Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just want to point out that my definition is either the mathematical definition when scores are representing some sort of representation of quality, or the colloquial definition of middling in terms of quality. 5 is "Average" only insofar as it is the average of all the integers in the set. Which is completely arbitrary, because we are talking about game quality, and not arithmetic. Its an easy enough assumption to make initially, but reality has demonstrated that it is clearly wrong.Xelanath said:
But I sympathize. Ive accidentally nudged the back button after crafted a 30 minute thesis. and hated myself so badly...it about the worst thing ever.
I don't know if 2.5 stars is considered below average on the Escapist. It's just that there are so many games above average, why would you waste your time with one that was only barely up to par? (Come to think of it, this would explain the 7/10 scores, too)Lvl 64 Klutz said:
,Bocaj2000 said:
It's especially strange because it's the opposite with larger numbers. The difference between $10 and $10,000 'feels' a lot bigger than the difference between $1,700,000 and $2,000,000. It's like, "If you have that much money to start with, an extra 300k is nothin'"
Probably something about exponentials.
I dislike review scores because they are meaningless and pointless, and in many cases just seem to be there so the reviewer doesn't have to go into more detail on things. I dislike them in the same way I dislike reviewers who say "Combat is tight and fast paced". Wow, way to say absolutely nothing. I go to reviews to inform myself about a game, and in general I can only do so thanks to the game footage playing in the background of video reviews. The rest of the time its all a very vague, general sense of what happens in the game, and more detail on whether the reviewer liked it or not.
Yeah, that's how reviews work. Maybe I just hate reviews in general. Were I to write a review, however, I would actually put some detail into explaining how the mechanics work so that my audience could get an idea of whether they'd like it or not, but hey, I'll never be a reviewer. I CBF writing up my opinions on a game unless its in a forum argument, so yeah.
Yeah, that's how reviews work. Maybe I just hate reviews in general. Were I to write a review, however, I would actually put some detail into explaining how the mechanics work so that my audience could get an idea of whether they'd like it or not, but hey, I'll never be a reviewer. I CBF writing up my opinions on a game unless its in a forum argument, so yeah.
Duke Nukem Forever. Trust me, and the rest of the world, in saying this: Do not get it. It starts out ok with "Well, that's a bit of a novel idea, this really isn't as bad as people say it is", but less than halfway through the game you'll change your mind =/.daxterx2005 said:
I find scores mostly stupid and harmless, and don't care either way. The only aspect I'd like to see changed is if you do use them, use an actual scale of 1-10, or 1-5 stars, whatever, USE THE WHOLE RANGE. If a game is as bad as shit like Vampire Rain, give it a 1 or 2, not a frigging 6. In the mind of a sane person a 6 means it's not good, but passable. A grade I would not give something like Vampire Rain.
I like them. It's a natural way to summarize the subjective opinion of the reviewer. Any game will have its ups and downs and it can be hard for a reader to guess how much those ups and downs influence the game. A score will help keep the perspective.
Maybe the game looks very ugly, but if the reviewer gave it an 8/10 I suppose the graphical presentation isn't so important in that case.
Like Jim I like to look at the score first and then see how the reviewer reached that conclusion. It's an important piece of the puzzle.
Maybe the game looks very ugly, but if the reviewer gave it an 8/10 I suppose the graphical presentation isn't so important in that case.
Like Jim I like to look at the score first and then see how the reviewer reached that conclusion. It's an important piece of the puzzle.
I prefer letter grades to X/10 or X/100, since pretty much everyone who reads it is well aware that C = average. That said, one major issue I do have with the final scores is when, say, a game's campaign is awful but it has a really good, innovative multiplayer, the final score winds up being an average because the two balance each other out. Unfortunately, that means that really good ideas in the multiplayer get ignored because it's percieved by idiots/Metacritic as "just average". The same thing in reverse is likely to be what happened to Spec Ops, since the single-player was amazing but the multiplayer was blatantly tacked on.
I dunno, maybe reviews should have an individual score for every "part" of the game, so CoD would have a separate grade for campaign, multiplayer and zombies. That's just my opinion though.
I dunno, maybe reviews should have an individual score for every "part" of the game, so CoD would have a separate grade for campaign, multiplayer and zombies. That's just my opinion though.
I like a lot of games rated only 5 or 6 out of ten.
And I consider myself an connoisseur, a game-gourmet. I don'T play every shit because it's got a high rating.
And I consider myself an connoisseur, a game-gourmet. I don'T play every shit because it's got a high rating.
Exactly what I was going for. I simply think that its silly that on a ten point scale of opinion only 3 of the 10 scores (8,9,10) are considered good. It think it gives the scale and the reviewer more flexibility.Andy of Comix Inc said:
I also seem to have offended Xanadu. Part of that is my fault, as I meant to describe the median, not the mean value.
I don't inherently mind scores, but sometimes I look at what was said in the review article and go "wait, so, you just said that about the game and gave it that number?". It's about the reviewer as well, they can be as much as a raving chimpanzee as the troll who gets upset when their favourite game doesn't get a 10.
Also, Jim, that last bit was disturbing and hilarious at the same time.
Also, Jim, that last bit was disturbing and hilarious at the same time.
No mention of Cliffy B throwing a tantrum because Eurogamer gave Gears Of War 3 an 8/10?
My biggest problem with the scoring system generally used is there is no consistency.
All the score tells you is what that particular reviewer thought of the game. Now the one thing that does annoy me about it is when the main body of the review contains little information that relates to how that score might have been decided upon, that makes me suspicious.
My biggest problem with the scoring system generally used is there is no consistency.
All the score tells you is what that particular reviewer thought of the game. Now the one thing that does annoy me about it is when the main body of the review contains little information that relates to how that score might have been decided upon, that makes me suspicious.
I'm on board, but I don't know how I feel about companies (large companies, apparently) handing out paychecks or bonuses based on a game's metacritic score. These things should be seperated, in my opinion. I suppose it's your responsibility when getting hired at a developer to know what you're getting in to, but to be eagerly refreshing metacritic on release night in hopes you get another 2 grand on your annual salary seems inane.
Yeah, you are right there I think.
But as often you are forgetting the implications of review scores outside the immediacy of games themselves, as you say I personally dont have an objection with honest review scores, I understand they represent a particular experience, which is fine but they also can be used for motives fully outside the games themselves, and as you say it's hard to judge the reviewer when someone plays the "its just my opinion" card.
I personally believe the question about what should the average score be, is rather pointless. I do find it funny that people want 10's for their fanboyish needs. But I also find it funny that anyone thinks 5 should be the average, since most games released are normally not just "a test" but a number of tests, QA corrections, talented artists, and dedicated developers. Not to say that no game is BAD, there are many BAD BAD games, but as a whole, the quality of products that actually get published is at least technically quite proeficient. So its hard to judge it out of context.
Of course, the world is not going to end because a review score responds more to money pressures or the desire to stand out, but it can be annoying, especially when someone takes games seriously.
And dont get me wrong, for me the important aspects in a review are: clarity, coherence, honesty and the intention of objectivity. When Yahtzee does a critique, I don't ask those values, because I expect it to be a more visceral, raw and personal view of the game, but he does not score them either, which makes perfect sense to me.
You may be a good reviewer, and as such professional, someone who wants to really inform the audience about the quality of a game based on a coherent score that you give. But as good as you might be, it doesn't mean you are the norm, or that it doesnt lend itself to bad practices.
The problem is when these situations start blending: A pretty funny case was a single negative review I read of this year's Journey in a web called quarter-to-three(which is the only negative review of the game that you can probably find anywhere). I personally thought that beyond any technical criticisms (and many can be had), Journey was a fantastic, well crafted experience, that spoke insightfully to the current state of gaming as a whole and managed to debase my "artsy fartsy" worries by also delivering an extremely engaging -game-. But then I found this review that spoke with almost inslting ignorance (almost felt trolling), and I couldn't find any other explanation for it other than getting hits on their web.
Is this ok? I suppose, but it bothers me as much as when resident evil 6 gets a suspiciously inflated score on IGN even when the written review is actually quite critical about it $$. More than a review these are ADs for different motives.
Let me ask you Jim, are you okay with paid reviews? Is it fine if a company offers money to get their product rated higher as to -cheat- people into consuming? I don't like it in any order of things, I can't lie.
Am I going to go on a murderous rampage because of it? no. But in my views it does shine a negative light on the ecosystem as a whole.
So, no I dont think review scores are the issue, obviously. As everything -objects- Guns, Bombs and Drugs are not the problem, its what people do with them... but that would have been a more interesting discussion that we chose to avoid here.. again
But as often you are forgetting the implications of review scores outside the immediacy of games themselves, as you say I personally dont have an objection with honest review scores, I understand they represent a particular experience, which is fine but they also can be used for motives fully outside the games themselves, and as you say it's hard to judge the reviewer when someone plays the "its just my opinion" card.
I personally believe the question about what should the average score be, is rather pointless. I do find it funny that people want 10's for their fanboyish needs. But I also find it funny that anyone thinks 5 should be the average, since most games released are normally not just "a test" but a number of tests, QA corrections, talented artists, and dedicated developers. Not to say that no game is BAD, there are many BAD BAD games, but as a whole, the quality of products that actually get published is at least technically quite proeficient. So its hard to judge it out of context.
Of course, the world is not going to end because a review score responds more to money pressures or the desire to stand out, but it can be annoying, especially when someone takes games seriously.
And dont get me wrong, for me the important aspects in a review are: clarity, coherence, honesty and the intention of objectivity. When Yahtzee does a critique, I don't ask those values, because I expect it to be a more visceral, raw and personal view of the game, but he does not score them either, which makes perfect sense to me.
You may be a good reviewer, and as such professional, someone who wants to really inform the audience about the quality of a game based on a coherent score that you give. But as good as you might be, it doesn't mean you are the norm, or that it doesnt lend itself to bad practices.
The problem is when these situations start blending: A pretty funny case was a single negative review I read of this year's Journey in a web called quarter-to-three(which is the only negative review of the game that you can probably find anywhere). I personally thought that beyond any technical criticisms (and many can be had), Journey was a fantastic, well crafted experience, that spoke insightfully to the current state of gaming as a whole and managed to debase my "artsy fartsy" worries by also delivering an extremely engaging -game-. But then I found this review that spoke with almost inslting ignorance (almost felt trolling), and I couldn't find any other explanation for it other than getting hits on their web.
Is this ok? I suppose, but it bothers me as much as when resident evil 6 gets a suspiciously inflated score on IGN even when the written review is actually quite critical about it $$. More than a review these are ADs for different motives.
Let me ask you Jim, are you okay with paid reviews? Is it fine if a company offers money to get their product rated higher as to -cheat- people into consuming? I don't like it in any order of things, I can't lie.
Am I going to go on a murderous rampage because of it? no. But in my views it does shine a negative light on the ecosystem as a whole.
So, no I dont think review scores are the issue, obviously. As everything -objects- Guns, Bombs and Drugs are not the problem, its what people do with them... but that would have been a more interesting discussion that we chose to avoid here.. again