Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil

[Di-Dorval]

You go on to say that reviews scores can do much harm and that they bring nothing to the review and that you use them mostly for 'fun and debate'.

You also say that the main reason you keep them is because they provide more traffic to the review.

I don't see how you justified review scores at all. They are still useless things that do more harm than anything.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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.

Is there an article on this or something with more information? Did they really just throw a fit?

There's no article yet. I am considering revisiting Konami in a future Jimquisition though, and I can detail it there. It's a really fucked story.

 

[Strazdas]

finally, i met a reviewer that likes scores, im going to read your reviews from now on.

 

[kodra]

This video is all well and good in a magical world where things like MetaCritic doesn't exist or doesn't have any real world value, but since MetaCritic DOES exist, you putting a review of anything lower than a 9 is essentially you casting your vote of "I want this game to fail commercially".

That is the power you as a journalist have over this industry and not owning up to that in this video just portrays game journalists as the irresponsible hack writers you too often get labeled as.

EDIT:

I'm sensitive about this because of The Secret World, a game that was probably the most impressive steps forward in MMO content design in years, that was essentially killed a month after launch because it got a good number of middling review scores followed by one guy who basically torched the game based on his experience with the beta client.

What this tells me is that gamers aren't ready for games to innovate, because they'd rather play 95 metacritic score games than any that are willing to take any risks in upsetting the review-class journalists.

 

[Rabidkitten]

This Jimquisition wasn't as well compiled as some of your better episodes. I felt like it lacked direction, had no clear conclusions, and was more or less a jumble of ideas on the said topic. Just some friendly criticism. That said, I don't care at all about this topic.

 

[Urh]

Jim is discussing people's reactions to review scores, so naturally he juxtaposes footage of Duke Nukem flinging shit everywhere. A perfect metaphor, if lacking in subtlety.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'm sensitive about this because of The Secret World, a game that was probably the most impressive steps forward in MMO content design in years, that was essentially killed a month after launch because it got a good number of middling review scores followed by one guy who basically torched the game based on his experience with the beta client.

What this tells me is that gamers aren't ready for games to innovate, because they'd rather play 95 metacritic score games than any that are willing to take any risks in upsetting the review-class journalists.

Actually, I'm 90% sure that Secret World failed because of it's $60 + $15/mo pricing scheme.

 

[Triaed]

Well, the issue that I have with scores is when the reviewers use them inconsistently.

For one game they might say "... this game is fun but the mediocre graphics and forgettable sound makes it look like something we have played before, it is alright but don't rush out the door to buy it I give it an 8"

Whereas for another they will say "... man I had so much fun with this game, it was original, had innovative gameplay, and I could not stop playing; however, it had some technical issues and that is why I give it an 8"

What the hell?! It is not the score itself, it is how they got to the score that bugs me. One is obviously below par and the other is supposed to be great. I see this happening all the time

 

[Brad Gardner]

I don't like scores myself because they don't make a damn but of scene. I tried to ask some reviewers 10 years ago what do the scores mean and I got something to the effect of they are an opinion brought into easy number form. But to me let's say a 1 to 10 score was made then wouldn't 5 me OK not my cup of tea but not bad. But it goes to saying 5 out of 10 might as well be shit on a waffle for breakfast.

If I would do score I'd have to break them down in technical and opinion.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

I see much more complaining on the internet about how scores average around 7-8, and any game that got a 5 (which *should* be average) is seen as total crap, than how scores suck altogether. They're just weighted funny, giving them much lower resolution. Has any game ever gotten a 1? Ever?

 

[Colt47]

Actually I believe the reason most people see anything below a 7 as abysmal is because the normal grading system used in the education system. 50% and below is an F, where as 60-69% is a D, 70-79% is a C, 80-89% is a B, and an A is 90-100%. Converting that to a 10 point scale, we get 7-10 being desirable scores while 1-6 are the scores we wish to avoid. We are basically taught that is the way things should be.

 

[SlamDunc]

To me game scores do not work like they seem to for some others. I dont think they can work for comparing two games as much as saying how much a game lived up to the potential of its concept. Though some concepts are so bad there is no winning.

 

[Nimzabaat]

i like the new gloves. they match the suit and make you look spiffy.
you don't wear enough Red for the red gloves to work in the same way.

anyway. i'm so-so on review scored... i don't really like how an 8 is seen as BAD. an 8 is simply 80%. it's still a B grade, and even without taking BS school grades into account it means you did 80% of stuff great! (making a 50% just "average" or "Decent") the scores themselves arn't bad, but rather it's the way that some people VIEW them that's really bad.

I agree. If the scoring system made sense (0 awful 1-3 bad, 4-6 average, 7-9 good, 10 exceptional or something like that) then I wouldn't mind critics using that system. Take Duke Nukem Forever, on this very website the reviewer slammed the crap (no pun intended) out of it, then gave it a 7.

 

[godofslack]

Review scores are just dumb universally. The belief that it'd be a good idea to measure subjective opinions with numbers is pants-on-head retarded, even more so when you factor in there isn't even a consensus of what each number means. You can ask anyone if they like a game for example, if you asked a normal person how they felt about portal they'll say they loved it, hated it, or somewhere in between, not 9 or 4 stars or 13 gophers because such statements are nonsensical. In order to talk in terms of scores you need to translate your feelings into a number and then the reader has to translate your number back to feelings, even worse is that they often do so incorrectly.

Also, review scores are dishonest, they represent subjective opinions as objective facts; 9/10 of a pizza is universal, 9/10 on a game review is not.

 

[theklep]

Best Ending Ever.

 

[Olas]

I think what some people like about review scores is how they can very precisely sum up you're feelings towards a game in a short span.

6/10
done.

You can't do that with words without being vague. Of course that doesn't make them any less limited and trivial. But if you just want to pour over a bunch of reviews for a game without spending 5 minutes on each one numbers can at least give you something.

 

[vezon]

I don't really understand why the scores need to be so exact like 1/10 or even on a 100 scale, when their is to much subjectivity in that number. The only thing that is matter that is good, ok or bad. The one example of that (the reason why I stopped reading Jim's reviews) was Witcher2 and Skyrim. U see Jim criticized Witcher for different reasons and voila in Skyrim in some of the same areas was doing MUCH MUCH worse but there didn't count. Both games have cons and pros, both games are good, which are better is more a question of tastes (I liked more Witcher than Skyrim), so how does justify Jim score of a 6 and a 10. An 8 and a 9 that would be subjective but 6 and a 10, sorry Jim but I expect from a reviewer to be as objective as possible.

 

[Mr F.]

Right, I keep seeing this and now I must point it out.

I see much more complaining on the internet about how scores average around 7-8, and any game that got a 5 (which *should* be average) is seen as total crap, than how scores suck altogether. They're just weighted funny, giving them much lower resolution. Has any game ever gotten a 1? Ever?

What do you mean by "Should be average". What on earth does ANYONE mean by that.

If the average game gets a 7 then 7 = Average.

The problem is that the average game gets a 7.

So unless a site specifically states that they use a different system from other sites etc et etc, 7 = Average.

There is no "Should" with averages.

Most people who hate review scores seem to forget that. Yes, it fucks up the system, but we all have internalized it. If something gets a 6 we dont think "This is an above average game" we think, quite rightly, "This game is below average". Because it is below the average that has already been set.

You see where I am going with this?

I have nothing against review scores. I believe them helpful. Nor do I have anything against either metacritic, well the review scores from professional critics at least.

I guess I hold a hated view these days. Yes, I accept that the system is a bit broken. But that aint the systems fault.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

I'm sensitive about this because of The Secret World, a game that was probably the most impressive steps forward in MMO content design in years, that was essentially killed a month after launch because it got a good number of middling review scores followed by one guy who basically torched the game based on his experience with the beta client.

What this tells me is that gamers aren't ready for games to innovate, because they'd rather play 95 metacritic score games than any that are willing to take any risks in upsetting the review-class journalists.

I don't mean to rain in your parade, but that is actually a really common misconception of today.. (and of a lot of people in history) Innovation, is a risky thing, it means to make NEW things (that is questionable on itself), but it doesn't necessarily make GOOD things. The fact that something is innovative, doesn't make it automatically GREAT! just NEW, but it very well can be HORRIBLE (which incidentally was my personal experience with the secret world, because let's face it, other than content design, the game was stagnant in EVERY OTHER TECHNICAL SENSE).

So, a bit off topic but lets not continue this fallacy!
Remember:

NEW != GOOD

GOOD != NEW

BETTER == NEW °o°

And on topic: people, people, stop saying 5 should be the average, 5 is the average out of 10, which does not mean that most games should be in that average. Please think about it, most games are rather decent, at least functionally, as a general law I'd say in fact that most games are in fact good, SO THE AVERAGE IS ABOVE THE MATHEMATICAL CENTER POINT. Tough luck that too many rather good games come out so often, since most people simply have to discriminate to their prefered genres/highest critic scores...

 

[mrpropal]

Why does every other Jimquisition contain images of poop? It doesn't go well with the fascist theme!

Doesn't Jim care about what the OSS wrote about that German dictator?

Cool gloves though. Please bring back the tie. Or perhaps a foulard would be nice.