Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
kinda has a pointWorgen said:
technically, it's not very good
aesthetically, on the other hand...
and that's really all that matters, good aesthetics that make your game interesting to look at =P
RootBrewski said:
You forgot Yatzee
As much as some people hate him (or love him) Yatzee has never put scores to his reviews for just that reason. Just ike Adam, he does it because (as he said) he does not feel there is any point and the review itself should tell you wither or not you want to buy the game (For the recod I have in the past bought games that he has reviewed marginally favorably, based on his review).
While I presonally don't have an issue with the scoring system, I use it as a general information point (6/10+ and worth looking into, for unknown game), then read what is said regarding the game to decide what I wish to do. If it is just a score I look elsewhere before deciding.
I have never been interested in professional reviews, i just read what players say and make my own opinions. Good to know i'm not missing much.
1-10 system would work if it wasn't for the inflated average and sites beign afraid that publishers would take their privileges back if they get bad scores.
1-10 system would work if it wasn't for the inflated average and sites beign afraid that publishers would take their privileges back if they get bad scores.
Good one, Jim.
But as we've learned time and time again, needing to be loud on the internet probably just means that you don't get the validation you're looking for IRL. In this case the riders of the low review score prior to even seeing the game yourself waaaambulance seem to be reaching incomprehensible street person level of passerby disinterest.
But as we've learned time and time again, needing to be loud on the internet probably just means that you don't get the validation you're looking for IRL. In this case the riders of the low review score prior to even seeing the game yourself waaaambulance seem to be reaching incomprehensible street person level of passerby disinterest.
I've seen this on GT with their Zelda review. People screaming that it should of got a 10 not a 9.1. It got a lower score than MW3, GT has lost all credibility!
I don't understand if people love the game that much what does one review score matter to you. You're going to play the game regardless and a 9.1 is an excellent score.
I don't understand if people love the game that much what does one review score matter to you. You're going to play the game regardless and a 9.1 is an excellent score.
I completely agree with the problem.
But surely of all the problems out there, an average score of 8/10 isn't bad. It should be taken as indicative of the market that there are so many 'very good' games out there.
I guess this assumes a totally unbiased system.
But surely of all the problems out there, an average score of 8/10 isn't bad. It should be taken as indicative of the market that there are so many 'very good' games out there.
I guess this assumes a totally unbiased system.
I don't know if this is a valid answer to that problem, but I think the idea that we need to rate games is a flawed concept. Movie reviews are a lot more than the number of stars under the movie's name - they're an indication of what the critic thought, felt or perceived as he was watching it. It's no different for a game.
People bashing reviewers and review sites because they dare to give an 8 probably are the sort of consumers who scroll straight down to the review score, because honestly, EVERYTHING deserves a TL;DR these days, because people can't be fucking bothered to fucking read, anymore.
So they see an 8 out of 10, reflect that on their own enjoyment or hatred for a given project and if both don't match up based on lacking data, then they fly into a rage. the "h8ters", to coin a phrase, are just as unnerving as folks who wander into a Skyrim topic (or any other game-related topic for that matter) and just drop "This game sucks!" or a variation on it - without making the least bit of effort at articulating their claim.
To these folks, I'd like to say that you need to brush up on your understanding and definition of games journalism, journalism in general, the art of criticism as well as your ability to get a clue, for once. Journalism does involve a fair share of statements of opinion, of course, but it's a lot more than just another soapbox we're giving to people that are randomly paid to state how much they hate or like a given product.
Journalism implies investigation. If you're going to say that a given game's set of mechanics feels unconvincing, then you should be able to explain why, and not just say that it's crap and move on. In comparison, hating a reviewer or a reviews site for a given score is pretty much the equivalent of hollering an uninformed opinion at the top of your lungs.
Look, we get it. The Internet is a wonderful place that favours self-expression and independent thought. The key word here is "thought". Going out on a limb and raging against a reviewer does not equal thought.
Considering all that, we'd probably be better off nipping the problem in the bud and eliminating grades altogether. As reading the entire review is conducive to understanding the purpose and thought process of the reviewer, that's a lot less likely to leave room for sudden unfounded flames. Any site could eliminate scores for a while to test the waters, then reintroduce them a year or two later - largely to see if this gives more worth to the now fairly commonplace and misunderstood 8, 9 and 10 scores.
In the best of worlds, 5 would still be understood as being the mark of an average game. It also means we'd have a lot more 5-scores around than we do now. Anything upwards of 5 would be the mark of something that goes from being above the call of duty to being exceptional. Ideally, perfect scores would be completely weeded out of the equation.
Let's face it. Nothing ever made by human hands could ever be considered perfect. Even Da Vinci would still be tweaking the Mona Lisa, if he could.
People bashing reviewers and review sites because they dare to give an 8 probably are the sort of consumers who scroll straight down to the review score, because honestly, EVERYTHING deserves a TL;DR these days, because people can't be fucking bothered to fucking read, anymore.
So they see an 8 out of 10, reflect that on their own enjoyment or hatred for a given project and if both don't match up based on lacking data, then they fly into a rage. the "h8ters", to coin a phrase, are just as unnerving as folks who wander into a Skyrim topic (or any other game-related topic for that matter) and just drop "This game sucks!" or a variation on it - without making the least bit of effort at articulating their claim.
To these folks, I'd like to say that you need to brush up on your understanding and definition of games journalism, journalism in general, the art of criticism as well as your ability to get a clue, for once. Journalism does involve a fair share of statements of opinion, of course, but it's a lot more than just another soapbox we're giving to people that are randomly paid to state how much they hate or like a given product.
Journalism implies investigation. If you're going to say that a given game's set of mechanics feels unconvincing, then you should be able to explain why, and not just say that it's crap and move on. In comparison, hating a reviewer or a reviews site for a given score is pretty much the equivalent of hollering an uninformed opinion at the top of your lungs.
Look, we get it. The Internet is a wonderful place that favours self-expression and independent thought. The key word here is "thought". Going out on a limb and raging against a reviewer does not equal thought.
Considering all that, we'd probably be better off nipping the problem in the bud and eliminating grades altogether. As reading the entire review is conducive to understanding the purpose and thought process of the reviewer, that's a lot less likely to leave room for sudden unfounded flames. Any site could eliminate scores for a while to test the waters, then reintroduce them a year or two later - largely to see if this gives more worth to the now fairly commonplace and misunderstood 8, 9 and 10 scores.
In the best of worlds, 5 would still be understood as being the mark of an average game. It also means we'd have a lot more 5-scores around than we do now. Anything upwards of 5 would be the mark of something that goes from being above the call of duty to being exceptional. Ideally, perfect scores would be completely weeded out of the equation.
Let's face it. Nothing ever made by human hands could ever be considered perfect. Even Da Vinci would still be tweaking the Mona Lisa, if he could.
I've known this was a problem for a while now but I think the real indicator is that I saw a review on Game Trailers that had nothing - NOTHING - nice to say about a game (I forget what it was) and summarized with a 5.1 as the score. You tell me if this review makes any sense at all:
This game is terrible and any good ideas it had are weighted down by poor implementation, bad design, and glitches: 5.1 out of 10.
This game is terrible and any good ideas it had are weighted down by poor implementation, bad design, and glitches: 5.1 out of 10.
I'm experiencing this today on Machinima's review of AC: Revelations. It got a 7. Commenters are tearing the shit out. Even the one's that have coherent arguments are misrepresenting what the reviewer said.
Half the comenters thought he said "I haven't played the game" instead of "Having played the game, [point here]"
Others say that Machinima don't like fun. And don't seem to understand opinion. And the ones that do understand opinion thinks it makes what they say more important, even though they haven't played the game yet.
Half the comenters thought he said "I haven't played the game" instead of "Having played the game, [point here]"
Others say that Machinima don't like fun. And don't seem to understand opinion. And the ones that do understand opinion thinks it makes what they say more important, even though they haven't played the game yet.
Reviews aren't primarily given for journalistic integrity anymore, the attraction of traffic is of more concern.
The top (and bottom) review in Metacritic is the most hit "View this publication" - so there is a lot of logic in either fighting for top or bottom.
I personally believe the only way something can be trusted is if it's accessible by subscription only. When hits don't matter.
However, the conundrum of how to get subscribers without those initial traffic attraction tricks is a concern.
Personally, I only read reviews for how good the control scheme is - then I watch gameplay videos and go from there.
The top (and bottom) review in Metacritic is the most hit "View this publication" - so there is a lot of logic in either fighting for top or bottom.
I personally believe the only way something can be trusted is if it's accessible by subscription only. When hits don't matter.
However, the conundrum of how to get subscribers without those initial traffic attraction tricks is a concern.
Personally, I only read reviews for how good the control scheme is - then I watch gameplay videos and go from there.
It's like that old bit: everyone thinks they're an above average driver (which even if true, if everyone is of a particular quality of driver, then it isn't above average, it's average).
I could go on at length on the unusefullness of scores in themselves, how biases can affect them, or how many people use them to overcompensate for cerain sexual shortcomings, but overall you are correct: 10/10 is somewhat too common just because the fanbrats won't let reviewers give it an "average" rating, even if what was once "exceptional" has become average. We're blessed in a reletively low amount of the god awful shovelware games that could dominate the NES, SNES or even PS and PS2 eras. Games that just weren't quirky, or not to taste, but games that were downright unplayable (see any angry video game nerd video for examples), and the number of high quality games is so high we can ignore their existance. I guess they still exist, but no one cares about reviewing playstaion minis, and ios casual games. But back then we had not onle a lot of crap to keep us grounded in what good and bad are, we also had good reason to distrust the term "average" because what was average was a lot of crap anyway.
Today, average is still pretty damn good.
I could go on at length on the unusefullness of scores in themselves, how biases can affect them, or how many people use them to overcompensate for cerain sexual shortcomings, but overall you are correct: 10/10 is somewhat too common just because the fanbrats won't let reviewers give it an "average" rating, even if what was once "exceptional" has become average. We're blessed in a reletively low amount of the god awful shovelware games that could dominate the NES, SNES or even PS and PS2 eras. Games that just weren't quirky, or not to taste, but games that were downright unplayable (see any angry video game nerd video for examples), and the number of high quality games is so high we can ignore their existance. I guess they still exist, but no one cares about reviewing playstaion minis, and ios casual games. But back then we had not onle a lot of crap to keep us grounded in what good and bad are, we also had good reason to distrust the term "average" because what was average was a lot of crap anyway.
Today, average is still pretty damn good.
Just a thoughtJim Sterling said:
Five shouldn't be average in a 1 to 10 scale (I don't mean in a mathematical sense but in a subjective(qualitative) one), average sholud be around 3 because numbers under 5 are barely used and so many games fall between average and perfection. Quality testing and publishers, and the risk of losing money, make it difficult for games under 3 to be released. More numbers between average and perfection would give critics a wider range of options and a chance to rate games more specifically.
Good points Jim, but don't pop a blood vessel.
The criteria for a 'good game' is way too general when gaming media does a review; since we base the value of a game by how entertaining it is, most attempts to divide game aspects (sound, graphics, controls, etc.) tend to depend on or be overshadowed by that that ultimate question of 'is it fun'? Not to say those aspects are not important; its much more difficult to enjoy a game if the controls suck, or the voice acting is terrible, but one or two of these aspects can always be overlooked.
I believe that reviews should hold weight in the originality of the game. That means, no perfect scores for sequels, because they carry the spirit of the original game in their creation (exception for 2's in the line, if they both take risks to both change and build from the basics of the original, while being well made; never 3's in the line).
Many games come out in the span of a year, so reviews need to appraise originality of games in general MUCH better. Just being well made and even extremely entertaining, unfortunately, does not cut it.
...At least, not for the growth of the industry. As far as you buying the game though? It works.
The criteria for a 'good game' is way too general when gaming media does a review; since we base the value of a game by how entertaining it is, most attempts to divide game aspects (sound, graphics, controls, etc.) tend to depend on or be overshadowed by that that ultimate question of 'is it fun'? Not to say those aspects are not important; its much more difficult to enjoy a game if the controls suck, or the voice acting is terrible, but one or two of these aspects can always be overlooked.
I believe that reviews should hold weight in the originality of the game. That means, no perfect scores for sequels, because they carry the spirit of the original game in their creation (exception for 2's in the line, if they both take risks to both change and build from the basics of the original, while being well made; never 3's in the line).
Many games come out in the span of a year, so reviews need to appraise originality of games in general MUCH better. Just being well made and even extremely entertaining, unfortunately, does not cut it.
...At least, not for the growth of the industry. As far as you buying the game though? It works.
i would have thought that a 10/10 was impossible to achieve as a game that is 10/10 is a PERFECT game that has no faults and would be like by everyone regardless of genre preference. So if one review gives a game 10/10 but in the description it mentions that the enemy AI could be better, then it's not 10/10 as that is not a perfect game. People really need to remember these things.