And now, a word about dinosaurs.
The studio where I’m now working has released their first game, Turok, for the Xbox 360 and PS3. The reviews are starting to roll in and it’s currently sitting at about 76 overall (out of 100) on Metacritic. This is probably a bit lower than I think the game deserved, although as with any critical review, the number doesn’t tell the full story. So what makes a game a 75, which is still a respectable score, and what makes a game a 90?
First, the easiest way to think about the difference between a 75 and a 90, in terms of review scores, is this: a game rated 75 is good, but it’s not the landmark game that you buy and tell your friends that they should buy too. A 90 game is generally the type that any gamer should play; it’s an important game in the overall landscape of video gaming, has merit in almost all ways, and often ‘raises the bar’ in terms of what future games will be judged against. However, a 75-rated game could, to some people, be a landmark but to others it may seem flawed in one or two ways, or it may not quite reach the newly-set bar in terms of quality that previous (90-rated) games have. It’s quite likely an enjoyable game, and is by no means ‘bad’. Often, a 75-rated game had aspirations to be in the upper echelon but fell short somehow.
Just for the sake of comparison, a poor game (roughly 62 and lower) is generally not worth playing, offers no redeemable or memorable features, and it’s probably a good bet that the development team knows it’s a turd.
I’ve worked on games that — with one exception (Pogo Island) — have hovered in the 75-to-80 score range. From those experiences I know why the games did not reach the lofty nineties, whether it was from short development cycles or features being cut or lofty plans made without any real way to reach them.
Another way to think of the 75 score is that the game, if granted a sequel, should allow the dev team the time and the knowledge to improve on its shortcomings. Sometimes the sequel succeeds, sometimes it actually gets worse (getting worse usually means the development team tries to add new features rather than simply improve the ones that failed). Ironically, the games rated 90 and up usually receive sequel treatment, thus putting the development team in a position to fail. When you think about it, it’s hard to improve on an already excellent title. If you think of great movies of all time, there’s a reason no one made a sequel to Citizen Kane or E.T., because any attempt to recreate that magic is destined to fail.
Where am I going with this? Well, Turok is a good game. It has its shortcomings. Personally I’d put it at about 78 out of 100; not far from what the average review has it pegged at. When you consider the studio went from nothing to publishing a game (and Turok is a series that was almost driven into the ground through perpetual bad sequels) in about two and a half years, a 75 is a very respectable score.
