Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Oh, hi to you too, Jim!

Generally speaking I'll look at the average score a game has received to gauge the overall reception it's garnered, and then look up gameplay of whatever game is in question to see if it looks fun to me. If I like what I see, I'll try it out.

There are cases where this doesn't work out so well, particularly with RPGs, in which case I'll usually go by word-of-mouth or read up some of the reviews done by people that I feel have similar tastes as I do, which more often than not leads me to none other than Jim Sterling on Destructoid. Oh, what a small internet it is.
 

Soak

New member
Sep 21, 2010
139
0
0
Well, there is a basic problem with "scores" of any kind you didn't mention: They imply an objective comparability of something (art) influenced by subjective perception, which is simply not true. You can't really compare a modern, to a medieval, to an ancient cavern painting, you can't even compare modern art with other modern art, at least not in an objective manner, otherwise it would look like this: "Painting a uses a slightly broader color palette than b, while b's color intensity and accumulation is slightly higher than a's". Transported to games that would mean: "a has x times more polygons than b, while b has yadidadida [...]". Looking on games as an interactive medium it gets even harder, considering the player has a direct impact on the experience, "if you find the game pacing to slow, maybe you just played it to slow". Though, this already goes into the general problem of reviewing, if we would act consistent on this, every reviewer would have to say "if you want to know how it is, just play the damn game yourself". However, we all know, that it won't work that way either.
Personally, i don't mind game related scores, i barely even care. In a way, you are right, Jim, they won't actually hurt anyone, except maybe a game gets "bad" scores for whatever reasons, while missing the point of the game, it would then probably sell lower than it could and not get the attention it probably might have deserved, while other games get unreasonable high scores and so on and so forth.
Some around mentioned what sites like metacritic or game ratings contributed to that. Well, maybe I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but in the end, those sites are nothing more and nothing less than the extend of statistical expression to its end. To have one without the other would be at least totally inconsistent. Here again Jim says it just right, ?don't blame the knife for the stabbing, blame the stabber?, whoever that may be.
But then again, that's not even the tip of the iceberg of problems the game industry has to face.
In the end, keep your game scores, or throw them away, i don't mind really... but i friggin hate the construct of school grades, i think they hinder the potential of our society at the base, where the subjects to its wrongs can't even properly fight against it and i blame those who cling to this concept, just because it appears easier... though, that's another topic.

Also, beware the gloves, i suspect they have evil powers!
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
The only thing I don't agree in this video is drinking from a recently turd sprayed... water thingy... damn, I need to add a new word to mi English dictionary...

In any case, I don't hate numbers, but I think most people use them just 'cause. The only benefit I see in them numbers, is that I can skip reading a god awful rant about the game and see the bottom line number to get an idea of what the reviewer thinks.
 

Siege_TF

New member
May 9, 2010
582
0
0
muffinatorXII said:
i don't really have a problem with scores it's just that they make no sense. first of all i don't believe a complex opinion can be quantified numerically and if it could you would have to decide on a universal scale to use it on, which also makes no sense because different people value things differently.

and there is this weird thing right now where 7/10 is average
5/10 is funtional mechanically, which is not average, despite being the number between zero and ten, because consumers hold the industry to a certain standard. This is mostly thanks to the internet giving consumers the tools to have the developers by their dangly gubbins, and a game that does nothing more than function mechanically (like that X-Men game) won't turn a profit (it didn't). So 7/10 is 'average' in that it meets our standards, as in, it's entertainment that's entertaining, meaning it does more than function, which is what we expect, and have every right to at sixty dollars a pop.

5/10 is a car that runs, 7/10 is a car that runs well, and has air conditioning and a radio. It may not park itself, it may not be a hybrid, it may not have heated seats and a damn GPS, but it's what people consider 'average' in spite of cars not needing A/C or a radio to function.

It's not that complicated.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Any arbitrary grade system works.
A scale from 1 to 11.3 where a 9 is just passable? It still works fine, just aslong as the reviewer is consistent in his grading. Know it and translate to your own scale.

The problem is never the scoring system itself. It's just bad reviews or bad readers.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
I agree that scores are fine.

The system breaks down over scrutiny but I'd argue that most of us genuinely know this.
We know that a game getting a 9 today doesn't make it superior to every 8.5 game in history regardless of genre.
We know that a 9.5 FPS game isn't necessarily better than a 9.0 FPS on another console, or on a prior console.
We know that one reviewers interpretation of a 7/10 game could vastly differ from anothers.

Numbers provide a quick glance as to whether the article is worth your time. If you've grown familiar with the reviewer, you can better appreciate what the numbers actually mean in terms of game strength.
 

Mrkillhappy

New member
Sep 18, 2012
265
0
0
Review scores by themselves can be helpful, if I just want a quick overview of whether or not a game is good however the scores should give some for of scale with them. For example let us know what qualifies a mediocre and what is considered good this can lead to a lot less fanboy complaints.
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
Wait, what? This is an issue? People who complain about review scores, get 3/10.
I'm giving them a point for being able to string a coherent sentence together, or at least enough of one that we can understand what they're complaining about. They also receive a further two points for having the gall to express themselves on the internet.
 

sindremaster

New member
Apr 6, 2010
238
0
0
AJey said:
So you missed the most obvious point? How about the fact that scores provide zero information! None! Nothing!
They tell you how much the reviewer liked the game. It doesn't tell you why, but that's what the text is there for.
 

Mahoshonen

New member
Jul 28, 2008
358
0
0
I kinda get how 7/10 became average if you think about it like a school grading system. A "C" is meant to be the average grade. By the same idea, 7/10 means you'll get you'll most likely get your money's worth from the game, but no more. The big issue that's brought up about scores, that they're subjective, is a problem inheiret with reviews themselves, and removing scores won't mitigate this problem.
 

Mythmaker

New member
Nov 28, 2012
20
0
0
True, Review Scores in and of themselves aren't bad. But there is a fundamental problem with rating a piece of entertainment like a consumer product. While a consumer product is usually meant to be replaced, entertainment is different. If you rated a movie when it came out in theaters, should you give it a second score when it released on Blu-Ray? No, because the quality of the piece doesn't change, just its value. Quality and value aren't the same thing, and the industry at large really needs to acknowledge that, IMO.

If the industry wants scores to mean something, they need to change two things.

First, the length of a game shouldn't affect the review score by itself. Sure, $60 for a 5-hour game probably isn't worth it, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the game. If something like Portal, for instance, were released as a stand-alone $60 game, should it be considered a lesser game than if it was sold for $10? Letting price factor into a review of entertainment also damages the score by dating it; in a year, a game can drop to half its price. Should it be considered a better game if it does? If people really want to address price, they should do it, but not as part of a score. Set a price limit, or a recommended format, but don't consider it in your score unless the length, or lack thereof, affects the quality of the game itself, not its value.

And second, the review scales should not use other games as their base. This might sound stupid, so let me give an example. New Super Mario Bros released more than 3 years ago, and got scores in the high 80's. New Super Mario Bros 2 released this year, with scores in the high 70's. Most (but not all) reviews I've seen credit the lower score to the game being too much like its predecessor. What does that have to do with the game's quality? Nothing. It has everything to do with the game's value. I see the same thing when games are compared to one another. A game's quality shouldn't be dependent on what its competitors are doing, but on its own merits. This also dates the review further, because its dependent on games that were out at the time of the review. Its value should be what's affected, not its quality.

Now I'm not saying that other games shouldn't affect scores at all; in fact, by defining a critic's quality spectrum, they already are. But the level of engagement should be what's scored, not how much the game is worth. If they want to include that, they should score the game's value separately.
 

muffinatorXII

New member
Jul 4, 2011
39
0
0
Siege_TF said:
muffinatorXII said:
i don't really have a problem with scores it's just that they make no sense. first of all i don't believe a complex opinion can be quantified numerically and if it could you would have to decide on a universal scale to use it on, which also makes no sense because different people value things differently.

and there is this weird thing right now where 7/10 is average
5/10 is funtional mechanically, which is not average, despite being the number between zero and ten, because consumers hold the industry to a certain standard. This is mostly thanks to the internet giving consumers the tools to have the developers by their dangly gubbins, and a game that does nothing more than function mechanically (like that X-Men game) won't turn a profit (it didn't). So 7/10 is 'average' in that it meets our standards, as in, it's entertainment that's entertaining, meaning it does more than function, which is what we expect, and have every right to at sixty dollars a pop.

5/10 is a car that runs, 7/10 is a car that runs well, and has air conditioning and a radio. It may not park itself, it may not be a hybrid, it may not have heated seats and a damn GPS, but it's what people consider 'average' in spite of cars not needing A/C or a radio to function.

It's not that complicated.
i disagree, 5/10 should be a game that isn't bad but isn't great, a game that you wouldn't mind playing but you wouldn't actively seek to play it. a 7/10 should be a good game, one that you would seek to play if you can (maybe buy it on sale because it looks cool) but probably wouldn't get in line for a day for it.

but anyway my main point still stands, review scores make no sense
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
I don't care when games get underrated.
It bothers me when they're overrated, which is usually the case.
It's the reason I rent: after everyone said No More Heroes was amazing and I wasted money on that piece of tedious crap. Sure some reviews are just plain entertaining but I don't know if I'm going to like a game until I've tried it.
 

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
Kuth said:
Scores, no problem with them. Now Metacritic can die in the pits of 8th level hell for the damage that has done.

For some reason, people are mixing the hate of Metacritic with scores. That is a very bad idea to muddle up on your stance. Many of us know that Metacritic have costed people jobs, not intentionally, but companies have relied on using it and thus have seen it as a way to see how well their product will or will not do.

Scores of an individual and the text for why that score exist, is fine. Throwing several different scores formats, and trying to find an average, along with customer scores is idiotic. It makes little to no sense and it's hard for people figure out or analyze why one game got mostly 8/7 score and some twat gave it a 2/5 stars.
Metacritic didn't cost people jobs. Publishers with terrible policies and stupid expectations have cost people jobs. Gabe Newall's talked about it as a stupid way to motivate workers - it causes people to latch on to winning properties (i.e. more of the same) rather than actually attempt new things, thus creating new properties. All metacritic is is an aggregation service. Hating on it is like hating on Google Reader.
 

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
Am I the only person who thought of Raif Feinnes during Schindler's list in the last few minutes? That was about dirt under the fingernails, so it didn't work QUITE as well.
 

Icehearted

New member
Jul 14, 2009
2,081
0
0
Awe, there was a nut in that turd, wasn't there? :\

I have absolutely no idea where this ire for scores of 8 and below came from, or what kind of twit gets mad about a score. I've seen it happen, I've seen people try to drum up outrage because a game got a score of less than 9/10, but I never made sense of why it mattered to them or anyone else. I don't get the personal offense here.

All of this aside however, there was a nut in that turd...