edit: Shit, I hit "edit" instead of "quote." I think I deleted part of Vorty's post.

Wasn't intentional.

[Vorty]

So, you admit to giving a mediocre game a 7? That makes a whole lot of sense. Surely, if you're using the 1-10 scale, then a 7 is way above average and the middle mark would be the average point because it's in the middle.

Giving the game a 7 surely knocks the game closer towards a 10, therefore showing that the game in question is a good one. However, admitting that the game is mediocre and giving it a score that nods towards the "very good" side is pretty dumb.

But, if a 7 game is an average title, then what would a 5 game be?

Well, I guess that's all I can expect from a site that once claimed that Dark Castle's throwing system was innovative.

[Melf]

Dude, what's with all the venom? I can understand you having a different opinion, but using terms like "poor reviewing"and "pretty dumb" are not only unnecessary, they're uncalled for.

And where did you see the Dark Castle comment? It's not in your review, and anything posted by members on the forum shouldn't be directly attributed to the site. Forum comments stay on the forum.

In regards to your question:

If you took a quiz worth 10 points and scored a 7, what would that be? A 70%, which is a C - which is average. A 5 would be 50%, which would be a high F. I think we're just approaching this from two different angles, and while I can see your point, I don't appreciate the smart comments.

[Vorty]

Like I said, I haven't been bitching about your opinion. If you think Tempo deserves a 7 then there's nothing wrong with you giving it a 7.

However, the fact is that after reading your review, the overall tone indicates that the game should be more of a 5 or so. Well, that's the feeling I got anyway. I read a review telling me that the game was average but had a 7 slapped on the end of it.

Maybe it's just a clash of reviewing styles but after reading my own review on Tempo and yours, I found that they don't differ too much with the issues brought up but you tend to brush them over and give it a 7, which was rather odd.

The Dark Castle was in an article posted on this site. I can't remember who wrote it.

[Drixxel]

This ten-point scale is clearly misleading. A five is the middle point, yes, but the scale has more in common with letter grades than it does anything else. A 5 out of 10 isn't an 'average' score, it's very nearly a failing grade.

At any rate, Melf likes Tempo in spite of its flaws. You do not. No big deal.

[Vorty]

Whatever.

This argument is dumb anyway. I should've just kept my opinions to myself. One day, I might be able to understand how you guys see 7/10 as an average. Well, maybe.

= D

[Melf]

You know, the more I think about it, the more you make sense. I'm used to grading things on a percentage basis (side effect of being a teacher), and Tempo really isn't a 7. It's more like a 6 (I don't feel it's bad enough for a 5).

This opens the door for some excellent feedback about the rating system, and I'm going to start a poll thread about it.

[Drixxel]

I largest concern I have with the ol' 10 point score range is that when it comes to lower scores, if it's below 5, does it really matter? I mean, the difference between a 4 and a 3, a 3 and a 2, etc... who cares if it's garbage? I'm almost more a fan of a simple recommendation to accompany a written review as opposed to a numerical score, but assigning a score to a review does tie it all together... bahhh.

[j_factor]

I liked Select Button's reviews, where it's just a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and anything beyond that is in the text of the review.

Either that, or instead of a numerical score have a blurb that says "recommended", "not recommended", "highly recommended", and the reviewer can modify that phrase how they see fit. So let's say the review is of Sunset Riders, and the tone of the review is that it's still fun on Genesis, but a neutered port and you should just get the SNES version; the reviewer could sum it up by saying "not recommended on principle".