Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil

[thesilentman]

I don't care about scores, I care about the reasons behind them.

And that's the /thread for me.

If people are that gullible to be misled by scores about games that they haven't played, well, I can't help anyone. There's a reason that I don't trust scores anymore. Hint-it's not the inflated average.

 

[Bocaj2000]

My compromise has always been to use X/5 instead of X/10 or X/100. When it's X/5 it's easier to interpret 3/5 as average than 5/10 or 50/100. It makes the review feel more like a suggestion than a grade on a test.

 

[Magmarock]

I personally dislike review scores because I think they devalue the review its;ef; and let us not forget that Geff who worked at Gamespot who was fired for giving Kane and Lynch a low score.

 

[TrevHead]

I agree review scores aren't bad in itself it's just that ppl put way too much importance in them. (metacritic, the industry, gamer)

Imo review scores are a symptom of a consumer market, where there are so many games all fighting for our money that most gamers put every little effort into choosing what games they buy and play. I a perfect world ppl would do their homework into discovering new games. Instead most ppl don't bother, they'll just play sequels and the same genres over and over. Where only the most hyped games are successful only ppl repeatedly tell them it's a good game, same goes for games like FTL ppl are interested due to the buzz surrounding it. (even if it's a good game) Thats most gamers who read reviews already plan on buying the game anyway.

This is why games that are clones or have gimmicky game mechanics sell best because that's what ppl understand, while so many good and unique games that might be critically acclaimed like Vanquish, Okami, Beyond Good and Evil Skull Girls and Akia Katana go under the radar and bomb at the retail counter. Then years later ppl are falling over themselves to sing it's praises and demand sequels even though 99% of them either ignored it of slagged it off when it first went on sale.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh great, Jim's become a Saturday morning cartoon villain.

 

[Flunk]

I didn't realize that this was an actual problem. I guess there are whiney idiots protesting everything these days.

 

[Tamrin]

take their ball and go home as Konami did

...Wait, maybe I am out-of-the-loop here, but were you blacklisted by Konami because you said something mean about their game(s)!? Because if that's true I am going to be a little shocked and disappointed with them.

Yes, they got upset with me because of my Konami Jimquisition video, as well as some negative reviews. I am now less than dirt in their Eastern office.

I remember watching the news once and the interviewer asked the person, "How does it feel to be rich" to which the person replied, "It feels great". It was bullshit because of how that person got to be soo rich. He ran a Ponzi scheme. But of course the journalist never would have gotten that interview in the first place had the guy thought he was going to get negative PR from the experience and had that interview turned serious the guy would have just walked out.

Journalists have the responsibility of calling saints, saints and assholes, assholes. Journalists are not supposed to be used as PR tools. Journalists are not pals of companies or certain individuals. If you call out Konami for doing what Konami does and they choose to back that up and, as you put it, take their ball and go home then they only have themselves to blame when people get upset at them.

We don't, or shouldn't, want Konami, EA, and others to fail, but when they do fail and fail hard it's because we wanted them to succeed that makes us upset and so vocal. It is in the best interest for all when they do good. If they treat you less than dirt because you did your job AND theirs then the problem isn't you. The defiance in not realizing that they are the root of their own problems is like Konami shit the bed and when people found out they just put on a diaper then acted to treat others with contempt out of embarrassment. That diaper is not a solution to the root problem that they are still shitting themselves.

At the end of it all they just create this cycle of shit and disdain followed by more shit and disdain and that is truely sad.

 

[Xanadu84]

I don't mind review scores, if it's a true scale score system.

In a scale of 1-10, five is average. Not 7 or 8. 7's and 8's can still be really good. Iv'e enjoyed a fair few games that have received such.

I'm rather irritated with that point. 5 does not have to be average. 5 just happens to be the middle number. I don't know about how you get graded but for me, if I scored a 50 on a test, I'm not going to complain that I failed because 50 is, "Average". To say that a 7 or 8 is average is EXACTLY as arbitrary as saying that 5 is. No, 5 is not inherently average. What is average is dependent on the kind of scores most games get. If average games get 7.5, then 7.5 IS average. Like...you know...by math.

All you have to do is think of review scores like letter grades, and everything makes sense. Whining over AAA games are just like the class genius who is obsessive about not losing a single point. To not accept review scores as following a trend like this is just pointless stubbornness that the rest of the world doesn't want to conform to your unit of measurement. You might as well tell someone that they are stupid because that road trip was NOT 15 Kilometers, it was 9.3 miles damnit, and your dumb for saying otherwise! If you must insist on 5 being average, just do the conversion in your head.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Scores are fine. I like scores. Even on the sites where 7/10 is "average," if its kept specific to the site its on then I don't really mind at all. I love Destructoid's scores that are very clearly marked and have purpose, I love Giant Bomb's scores which have one star through five star mean a very specific thing. Scores are great.

Metacritic, on the other hand...

Honestly. I'd be fine with review scores that don't align with each other (5/10 on Destructoid isn't 5/10 on IGN) if Metacritic weren't so incessantly popular. If Metacritic didn't weigh certain outlets more heavily than others based on ad revenue. If Metacritic wasn't the biggest point of call that publishers use to gauge critical opinion, to the point where jobs are on the line due to Metacritic scores. If Metacritic didn't convert - or in some cases, outright guess! - what the scores are out of a percentage. Giant Bomb themselves have said, hey, our five star rating doesn't convert to a out of ten score, and an out of ten score doesn't convert to a percentage! Since they only give whole stars. So when Metacritic says "Giant Bomb gave this game 80%!!" that's disingenuous. And then you get, say, Fallout: New Vegas, where the devs lost their bonuses because it rated below... what, 85? It's bullshit.

So scores are good. Compiling all those separate systems that every website uses almost on a writer-by-writer basis, and attempting to compile them and aggregate them, and then weighing the importance of jobs and bonuses and contracts on top of it? That's bullshit. If ever an argument for abolishing scores was strong, it would be that it would also mean the death of Metacritic. And that would be a victory.

I'm rather irritated with that point. 5 does not have to be average. 5 just happens to be the middle number. I don't know about how you get graded but for me, if I scored a 50 on a test, I'm not going to complain that I failed because 50 is, "Average".

I believe he's referring to 5/10 meaning "of average quality." Not the maths of it. On an opinion scale of 1 to 10, 5 should be the middle opinion, and if you weigh 1 as "worst ever" and 10 as "perfect," then 5 comes out as "average." Of course once you apply maths to the score system then things start to get a bit skew-whiff, but I think most people accept that the qualities associated with number scores - especially stars - are permanent, not dependent on a bell curve or what have you.

 

[Colt47]

The problem people typically have with game scores have nothing to do with game scores. The issue is that people seem to look at the game score like it is some kind of enjoyment meter, where the closer to the high end it is the more the person is going to enjoy it. This really isn't the case, as there are interesting games that score only a 7/10 just as there are cookie cutter games that get a 8/10 to 10/10. One has to account for their own personal tastes.

 

[RJ 17]

Jimmy my boy, I dare say you were looking at that glove like you've got a hot date tonight...by yourself. :3

 

[metal mustache]

Heil Jim!
long live his glorious empire of video game commentary!

 

[yellowmage]

Great vid as always, Jim.

I read reviews for their entertainment value, and to try and get into the mind of the reviewer, carefully reading between the lines to parse their likes and dislikes and gain insight into their lives, making them seem more human and not just a sack of meat connected to a pair of hands at a keyboard. I buy games not because of review scores, ut based on whether or not the game itself looks good to me. Also, how much I've got on my plate at the time and whether it's good enough to justify adding to the already-ungainly-at-the-very-least pile.

One thing I do NOT do is meticulously scan the text of each review for spelling and/or grammar errors that I can use as justification for mental gloating. ...No, I definitely don't do that. ¬_¬

Also-also, NEW PAIRING!! Jim x Black Gloves. It's canon and don't you deny it!

 

[Baresark]

I do the same thing as Jim here. I look at the score then read the article. But I would never look at a review score and then buy a game. And thank god, I would have bought some real lemons, and conversely missed some great games.

 

[MB202]

I think people don't like scores for the same reason Yahtzee doesn't like using scores: he doesn't think a complex opinion can be properly expressed in numerical terms. I don't have that much of a problem with review scores, but I think too many people take them WAY too seriously, and THAT'S why people want to see them gone.

 

[leviadragon99]

Yeah, just because one or two prominant names like Yahtzee have decided not to score things on a numerical basis, people have latched onto the idea that scores just don't have a place in the world, despite movie critics and the like using them effectively. Score inflation and the industry's use of metacritic aren't sufficient reasons to abolish scoring entirely, just wake-up calls to use the system more responsibly.

 

[Something Amyss]

I wish you'd went into more detail about why you like them, you mentioned they were fun and you liked debating them, but didn't really go into the reasons.

Personally I don't mind review scores. I just dislike the way 5/10 should mean average, but most people tend to think 7/10 is average and everything below that is bad. Obviously like you said, that's peoples problem, not the scores themselves.

I'm honestly fine with 7/10 as average. The problem is that now we've gotten to the point where 8 is bad, 9 is expected, and t10 is necessary for most games with hype.

I think of it more or less like school grades and treat 7 as a C. A 6 may not be a bad game, but it's either limited in appeal or lacks polish, etc. D is still passing in the school system. And while 4 or 5 could mean a bad game, I still think there should be a basement for absolute terrible games.

Then again, I wouldn't complain much if 5 was average.

 

[Prosis]

My problem with the number review is that (in particular to Metacritic) good games with poor numbers sell
than they would have, while bad games with good numbers sell better. Usually its not an issue, but in sites which average all scores, it makes it possible to score-bomb a game up or down.

And, as already mentioned, it seem silly to have a 10 point system when the only scores ever given are 7, 8, 9, or 10. Why not use a 5star system?

 

[Xelanath]

I don't mind review scores, if it's a true scale score system.

In a scale of 1-10, five is average. Not 7 or 8. 7's and 8's can still be really good. Iv'e enjoyed a fair few games that have received such.

I'm rather irritated with that point. 5 does not have to be average. 5 just happens to be the middle number. I don't know about how you get graded but for me, if I scored a 50 on a test, I'm not going to complain that I failed because 50 is, "Average". To say that a 7 or 8 is average is EXACTLY as arbitrary as saying that 5 is. No, 5 is not inherently average. What is average is dependent on the kind of scores most games get. If average games get 7.5, then 7.5 IS average. Like...you know...by math.

I'd written out a whole response here before realising what the inherent problem with this argument is: we're confusing our definitions of "average". You're essentially arguing past each other because you're operating under different assumptions of what "average" means/should mean.

Anyway, I'd love to discuss this further, but writing that original post really took it out of me. Yawn.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Jim should do audio clips rather than videos. I don't need to watch streams of clips from Japanese games I don't care about while at the same time listening to completely unrelated streams of Jim's occasionally funny/entertaining monologues.

...Then don't. This may come as a total surprise to you, but you don't have to watch the video just because it's there. You can open a new tab and just listen to the words while you look at something else. You can minimize the browser, turn off your monitor, or get up and do other things in the room while the audio plays.

Meanwhile, those of us who like the video, especially when it's a situation where the game clips help drive the point home (such as "Monster Boobs And Plastic Children", where I never would have known that the volleyball game he was talking about was that creepy if he hadn't been showing clips throughout the episode), can still watch them instead of having them taken away because the almighty Blood Brain Barrier dislikes them.

I do, sometimes. My post was more of a critique of Jim's video making, which comes across as lazy. About 5-10% of them is pretty damn funny and the problem is I don't know which 5-10%, which means I have to watch the whole thing so I don't miss anything.

So you can rephrase my quote as: Jim, stop putting random game clips in as filler because it's fucking boring.