Dear brothers and sisters, today I am not here just to talk about Amway games. I mainly want to use the novel "Goat Simulator" to talk about how to give scores when we usually evaluate games. This game has been very popular in the mobile game area recently. As a reviewer, I will leave it here: I give this game 9.2 points, but if you use the standards of traditional action games, I am afraid that 6 points is too much. What's the problem? It lies in our scoring ruler itself.
In terms of graphics, let me first make it clear that this is not a AAA masterpiece. The modeling is rough, the physics engine is crazy about the model, and the goats walk like they are doing a mechanical dance. But if you use it as a funny video generator, the picture will instantly become "very cool". The deliberately silly feeling, combined with the physical effects of flying sand sculptures, has become its unique visual symbol. So my conclusion is: 6 points for the screen, but 1.5 points can be added based on the game positioning.
The gameplay is interesting. If you want to call it a skateboarding game, the controls are crappy and it doesn't even have the most basic balance system. If you want to call it a destruction simulator, it can really let you run around the city with your long tongue, knocking passers-by off, knocking blocks apart, and triggering all kinds of inexplicable events. This game doesn't teach you any rules at all. Your only task is to "be a sheep and do what sheep should do." There are no goals, no levels, no penalties for failure, just pure fun. According to my own standards, I would give it 4 points for depth of gameplay, but I would give it a full 10 points for entertainment. Here's what I particularly want to say: Do we always confuse “depth” with “fun”?
The krypton gold issue must be liked. This game costs 0 yuan to download, there are no in-app purchases, and there are surprisingly few ads. Is the developer Hainan Star Jump doing charity? No, they just sell happiness honestly. Therefore, I will directly give 10 points to the Krypton Gold Dimension, and I recommend that all game manufacturers that use the banner of “free” but are filled with recharge pop-ups to learn from it.
The social aspect is not a strong point, but the online mode can indeed double the happiness. Imagine four friends turning into four crazy sheep and running rampant in the city. The joy brought by that senseless collective stupidity is purer than any sense of accomplishment in cooperative clearance. Moreover, this game naturally has its own live broadcast effect. I dare say that at least half of the players got into the game after watching others play it. The social score is 7.5, mainly for single-player players who will feel a bit empty.
Back to the rubric. I'm thinking that many reviewers now like to use "AAA industry standards" to measure all games, as if a game cannot be considered a good game without a grand narrative, a technological breakthrough, or a combat system. But games like "Goat Simulator" provide a counterexample: it clearly tells you that I want to make a purely stupid game, and then it does it, and makes you willing to pay for this stupidity. Isn't this kind of “completion” considered a high score?
Of course, if you are looking forward to cool skateboarding skills or the real-life goat farming experience, then this game will make you want to drop your phone every minute. So in the end, I want to say: Before grading, first figure out which ruler you are using. For this game, my suggestion is to put aside all game experience and play it as an interactive sand sculpture short video - then you will find that happiness with a score of 9 or above can be so simple. The cutscenes, the above, are the opinions of one person who evaluated the bacteria, and are for reference only. 🥳