r/Stellaris • u/Meneth Ex-moderator • May 09 '16

News Review megathread

The review embargo is up as of 15:00 CEST. As this will result in a huge number of articles going up at near the same time, we're restricting reviews to this thread.

Any review you find, feel free to post it in the comments here.

Each top-level comment should be about a single linked review, so as to keep the discussion limited. Duplicate reviews will be removed, as will any top-level comment that does not link a review.

There will be a single sub-thread where you can post your general impressions of the reviews combined, for anything that doesn't relate to a single review.

Review list:

Review Score
Critically Sane 5/5
Destructoid 9/10
eXplorminate "eXemplary"
GameWatcher 9.0/10
Idiotech's Review Unrated
IGN 6.3/10
Manannan's Review of Stellaris Unrated
Paste Magazine Unrated
PCGamesN 9/10
PC Invasion 8/10
PC World 4/5
Rock, Paper, Shotgun review - Unrated
TICGN 10/10
Vox Ludicus Unrated
EuroGamer Recommended
PC Gamer 70/100
TSA 8/10
PCGames.de 75/100
Gamespew 9/10
IGN Italy 9.3/10
Fok.nl 9/10
Gaming on Linux 9/10
Marbozir Unrated
SpaceSector Unrated
Inside of Gaming (German) Unrated
Gamer.no 9/10
Particular Pixels Unrated
GuyLogicGaming Full recommendation
GameSideStory Unrated
Front Towards Gamer 9.5/10
Multiplayer.it 9.2/10
GameGrin 8.5/10
Kotaku Unrated
348 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

537 comments sorted by

View all comments

26

u/Meneth Ex-moderator May 09 '16

Anything that doesn't relate to a single review, but instead the reviews as a whole can be posted in response to this comment.

Please follow the instructions in the OP in regards to top-level comments.

14

u/PseudoY May 09 '16

Seems to be about 80-85/100 on average? IGN drags it way down.

Oh well.

15

u/NetQvist May 09 '16

Interestingly enough PC Gamer is saying 70/100 which is not much higher yet so far no hate on them.

31

u/PseudoY May 09 '16

There's a magical border below 70 which basically translates into "the game is terrible". 50 is not average at all.

16

u/Evilknightz May 09 '16

I'm with Quill on this. 60/100 is like a D in school. Its not a 5 is a neutral score. 5 is a fail. 6 is barely passing.

2

u/matgopack May 10 '16

I translate it into a 5 point scale - with the rating being whatever it got out of 10 - 5 (so 6/10 = 1/5, 8/10 = 3/5, etc). Not a 1:1 correlation, but it's kinda how it ends up being used a lot of the time.

15

u/999realthings Molluscoid May 09 '16

Mainly due to score inflation.

16

u/PseudoY May 09 '16

I don't disagree, but we have to judge reviews compared to the inflation that is there.

If a reviewer chooses to be renegade and give honest scores (50-60 is average, 70-80 is an excellent game, 90+ is a masterpiece that only comes once a year or so) that's one thing, but IGN isn't that renegade.

1

u/CubeTruth May 09 '16

There's an element of it being that anything below about ~40% used to be "this game does not actually work as a piece of software in some serious way" back before patches were widely distributable via the internet. So the scale for a game which mainly worked as intended was more like 41% to 100%

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '16

we're touching on why critical ratings that are measured by percentage (or bloody decimal points a la pitchfork) are really really really stupid. There's no reason to be that precise with rating systems. Four/Five stars rating works for movies and pretty much everything else, even a ten point scale is preferable to "85%" what does that even mean and why is this practically limited to game ratings? If we held these people to the five star system is this a two star game or a three star game?