Is game reviewing 'broken' as a system?

[grumbel]

The main thing that has changed is that commercial games have gotten much better, you don't see the 5/10's because most companies wouldn't let those games out of the door and most are competent enough to not produce them in the first place. This in turn leads to a lot of games simply hovering around the 8/10, not because the review system is broken, but simply because the games are that good, at least technically speaking. And as others have already said, the bad games are often never reviewed to begin with, as reviews focus on hardcore gamer games, not say DS games for little girls.

That doesn't mean that all 8/10 are worth to play, as most of them are kind of interchangeable and forgettable, but reviews still focus on tech/fun more then they focus on artistic vision. Thus faults in the tech or gameplay will lead to severe down rating, while faults and stupid elements in the story will simply be overlooked.

In the end I don't think there is an easy fix, the numerical rating is still useful as a "technical competence" rating and the artistic merits of a game come across much better in a podcast with multiple people discussion the game, then with a score or a review written by one guy anyway.

 

[ElPatron]

Also, Sonic games, Zelda games, Mario games, GT/Forza games, God of War games, Gears of War, Uncharted games, Killzone games all say hi.

And I hate all of those reviews too, sans a few exceptions.


And I am glad you mentioned dtoid. Jim Sterling gave Sonic Colours a 4 and Generations a 8, even though it was largely mentioned they are not that different.

I am not saying he is biased (he already says that his opinions influence the score) but that was a low blow. It was all about the pageviews and comments.

And how he bashed battlefield because he can't control choppers? And his review of MW3 made it look like he didn't even play Modern Warfare 3 at all, it looks like copypasted text made by "robotic automatons" (his words, when he was defending that game should have different scores). I mean, I disliked battlefield too, but he gave it a 6 so that people would expect a ravaging low score for MW3, and then gave it 9.5 like every other reviewer out there.


Ironic, because the games he doesn't like get lower scores for being repetitive and unoriginal, but the gave 9.5 to a game that Jim himself said it wasn't a breakthrough or reinvented.

 

[scar_47]

Basing reviews on a numeral score is inherently flawed and only gets worse as the scale gets larger, look at a 1-5 VS a 1-100 scale the difference between a 3 and a 4 in the 1-5 scale is rather noticeable and should have some noticeable differences, whats the difference between a 84 and an 85 in a 1-100 scale? All the sites use numerical scales because its easy for lazy viewers. I've always liked g4 because the numerical score isn't very important its the pros and cons along with their reasoning that are the main focus of the review. Theres also the issue of skewed viewing the average scale is 1-10 so anything 6 or above should be above average to excellent, instead anything below an 8 is horrible and for a AAA title anything less than a 9 or 10 is looked at as if its a sin.

My biggest issue with reviews is that gamers as well as publisher's have kept pushing for the stupid numerical score, instead of focussing on reviewing things like how the mechanics work or plot development aspects that are central to enjoying a title in addition to giving you a good idea of what it will be like. And then theres the whole aspect of reviewers being people with prefernces, bias, and their own opinions. No one person looks at anything the same why would games be any different theres going to be variations in the score along with the reasoning behing it, thats why anyone with half a brain either finds a reviewer with a similar frame of mind or uses multiple good sources. Its a flawed system sure but it can still be of use if your willing to do a little work.

 

[xDarc]

In my mind a game like MW3 is a 6.5 at best because of all the recycled content.

Points deducted for lack of originality, yes, but 30% off for that?

It's also a lousy console shooter.
Aim.Down.Sights gimmick to slow down the gameplay for people trying to fidget with thumbsticks.
Killstreak rewards are about as valuable to gameplay as quick time events.

I never felt good about playing a shooter in which more than half your kills in a round could come from essentially tapping a button and clicking a map where the most orange dots are. It kinda still blows my mind to this day that millions of noobs to the genre think this is ok. This is why you don't see competitive FPS tourneys much anymore.

 

[predatorpulse7]

I think there is something broken/corrupt in it when almost every AAA game rating nowadays is from 8.5 upwards. No doubt, some of them have high enough production values to ensure a high quality game but a lot of the time I suspect that money has been handed out to people to boost up the game. Dragon Age 2 comes to mind, it was a piece of s**t(or let's say mediocre game) and yet in the first couple of weeks it was all 8's and 9's for it when it was thoroughly mediocre. Not to mention that some reviewers actually troll in their own way, by giving 5-6 to otherwise excellent games(that would genuinely warrant at least a 8) in order to get hits on websites.

When a magazine/reviewer gives a 10 it loses all credibility with me. 10 would mean that the game is perfect and NO SUCH THING EXISTS.

Look at some of the examples:

DE:HR has four 10 mark critic reviews on metacritic and while I enjoyed it thoroughly(even bough the DLC) it is by no means a 10 worthy game. 85-90 maybe but 100? No freaking way.

Dragon Age 2, which is a mediocre game through and through, got 100 on the Escapist, a mark of shame for this website.

Another quality game(in the high 80's-90 mark to be sure), Uncharted 3, got 19 critic 100 mark reviews.

And people still expect us to take this s**t seriously?

*facepalm at poor understanding of maths*

You know for every critic that "over-rates" a game there will on average the same number (or of equivalent "weight") who "under-rate" it?

If you get rid of the over-rating and keep the under-rating, then the actual average slips BELOW where the actual centre of opinion lies! And you can't just arbitrarily say that those in the middle have the "ideal" score, this is supposed to be objective! Do you not understand consensus through aggregate?

It's not the job of critics to be as much like everyone else as possible, it is their job to give their valued opinion and analysis. Yes, some may get carried away, but just as likely some will form an abnormally low opinion. The aggregate is drawn from the CONSENSUS, gathering together and weighing all the scores.

That CONSENSUS gets skewed by the critics who are paid by the game companies.I understand fanboys upping a game falsely but a critic should have a sort of professional distance. I repeat, a 100 game is a PERFECT game. No such thing exists. If a reviewer gives 100 then he is either a major fanboy(and thus isn't being professional) or was paid by the company that made the game. No two ways about it. This giving AAA titles at least 9's started with the last generation of consoles. On PC Gamer(one of the authorities when it comes to pc gaming), uk version, no game scored more than 96%(and those are some classics, alpha centauri, half life). Witcher 2, a very good game and pc exclusive(at the time at least) got a 89. I guarantee that on console Witcher 2 would have gotten at least a 9.3-9.5 by most console mags, especially if some money exchanged hands.

The point I am trying to make is that a lot of big name critics aren't being honest in their assesments. A lot of them are either bigging up the game(even genuinely good games but nowhere near the classics they are made out to be) or bringing good games down do go against the trend and/or troll to get hits on websites.

Why do you think that so few people care about scores anymore? They know that a lot of them are inflated. Reading Tito's DA2 review I nearly s**t myself laughing but then again I should have been crying because it would mean that this person was either very very ignorant/stupid about games and gaming or he was corrupt and was paid by EA. I tend to think it's the latter. When even Bioware fans(not exactly the most normal bunch if you look on their forums) say that DA2 is a steaming pile of crap, you know that you have to be wrong. Who can ever trust Tito's judgment on a game ever again? And this goes for all the critics who give near perfect scores all the time to games released by large companies. Apparently we're churning classics at a mind blowing rate nowadays.

 

[Windcaler]

To say the system is broken is to imply that there is an actual system at all. Frankly I dont think there is.

The thing about reviews is this, you can not represent a complex opinion numerically. You just cant do it. Furthermore the numbers only represent people wanting a simple yes or no to buy a game, the majority of people dont read an entire review to see why it got a certain score they just want the bottom line to spend their money or not instead of making up their own mind.

As far as validation, I think Yahtzee is right on with this. If you are having fun you dont need someone else to tell you anything about a game and they dont have to share your opinion. If you get upset about a certain viewpoint then theres probably something about the game that says "I can be having mroe fun then this"

 

[Treblaine]

In my mind a game like MW3 is a 6.5 at best because of all the recycled content.

Points deducted for lack of originality, yes, but 30% off for that?

It's also a lousy console shooter.
Aim.Down.Sights gimmick to slow down the gameplay for people trying to fidget with thumbsticks.
Killstreak rewards are about as valuable to gameplay as quick time events.

I never felt good about playing a shooter in which more than half your kills in a round could come from essentially tapping a button and clicking a map where the most orange dots are. It kinda still blows my mind to this day that millions of noobs to the genre think this is ok. This is why you don't see competitive FPS tourneys much anymore.

Well Aim-down-sights is not new to MW3, COD4 had it when it had its universal praise. And do you similarly trash ARMA and Red Orchestra for having aim-down-sights mechanic?

And in Modern Warfare 3 more than ever the Killstreaks have been shifted very much away from overpowered air support:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/11/05/the-complete-guide-to-modern-warfare-3-39-s-killstreaks.aspx

It's considerably harder to get the AC-130 and you can't call AC-130 AND pave-low. The killstreaks there is much more emphasis on toe-to-toe combat. Things like Juggernaut Armor, Sentry gun, Assault Drone, IMS and that's just for the bog standard Assault package. The support class is all about team benefit, then there is the strike package which is pure shooting as you get more kills you unlock more perks and will eventually unlock all perks you are a superman but you have to fight to get there.

Overpowered air-support is there but much less important. No more of the evil combination of Dogs and chopper gunner, Chopper gunner that you could get after only 8 kills with hardline.

You can have a VERY deadly killstreak loadout without ever having to use air-support. You clous have IMS, Assault Drone, then Juggernaut Armor. Or more conservatively UAV, Care package and IMS.

Yeah, it's not really up to competitive standard of Quake 3 or UT04 but those games still exists, what is the matter with ab it of insane B-movie fun?

 

[SwiggleDyl]

Scoring is ridiculous because of the reasons in the OP, 8 should still be considered amazing, not just average, but in reality just looking at a score won't make you know if it's a good game for you, the written segments of a review are the important part as the reviewer justifies his reasoning for his final score. Its the pros and cons in this part which are the most helpful in deciding to purchase a game.

 

[Treblaine]

*facepalm at poor understanding of maths*

That CONSENSUS gets skewed by the critics who are paid by the game companies.I understand fanboys upping a game falsely but a critic should have a sort of professional distance. I repeat, a 100 game is a PERFECT game. No such thing exists. If a reviewer gives 100 then he is either a major fanboy(and thus isn't being professional) or was paid by the company that made the game. No two ways about it. This giving AAA titles at least 9's started with the last generation of consoles. On PC Gamer(one of the authorities when it comes to pc gaming), uk version, no game scored more than 96%(and those are some classics, alpha centauri, half life). Witcher 2, a very good game and pc exclusive(at the time at least) got a 89. I guarantee that on console Witcher 2 would have gotten at least a 9.3-9.5 by most console mags, especially if some money exchanged hands.

The point I am trying to make is that a lot of big name critics aren't being honest in their assesments. A lot of them are either bigging up the game(even genuinely good games but nowhere near the classics they are made out to be) or bringing good games down do go against the trend and/or troll to get hits on websites.

Why do you think that so few people care about scores anymore? They know that a lot of them are inflated. Reading Tito's DA2 review I nearly s**t myself laughing but then again I should have been crying because it would mean that this person was either very very ignorant/stupid about games and gaming or he was corrupt and was paid by EA. I tend to think it's the latter. When even Bioware fans(not exactly the most normal bunch if you look on their forums) say that DA2 is a steaming pile of crap, you know that you have to be wrong. Who can ever trust Tito's judgment on a game ever again? And this goes for all the critics who give near perfect scores all the time to games released by large companies. Apparently we're churning classics at a mind blowing rate nowadays.

"That CONSENSUS gets skewed by the critics who are paid by the game companies.I understand fanboys upping a game falsely but a critic should have a sort of professional distance."

Proof. Or it didn't happen.

I'm fucking fed up with how nay punter can make grave and damning alegations without ashred of proof with the logic of "hurrr, they must be bribery, no way they had the free thought to decide that themselves!". Where is the proof that critics are being bribed to give a certain game score? There is none. There was briefly a scandal over ad-rights with Geoff Gurstman but that was blown and lookee here, to spite all the bribery Kane and Lynch still got shit review scores. But the thinking of paranoid conspiracy theorist ignores how irrelevant such evidence is, they don't really need it, you cannot make such accusation without evidence!

Yes, 100% is a perfect game, but individual critics ARE ENTITLED TO THAT OPINION! The consensus of 100% is extraordinarily rare as Someone Somewhere will find SOME fault with it. THAT is the purpose of the aggregate, STOP ENFORCING CONFORMITY! People can have over-valuing opinions because the same free though allows under-valuing opinions!

Also, 10/10 =/= 100/100

As 100/100 could be in their head 9.5/10 rounded up to 10/10 for the review then becomes 100%. Many review publications only give review scores in integers out of 10, and this goes both ways. While a 9.5 becomes a 10/10, a 9.4 becomes a 9/10.

Hey, get off your high horse and calm the freak down, DA2 got 82%, that's not a great score

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

But it's not THAT bad! It failed to live up to its prequel but it WASN'T HORRIBLE! Here is the problem, they aren't JUST making it for the fans who would find any step back an intolerable slight, they have to judge the game on what it is. This is fanboys over-reacting it wasn't the game they wanted... therefore it's the worst game in the world.

The problem is for the industry consensus it wasn't that bad. They didn't feel "betrayed" nor need to mark it down because of that.

PS: stop accusing professionals of being corrupt when
-you have zero god damn evidence and
-you have given no consideration to the review process

 

[darthotaku]

of course game reviews are broken. the numbers have no meaning, and all they do is make fans of any game that gets a low score cry out about the reviewer being biased and wrong. we need more reviews like zero punctuation. just an opinion of what the reviewer liked and what they didn't like. after all, what would you rate the mona lisa out of ten?

 

[Treblaine]

Scoring is ridiculous because of the reasons in the OP, 8 should still be considered amazing, not just average, but in reality just looking at a score won't make you know if it's a good game for you, the written segments of a review are the important part as the reviewer justifies his reasoning for his final score. Its the pros and cons in this part which are the most helpful in deciding to purchase a game.

Put it this way, if a doctor failed 20% of the questions on his final exam in medical school... would you consider him an Amazing doctor?

It's a weighted scoring system, because every game aims to be 10/10, just like every doctor aims to be a master of medical knowledge. The average should NOT be getting half the questions wrong! Or failing in half the criteria! Olympic gymnast, they all perform aiming for a 10/10 from the judges, it would be a pretty shoddy Olympic Games if the average score was 5.0!

The Score is justified with context to what other critics give to other games. You can't individually justify it, it is a quantification of a gut instinct it WILL be inaccurate, that is the job of the aggregate. For every critics that over-scores one under-scores.

Pros and cons like "8.7/10 for sound, 7.9 for story" is bullshit as some games sound is more important, other games story is quite irrelevant (do you really need story in a racing sim?). You can't have a system, you jsut have to know

"Well COD4 got that score, but that was 4 years ago, but what has really topped it since then. And this game has improved on a lot... to me it feels like a X/10. There."

The prose is important as they talk about all the element, they say what kind of game it is, what it is like and what it is not. How it moves them on intangible levels, yet also how the game functions technically.

 

[Rotating Bread]

I agree with much of what is being said, but I would like to stick up for numerical game scores. Obviously the written review is the most important thing but review scores give the consumer a way of comparing one game against another. One has to remember that at £40/$60 games cost much more than other forms of entertainment like films or music and many gamers will only buy a few full priced titles a year, anything that helps them make an informed choise has got to be a good thing.

All that is not to say that the system doesn't need to change. Awarding scores on a scale of 100 is just plain silly, how do you differentiate between a game that gets 88 and one that's 89? Awarding scores out of 5 or 10 is much more sensible but as others have said reviewers need to remember there are numbers below 7/10 or 3/5.

Then of course there's metacritic, personally I think that it's a great resource. It's a good way to see what the general critical response is to a game. It's also a fantastic way to access a plethora of written reviews. I know some developers use metacritic as a guide to award bonuses and even jobs but as Jim Sterling has said it's not metacritic's fault that some companies decide to do this.

 

[Zeh Don]

OT: It really depends, however generally: yes, the current review climate is utterly broken.

Reviews are often straddled with embargoes, with reviews flocking to appease the Publisher's to secure advertising revenue. This, in turn, means reviews are generally released the same day the game hits the shelves, minimising the impact of the reviews on day one sales.
In today's world where half the game is cut out thanks to pre-order exclusive DLC, this generally fucks customers one way or another: you get a shit game, or you get less content.

Further to this, the current review system is broken due to inflation of the 10 point system. Ocarina of time scored a 10/10, for example, so what happens when - let's say - Deus Ex drops. Does it get a 10/10? It could be argued that it's a superior game to Ocarina of Time. And so, we end up with this absurd system where Modern Warfare 2 scores a 9.8, Grand Theft Auto IV scores a 9.9 and Minecraft gets a flat 8.

And, of course, let's not even get into the industry politics surrounding production values. Starcraft II, basically inferior to the original, is lauded as one of the greatest games of all time. It's production values are top notch, but the content, story, and balance are all off to the fucking ends of the earth. And it drops an easy 9.5.

The entire system needs to be re-booted to the 5 Star Tier system, rather than the 10 Point Ranking system. Instead of saying "Well, GTAIV has a higher metacritic, so it goes at the top..." we simply say "Well, these games all got 5 Stars. The order of "best" is pretty fucking subjective, so we'll just leave it at that."

However, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where 11 months of articles about how lacking the last Call of Duty was in hindsight is met with the 12th month release of the next entry, and another 9-10/10 is dropped, usually the same day as the updated banner advertisements are updated with the new Call of Duty ones, and the cheque from Activision Blizzard clears.

Reviewers are more interested with being being "the right one" for the fan boys, and less interested in a giving a fucking original opinion. And when they do, we get Uncharted 3.

The system is broken. It cannot and will not be fixed. Gamers need to not listen to the reviews - but, honestly, it's pretty hard when the only people who can talk about that game you're hanging for are the ones accepting publisher money to fucking sing about it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Yes, yes it is. Scores are complete bullshit. Look at the average score for Dragon Age 2 on any website.

 

[Treblaine]

Further to this, the current review system is broken due to inflation of the 10 point system. Ocarina of time scored a 10/10, for example, so what happens when - let's say - Deus Ex drops. Does it get a 10/10? It could be argued that it's a superior game to Ocarina of Time. And so, we end up with this absurd system where Modern Warfare 2 scores a 9.8, Grand Theft Auto IV scores a 9.9 and Minecraft gets a flat 8.

Ocarina of Time on 3DS didn't score a perfect 10/10, the aggregate was 96%

http://www.metacritic.com/game/3ds/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time-3d/critic-reviews

And CONTEXT, DX:HR is a completely different type of game on a different platform.

Ocarina of Time is one of the most beloved games of the past 20 years, it's original has a metascore of 99%, that's before metascore even mattered when most people bought games on recommendations. And not its being re-released as a new and improved version but with the ability to play it anywhere on the go, and also it's the single most valuable game on the 3DS. In so many way Ocarina of Time is a classic, it is good no matter what decade it is released.

DX:HR is so different, they are beyond comparison, though it very much retreads familiar ground from the first Deus Ex, though with a much more modern take on things though it definitely has its own charms and brilliance. Though at the same time,

And it should be mentioned that the original Deus Ex scored 90% metascore, so too Deus Ex Human Revolution has scored 90% metascore

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-human-revolution

And, of course, let's not even get into the industry politics surrounding production values. Starcraft II, basically inferior to the original, is lauded as one of the greatest games of all time. It's production values are top notch, but the content, story, and balance are all off to the fucking ends of the earth. And it drops an easy 9.5.

The entire system needs to be re-booted to the 5 Star Tier system, rather than the 10 Point Ranking system. Instead of saying "Well, GTAIV has a higher metacritic, so it goes at the top..." we simply say "Well, these games all got 5 Stars. The order of "best" is pretty fucking subjective, so we'll just leave it at that."

However, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where 11 months of articles about how lacking the last Call of Duty was in hindsight is met with the 12th month release of the next entry, and another 9-10/10 is dropped, usually the same day as the updated banner advertisements are updated with the new Call of Duty ones, and the cheque from Activision Blizzard clears.

Reviewers are more interested with being being "the right one" for the fan boys, and less interested in a giving a fucking original opinion. And when they do, we get Uncharted 3.

The system is broken. It cannot and will not be fixed. Gamers need to not listen to the reviews - but, honestly, it's pretty hard when the only people who can talk about that game you're hanging for are the ones accepting publisher money to fucking sing about it.

Hey, can't you get it into your head that MODERN WARFARE 3 IS NOT A BAD GAME!!!

It is EXACTLY what the fans have been asking for in terms of balance and pacing. So much has been done to get rid of camping and overpowered perks like Commando-lunge. The Multiplayer is REALLY GOOD, it is like COD4 but without the bullshit of 3x-frag spam, everyone packing juggernaut, the air-power killstreaks have been nerfed including danger-close. The game is so well balanced for close range toe-to-toe combat.

Stop acting like this is some huge conspiracy, that MW3 could only possibly get high metascore from bribery through banner adds.

Bullshit.

Yes, people want originality, but Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer most definitely has changed enough while it scores well enough in the most important area: it is a good game. Everyone is saying it is better than any other Call of Duty, it's better than COD4 which is now completely superfluous.

OK, so originality counts somewhat, how has this been reflected in the metascores:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare 94%

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3 88%

Happy?

8.8 average means NO WAY are the majority of review scores 9/10 or 10/10, this is the system WORKING. What? You think a game that is in every way better than COD4 in terms of multiplayer design deserves a much LOWER score? Yeah, the single player is meh, so knock of 6%. Don't go crazy and demand 30% be knocked off when you know the multiplayer will be so genuinely fun that millions will play this game for hundreds of hours and love it.

But it's still the best COD multiplayer out there.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I think the main problem with numerical scores is that people tend to think in extremes, no middle ground

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, yes it is. Scores are complete bullshit. Look at the average score for Dragon Age 2 on any website.

REALLY?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii

79% is such an unreasonably high score? It got the same score as universally panned and derided shit like Banjo Kazooie: nuts and Bolts

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/banjo-kazooie-nuts-bolts

You never hear anyone saying Nuts-n-bolts was rated too highly!

You know what the problem is, fanboys raging that they didn't get PRECISELY the game they wanted, and they over-react. They demand that because it wasn't perfect, even a score in the 70% range is too high... nooo, it's a 4.0/10 game. Face it, the fans aren't angry because it's a bad game, they are angry because it wasn't the game they expected, and they expected Dragon Age 1.5 and instead of being grateful for having any sequel after only 16 months years they got stupid with rage. Nope, the user score labels it as bad as "Turning point: fall of Liberty"

My opinion. Dragon Age 2 is WAY better than the score it's been lumped with, the problem is everyone is taking this personally, as if they have been personally betrayed. No way Dragon Age 2 is as bad as "Monday Night Combat" or "Kinectimals: now with bears!".

The problem is NOT with the system, the system works.

The problem is with the people who look at the system, they don't read it fully, they don't understand it, they don't accept it.

 

[Batou667]

In yesterday's Mailbox video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46KJeeVU7Q] TotalBiscuit raised the point that reviewing as a number based system had changed since he was a wee laddy. He stated that back in his day, 5/10 was average, 1/10 was bad and 10/10 was almost unreachable.

Where the hell did he grow up, Cuckoo Cloud Land? Any degeneration of the reviewing process is purely a product of TotalBiscuit's rose-tinted capacity for nostalgia. Review scores have ALWAYS been bullshit.

Aside: people who make blanket statements about how things "these days" are INCOMPARABLY WORSE than their warm, sepia-tinted and highly selective memories of the past are almost always uttery wrong. If you believed these disgruntled bellyachers, you'd be convinced that this is the WORST economy ever (it isn't), we're currently being plagued by the WORST natural disasters recorded (we aren't), confidence in our politicians is at an ALL-TIME LOW (it isn't), relationships between the working-class and the police is WORSE THAN EVER (it isn't, that was the 80s) and we're more likely than ever to be MURDERED, RAPED OR KILLED HORRIBLY ON THE ROADS (rape and murder statistics are pretty stable over time, road safety improves year on year and it's a lot safer to be a motorist now than it was in the 50s or 60s).

The simple truth is that, while things could undoubtedly be better, we actually have it pretty good at the moment. But it's more satisfying to moan than to be optomistic. /rant

Hell, I remember PC Gamer's shitty percentage scoring system that didn't go lower than 80% unless the game basically failed to load. I remember the blatent fanboyism and score-plumping that the rival Sega and Nintendo mags used (100% for Donkey Kong Country, anyone?). 7 out of 10 has ALWAYS meant average in the vast, vast majority of reviews - the only exception that comes to mind is Edge magazine.

Anyway, to squarely address the thread topic: videogame review scores are no more "broken" than they ever have been, which is to say, review scores are USEFUL when balanced against other factors such as the reputation and integrity of the reviewer, your own personal preferences (no way am I playing a football game, even a 10/10 one), and a pinch of salt. Much like movie reviews, scores are a useful indicator of what you will PROBABLY like, IF you're a fan of the genre, nothing more or less.

 

[MrJoyless]

I think its less 7-8 being average scores as, why the hell would you want to buy anything that isnt above average good, thus 7-8 being the benchmark of what an OK to purchase game would score.