In defense of the number: a note on video game review scores

[StreamerDarkly]

Consensus is not the same thing as objective. A consensus is still subjective.
Everything that isn't scientifically proven to be fact, is subjective. Be it supported by a majority opinion or not.

Is that so? Well, kindly remind everyone that gravity is still a theory. Supported by a wide consensus of experimental evidence to be sure, but nonetheless not a fact established with absolute certainty. Science deals in best available theories at present to explain observable reality, not on absolute facts. Picking something that's less settled, how subjective would you say the current theories on man-made climate change are?

I never said that a consensus is meaningless. Nor did I bring up the concept of consensus in the first place. You did, in a vain attempt to discredit my critique of your inane justification for a numerical abstract of quality.

That you didn't bring up the notion of a consensus is exactly the problem. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion on this topic unless you acknowledge degrees of subjectivity instead of carelessly throwing around the term as a shield. Notice also that in the previous post I specifically avoided numbers by sticking with basic quality descriptors of the kind gamers use every day.

A number is pointless without the words to explain how they were reached and given the words, the numbers are not needed.

It's not about necessity, it's about utility. To repeat it for the second time, there's no argument that the written component of a review should be removed in favor of a numerical rating.

 

[Major_Tom]

Humans love assigning numbers to everything, but if there is no well defined universal scale then they are just arbitrary and meaningless. If you want more information than a yes/no recommendation, an imaginary number won't help you. That's like claiming that the temperature was exactly 36.7 C, but your thermometer has an accuracy of +/- 3 C.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

interestingly, this one from july 2009 has a score, so that tells us approximately when things changed...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/6320-Review-Splosion-Man

given we have one on the 30th of july 2009 without a score, and one on the 31st WITH a score...

Ah, and finally the key article itself. From february 2010, Russ Pitts, then editor in chief, explaining the change in policy, and introduction of review scores.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/7148-Why-We-re-Using-Review-Scores

As you can see, this was a big deal at the time, and they argued about it for a long time... And certainly quite a few of the staff were against it...

Still, things change, and they've now had scores longer than not. (also looks like suzan arendt must have been using them before it was official policy...)

Thank you for taking the time to find this! I wasn't aware the Escapist had had a huge internal debate on the topic and written up that article explaining the decision. Guess I missed out on a potential reference for the article :-(

 

[CrystalShadow]

interestingly, this one from july 2009 has a score, so that tells us approximately when things changed...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/6320-Review-Splosion-Man

given we have one on the 30th of july 2009 without a score, and one on the 31st WITH a score...

Ah, and finally the key article itself. From february 2010, Russ Pitts, then editor in chief, explaining the change in policy, and introduction of review scores.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/7148-Why-We-re-Using-Review-Scores

As you can see, this was a big deal at the time, and they argued about it for a long time... And certainly quite a few of the staff were against it...

Still, things change, and they've now had scores longer than not. (also looks like suzan arendt must have been using them before it was official policy...)

Thank you for taking the time to find this! I wasn't aware the Escapist had had a huge internal debate on the topic and written up that article explaining the decision. Guess I missed out on a potential reference for the article :-(

It happens. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was never the case if you look at the site now, the only reason I knew this article existed, is because I've been here so long that I witnessed the transition first-hand.
Turns out to be unreasonably difficult to find an old article on the escapist though.
Especially one like that, which is an editorial from a specific month...

I knew the article existed, and yet I still struggled to find it. I can imagine someone unaware of that article even having being written would have had no chance of ever finding it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm against numerical scores in game reviews for a simple reason - I have worked as a movie critic for 5 years and not a day has gone by that I haven't rued the numerical score system. It belittles everything I write by reducing it to a simple number. And honestly every time I put a score up it's mostly based on gut feeling. I ask myself, "Does this review read like a 9, or is it leaning towards 8?". I flip a coin, stamp a number and move on. I'm trying to translate everything I've argued about - which takes a considerably amount of time, by the way - into a number for lazy people who don't care much for readin' around these parts, mister.

People give numerical scores way too much credit.

 

[NPC009]

I'm against numerical scores in game reviews for a simple reason - I have worked as a movie critic for 5 years and not a day has gone by that I haven't rued the numerical score system. It belittles everything I write by reducing it to a simple number. And honestly every time I put a score up it's mostly based on gut feeling. I ask myself, "Does this review read like a 9, or is it leaning towards 8?". I flip a coin, stamp a number and move on. I'm trying to translate everything I've argued about - which takes a considerably amount of time, by the way - into a number for lazy people who don't care much for readin' around these parts, mister.

People give numerical scores way too much credit.

I've worked as a game critic for nearly ten and while gut feelings are surprisingly important when assigning scores, most publications I wrote for actually explained with the scores meant. Something like this:

1-3 - So bad it's (almost) funny. But seriously, stay the hell away.
4-5 - Nice try, but it's hard to find something worthwhile in here.
6-7 - Decent game, but won't appeal to everyone.
8-9 - Good game, safe buy for most people.
10 - Instant classic. You need to play this!

Made things a lot easier and more transparent.

 

[veloper]

Any professional critic or reviewer who cannot even decide if he thought the experience he had, was good, bad or somewhere in between, is unfit for his job.

If he or she can, then he/she can also assign a score very easily, even if it is only a 1, a 2 or a 3, out of 3.
An experienced gamer, with some more games for comparison, could be much more precise, using a much wider scale, but there's always a like-o-meter in that head.

The only question that remains then is, as a reviewer, do I want to share my overall impression, or final recommendation with the reader?
If yes, then scores: sure why not.
If no, then I shouldn't make any subjective conclusion or recommendation, so I might as well not bother with the review at all.

There is no fundamental difference between using words like good or bad, or to use numbers that are assigned to those words in a pre-defined table.
All that's left then is foolish people whining about too much precision in other people's reviews, to whom I say: in your mind round that 7.7 out of 10 down to a 8/10 or a 4/5 or a 3/3 or maybe even a 1/1 and everybody is happy.

As for metacritic: don't like it? Then just don't go there. Another problem solved.

 

[Mutant1988]

Is that so? Well, kindly remind everyone that gravity is still a theory. Supported by a wide consensus of experimental evidence to be sure, but nonetheless not a fact established with absolute certainty. Science deals in best available theories at present to explain observable reality, not on absolute facts. Picking something that's less settled, how subjective would you say the current theories on man-made climate change are?

Gravity is still a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

That is to say, the extent to which we understand it has been proven by experiment. Knowing absolutely everything about something is not a requirement to understand a part of it.

I fail to see how the lobby impeded scientific study of Climate Change is of any relevance. In fact, I would compare that to the video game industry in the sense of publishers trying to buy review scores. That is to say, compare that to oil and otherwise polluting industries pouring millions into disproving anything that would impact their operations, fact or not.

Confirmation bias with a strong element of willing ignorance and callous uncaring self interest.

Kinda like the people looking for positive review scores to "prove" that their game is better than everyone else's. Rather than, you know, explain by which merits it is.

That you didn't bring up the notion of a consensus is exactly the problem. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion on this topic unless you acknowledge degrees of subjectivity instead of carelessly throwing around the term as a shield. Notice also that in the previous post I specifically avoided numbers by sticking with basic quality descriptors of the kind gamers use every day.

Oh, so now it's called degrees of subjectivity? That's different from the "not subjective" you insisted on before.

Is there a general consensus on what constitutes quality in any given context? Yes.

Can this be mathematically formulated and should it be? No.

It's not about necessity, it's about utility. To repeat it for the second time, there's no argument that the written component of a review should be removed in favor of a numerical rating.

It's not about utility, it is about enabling readers to ignore the reasoning for the abstract. It facilitates laziness and nothing else.

My argument is that the numerical rating is not needed in the slightest. The only thing a review should communicate is whether it lives up to the expectations of quality the reviewer has and explain why it does or doesn't do that.

Do the writer like this product or not? And why?

The text is the only important part of the review. If the text contradicts the general consensus of what constitutes quality, or fails to address your concerns, then you read another review.

The more reviews you read, the greater your understanding of the product and the more informed your purchasing decision is.

Numbers not necessary.

In fact, I'd argue that the Steam Review format is one of the best out there. A simple "Do I recommend this Yes/No" rating system and as much text as you need to explain why you would or wouldn't.

Especially useful to read several recommendations as well as non-recommendations, as it gives a more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of the product. The latter being especially important for PC games, which aren't guaranteed to work at all.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm against numerical scores in game reviews for a simple reason - I have worked as a movie critic for 5 years and not a day has gone by that I haven't rued the numerical score system. It belittles everything I write by reducing it to a simple number. And honestly every time I put a score up it's mostly based on gut feeling. I ask myself, "Does this review read like a 9, or is it leaning towards 8?". I flip a coin, stamp a number and move on. I'm trying to translate everything I've argued about - which takes a considerably amount of time, by the way - into a number for lazy people who don't care much for readin' around these parts, mister.

People give numerical scores way too much credit.

I've worked as a game critic for nearly ten and while gut feelings are surprisingly important when assigning scores, most publications I wrote for actually explained with the scores meant. Something like this:

1-3 - So bad it's (almost) funny. But seriously, stay the hell away.
4-5 - Nice try, but it's hard to find something worthwhile in here.
6-7 - Decent game, but won't appeal to everyone.
8-9 - Good game, safe buy for most people.
10 - Instant classic. You need to play this!

Made things a lot easier and more transparent.

Everybody has their lil' slider going from 1 to 10, good to bad, red to green. Of course there's always some sort of manual to follow when scoring something. I find it easier to just deduce the number from what I just wrote. Does the review feel like a 6, 7, 8, what? 1 and 10 are the easiest numbers to apply. Everything in the middle is prone for discussion.

 

[CaitSeith]

7.8 too much data

Now in a more serious note, this needs more focus on the other side of the score: the readers. After all, a score is useless if the reader doesn't interpret its meaning.

...most gamers would agree that 81-100 territory should be reserved for truly top notch efforts.

It's ironic that I ask this: do you have more information to support this statement?

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Any professional critic or reviewer who cannot even decide if he thought the experience he had, was good, bad or somewhere in between, is unfit for his job.

If he or she can, then he/she can also assign a score very easily, even if it is only a 1, a 2 or a 3, out of 3.
An experienced gamer, with some more games for comparison, could be much more precise, using a much wider scale, but there's always a like-o-meter in that head.

The only question that remains then is, as a reviewer, do I want to share my overall impression, or final recommendation with the reader?
If yes, then scores: sure why not.
If no, then I shouldn't make any subjective conclusion or recommendation, so I might as well not bother with the review at all.

There is no fundamental difference between using words like good or bad, or to use numbers that are assigned to those words in a pre-defined table.
All that's left then is foolish people whining about too much precision in other people's reviews, to whom I say: in your mind round that 7.7 out of 10 down to a 8/10 or a 4/5 or a 3/3 or maybe even a 1/1 and everybody is happy.

As for metacritic: don't like it? Then just don't go there. Another problem solved.

Some space in the article was spent explaining why I think coarse two-level and three-level scales are bad. Perhaps some clarification can be added now.

I can see the appeal of binary value judgments. Nothing could be simpler and more direct than to conclude a review with a "play / don't play" decision. It's firm. It shows some balls. It might even be respected as consumer-friendly or 'honest'. It's the ultimate distillation of a wall of text.

The problem is that it's too unambiguous. It presumes to make up the reader's mind for them. Let's assume that I find Kotaku's reviews insightful and would like to act on their advice, but it just so happens that I the reader don't have the means, inclination or spare time to buy every single game they recommend. What to do? Perhaps I can read back over their recent reviews and try to figure out which game(s) they liked best. But they recommended quite a few, so this will take some significant effort and is also prone to misinterpretation.

A finer scale such as the 10-point system solves this problem nicely. I can easily identify my preferred reviewer's top-rated games over the last few months, read the associated reviews if I haven't done so already, and decide which one(s) to spend my limited funds/time on. You need at least a few notches on the scale between 'playable' and 'amazing' to provide this sort of selectivity. It also allows review score aggregation sites to be consulted as a verification that the critic's score isn't completely out to lunch, thereby avoiding bad purchases without needing to read five or more complete reviews.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

7.8 too much data

Now in a more serious note, this needs more focus on the other side of the score: the readers. After all, a score is useless if the reader doesn't interpret its meaning.

...most gamers would agree that 81-100 territory should be reserved for truly top notch efforts.

It's ironic that I ask this: do you have more information to support this statement?

Yes, I do. Unfortunately it's going to involve more data.

Exhibit #1 would be the wealth of comments by gamers stating that AAA titles are shamelessly overrated by popular critics. You don't hear anyone challenging this claim.

Exhibit #2 is based on the analysis of critic and user Metacritic ratings. User scores are typically 5-10 points lower than critic scores, on average. For the selection of games discussed in the article, 38% of critic Metascores fall in the 81-100 range compared to only 22% of UserScores (average user score). If you adjust that to the 85-100 range, it becomes 21% for critics versus just 7% for users.

---Stats computed based on a minimum of 10 critic reviews and 30 user reviews---

 

[Tilly]

That's quite an impressive article. Shouldn't that be submitted to a journal or magazine or something?

I've really never seen the problem with a scoring system. Maybe this is down to the fact that I'm from a very sciencey background and most journalists aren't so they don't have that natural tendency to quantify and systematise. But giving my own experience with a game a number out of 10 feels incredibly natural to me.

What really makes me laugh is when sites say "oh we think our 5 star rating system is a bit vulgar and reductionistic, so we've come up with 3 different awards of 'don't bother', 'try it' or 'buy it'"
Lol well that's functionally indistinguishable from just a 3 star system. You're clearly just not comfortable with numbers.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

That's quite an impressive article. Shouldn't that be submitted to a journal or magazine or something?

Thank you, but I don't think it's quite at that level of quality. And if it was, I wouldn't be able to sling petty insults at Jason Schreier and Arthur Gies in the references.

I've really never seen the problem with a scoring system. Maybe this is down to the fact that I'm from a very sciencey background and most journalists aren't so they don't have that natural tendency to quantify and systematise. But giving my own experience with a game a number out of 10 feels incredibly natural to me.

What really makes me laugh is when sites say "oh we think our 5 star rating system is a bit vulgar and reductionistic, so we've come up with 3 different awards of 'don't bother', 'try it' or 'buy it'"
Lol well that's functionally indistinguishable from just a 3 star system. You're clearly just not comfortable with numbers.

This is exactly the case for me as well. I've gradually come to realize that many gamers don't like numerical ratings, whereas in the beginning I thought it was mainly celebrity game journalists intoxicated on the scent of their own farts.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Very impressive post, OP!

From my experience as a reviewer it's spot-on. Especially this:

First of all, there is a positive bias with respect to what quality of game even registers as a blip on the radar of reviewers. If it isn't a big studio release backed by marketing or an indie title blessed by IGF or IndieCade, it generally doesn't receive a mention let alone a dedicated review. There isn't necessarily anything insidious about this state of affairs; I'd wager that at least a few critics regularly sample low budget offerings only to be reminded of why they don't more often. Mind you, I don't assert that marketing buzz is an accurate predictor of game quality, only that the subset of games with enough traction to garner attention from reviewers is, statistically speaking, of above average quality

Many publications are running on low budgets and rely on review copies from publishers to fill their (web)pages. While publishers of 'lesser' games do send in copies and keys (a Nintendo publication I worked at kept getting Barbie and other kids game even though we rarely reviewed them), it's unlikely their game will be picked up for review. Publications have a limited amount of budget and/or pages for reviews and tend to pick games readers are already interested in, which are games being developed by competent, established studios. Once in a while they'll throw in a really bad game for laughs/as a reminder of what really bad actually is. Other spots are filled with games reviewers bought themselves and wanted to share with their readers.

As for whether or not we should do away with review scores... I think they can have a place in review systems, as long as we use them responsibly:

1. Tight scales are a must. There's no good reason to say a game with a 85% rating is better than a game with a 84% rating. It's better to go with something like a five stars system and see the scores (1-2-3-4-5) as categories of quality rather than some arbitrary scale to rank games by.

2. Publications must explain what the scores mean. A 9 from Edge is different from a 9 from IGN, so it's important to provide context.

3. Readers must be reminded that a review is simply one opinion from one person given at one time. The number that accompanies the review is not meant as an absolute or ever-lasting judgment, it's just the reviewers thoughts on its quality in the form of a number.

I apologize for taking so long to respond as this is one the more insightful posts in my opinion.

1. In general I agree that tiny differences on a 100-point scale mean nothing, but my earlier post illustrates the danger of rounding error. I'm still not totally convinced of the merits of a tight scale ... there might be some psychological component involved, but to the technically minded person it just feels like using 8-bit integers when you could be using double floating point variables.

2. Most of them do. Despite all the talk of widely varying standards, it's remarkable how similar the scales are. I contend that the bigger issue is reviewers failing to adhere to their own scales.

3. This is true. On the other hand, I don't think reviewers should feel emboldened to say (or score) whatever the hell they please by hiding behind "it's just an opinion". They should invest significant time in a game, learn its intricacies, and feel a degree of personal responsibility when explaining its merits and weaknesses.

 

[veloper]

Any professional critic or reviewer who cannot even decide if he thought the experience he had, was good, bad or somewhere in between, is unfit for his job.

If he or she can, then he/she can also assign a score very easily, even if it is only a 1, a 2 or a 3, out of 3.
An experienced gamer, with some more games for comparison, could be much more precise, using a much wider scale, but there's always a like-o-meter in that head.

The only question that remains then is, as a reviewer, do I want to share my overall impression, or final recommendation with the reader?
If yes, then scores: sure why not.
If no, then I shouldn't make any subjective conclusion or recommendation, so I might as well not bother with the review at all.

There is no fundamental difference between using words like good or bad, or to use numbers that are assigned to those words in a pre-defined table.
All that's left then is foolish people whining about too much precision in other people's reviews, to whom I say: in your mind round that 7.7 out of 10 down to a 8/10 or a 4/5 or a 3/3 or maybe even a 1/1 and everybody is happy.

As for metacritic: don't like it? Then just don't go there. Another problem solved.

Some space in the article was spent explaining why I think coarse two-level and three-level scales are bad. Perhaps some clarification can be added now.

I can see the appeal of binary value judgments. Nothing could be simpler and more direct than to conclude a review with a "play / don't play" decision. It's firm. It shows some balls. It might even be respected as consumer-friendly or 'honest'. It's the ultimate distillation of a wall of text.

The problem is that it's too unambiguous. It presumes to make up the reader's mind for them. Let's assume that I find Kotaku's reviews insightful and would like to act on their advice, but it just so happens that I the reader don't have the means, inclination or spare time to buy every single game they recommend. What to do? Perhaps I can read back over their recent reviews and try to figure out which game(s) they liked best. But they recommended quite a few, so this will take some significant effort and is also prone to misinterpretation.

A finer scale such as the 10-point system solves this problem nicely. I can easily identify my preferred reviewer's top-rated games over the last few months, read the associated reviews if I haven't done so already, and decide which one(s) to spend my limited funds/time on. You need at least a few notches on the scale between 'playable' and 'amazing' to provide this sort of selectivity. It also allows review score aggregation sites to be consulted as a verification that the critic's score isn't completely out to lunch, thereby avoiding bad purchases without needing to read five or more complete reviews.

I'll go even further.

All professional game reviews fit on this 4-point score table:
4 = great to best
3 = average to good
2 = poor to mediocre
1 = shit

This is the baseline like-o-meter everybody has.
You can always tell when a critic writes really enthusiastic about a game and recommendations are also spelled out clearly. Disgust is very easy to identify as well. Then for the tricky range of ambivalence, doubts and softer blows, there's the number 2.

You don't even need written scores for this and that's where the opportunity lies. Many x/4 reviews can make for a better aggregate than a few x/100 scores.

So is a finer scale nice? Sure, but only if the reviewer can actually rank his games with conviction and consistency. I've read too many 8/10 reviews lacking in enthusiasm. For those guys a 3/4 might be better.
For myself, having only the positions 10, 9 and 8 on the 10-point scale is nowhere enough to rank my best strategy games in order of preference. I know what I like.

Ultimately I think everybody should just pick what they want. On the one hand, a mag making all their game reviewers use a percentile scale may be counter-productive as the guys may end up just picking a number. On the other hand, forcing a 5 point scale on a reviewer who clearly thought Bob2 was better than the original Bob, but not enough to award a whole extra star may result in a roll of the dice also.

For the purpose of aggregates every piece can still be multiplied onto a 100-point scale, with the understanding that 100% doesn't always mean the best anymore.

 

[Mutant1988]

3. This is true. On the other hand, I don't think reviewers should feel emboldened to say (or score) whatever the hell they please by hiding behind "it's just an opinion". They should invest significant time in a game, learn its intricacies, and feel a degree of personal responsibility when explaining its merits and weaknesses.

Nothing of which necessitates a numerical scale. And something that only ever comes across in the text (The important part) and can never be extracted solely from a numerical value.

There's no need for a numerical score. What there is a need for is less lazy gamers.

The only purpose that numerical scales seem to serve is to extract an aggregate score to prove that opinion A is better than opinion B. It doesn't in itself explain anything about the product, apart from the fact that "some" people liked "Something" about this game. Or the opposite, if the aggregate score is low.

Scores are not information. They are for people that want to avoid investing any effort into researching their purchases and simply rely on popular consensus. i.e Lazy people.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

I'm against numerical scores for a very simple reason. It facilitates laziness.

It facilitates laziness and nothing else.

A number is pointless without the words to explain how they were reached and given the words, the numbers are not needed.

Numbers not necessary.

Nothing of which necessitates a numerical scale. And something that only ever comes across in the text (The important part) and can never be extracted solely from a numerical value.

There's no need for a numerical score. What there is a need for is less lazy gamers.

Scores are not information. They are for people that want to avoid investing any effort into researching their purchases and simply rely on popular consensus. i.e Lazy people.

Mutant1988, there's a reason I didn't bother responding to your previous post. It became abundantly clear that you weren't interested in having a serious discussion on the topic of review scores. Rather, the plan was to simply keep repeating a few words as if they constitute a statement of fact that ends all discussion on the matter.

 

[Mutant1988]

Scores are not information. They are for people that want to avoid investing any effort into researching their purchases and simply rely on popular consensus. i.e Lazy people.

Mutant1988, there's a reason I didn't bother responding to your previous post. It became abundantly clear that you weren't interested in having a serious discussion on the topic of review scores. Rather, the plan was to simply keep repeating a few words as if they constitute a statement of fact that ends all discussion on the matter.

You haven't disproven my assessment still.

What exactly do scores offer that isn't readily available in text form? What, precisely, makes numerical scores a necessary component of reviews?

Also, what formula do you use to quantify quality? I'm genuinely curious, since you seem to have the scientific method of game reviewing all figured out.

And while you're at it, feel free to quote and reply to any other question and statement I've made instead of cherry picking specific ones in a vain effort to dismiss my stance entirely.

Are you familiar with the concept of quote mining?

To be brutally honest, the entire concept of a numerical rating seems to serve no other purpose than to assist the marketing department in putting convenient quotes on the box to impress consumers that fail to look past the numbers.

A game can be 10/10 to a reviewer but has one bit that you hate (Like say, QTEs or lock-on aiming systems). The numbers aren't going to tell you that. Especially not if the reviewer is perfectly fine with whatever it is.

The simple fact is that the numbers are completely meaningless without the text to explain how they were reached and given the text, you don't need the numbers at all.

Also, please do explain the source for this graph:

Is there one or are we to assume the person promoting the "scientific" worth of numerical ratings just make up numbers from nothing to support his claims?

That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

As for a yes/no scale lacking nuance - Well duh. That's why you read the text.

An estimate of relative value? So basically, adding up the bits that are crap with the bits that are not and pretend like it's a good product because it passes a numerical mile stone?

Holy crap, looks like you put a lot of work into this.

Personally, I have never been a fan of review scores. When I worked for my college paper I included them because that was the paper's policy, but once I began writing reviews on my own time I opted not to use them. I don't like them for a number of reasons you could probably guess right off the top of your head, but I am not wholly against their use when done right.

Though the sample size is rather narrow for the strict 4 to 5 star rating system, I am surprised to see it fall so neatly in-line with those that use broader systems. I've always thought that using a tighter rating system would make the scoring far less arbitrary and result in more honest scoring. Just look at GameInformer if you want to see the most arbitrary review scores of all time (what the fuck differentiates 97.3% from 97.5%?!).

I kind of think the age of review scores is beginning to wane, however. More and more people are beginning to get their information from previously unconventional sources (mostly Youtube) and many more are suckers for pre-order culture, which circumvent the review process entirely. Outside of parents looking for Christmas gifts for their kids, I don't see it a very useful consumer tool these days. All it really seems to do is give fanboys something to rage about.

Also, could a moderator kindly explain why this user was banned for posting this?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You haven't disproven my assessment still.

What exactly do scores offer that isn't readily available in text form? What, precisely, makes numerical scores a necessary component of reviews?

Also, what formula do you use to quantify quality? I'm genuinely curious, since you seem to have the scientific method of game reviewing all figured out.

I don't understand how you don't get what a numerical value offers. It's not like people (rational people) what a number score just to see how high there favorite game scores or so they don't have to read a review because they are lazy.

Firstly, a numerical score is useful because many times the text of a review will be more positive or negative than the reviewer wanted. Maybe they spent more text on the game's flaws (which is fine) or they felt there really wasn't much wrong with the game but just didn't dig it that much.

Secondly, it's nice to see how someone feels about one game vs another (in the same genre) to help you decide which one to buy now and what to try later if they both came out during the same time. Just reading written text of both reviewers isn't going to be that helpful in trying to figure out which game the reviewer thought was better. Also, it's nice to have a quick way to see what a reviewer thought about a series of games (how he/she ranks all the Metal Gears, Halos, CODs, GTAs, etc.) so you can determine if they like the same aspects that you like about series, which is very informative when they go to review the latest sequel coming out.

Other mediums use number scores too and the professional criticism within those mediums is just fine. I don't think anyone is saying to score a game, a number exactly represents the reviewer's feelings on a game either. However, that number is more informative than not having a number. Just because you can use something the wrong way doesn't mean it doesn't have real legitimate uses.