This is a very good point. Prices drop all the time, especially on PC and length is only value for money (if the game is any good at all).Mythmaker said: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.
Trickier. A reviewer may want to reward originality somehow, but at the same time to a newcomer who isn't jaded yet, copy-pasta sequel X may still be worth their time.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.
So I work at a game publisher, the videos on the escapist are technically work related [plenty of folks here have a routine of game industry shows we watch, others use their free time in the day to smoke, different strokes].Jimothy Sterling said:Review Scores Are Not Evil
When Jim Sterling isn't busy being the voice of a generation, he's a videogame reviewer -- one that's constantly told to abolish review scores. This is a silly request, hinging on the belief that review scores are an evil we simply endure.
Watch Video
Yes, because it takes a lot of guts to say something terrible on the internet. That's why it almost never happens.wolfyrik said: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.
...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.Jimothy Sterling said:take their ball and go home as Konami did
Precisely. As a consumer product its length is relevant because you want the most for your money, so it should be mentioned. But as entertainment its length should have nothing to do with its perceived quality by itself.veloper said:This is a very good point. Prices drop all the time, especially on PC and length is only value for money (if the game is any good at all).
Game length should be mentioned somewhere, but it doesn't make an experience more fun. Some of us don't even want to waste much time.
A reviewer should always score the game on their level of engagement; if the newness of the game is something that makes the game more enjoyable, that should definitely improve the score. But a lack of newness should not detract from the score. If NSMB2, for instance, was as good as the first game in every way it should not score lower simply because it is unoriginal. However, because you can get roughly the same experience with an older game, its value should be lower.veloper said:Trickier. A reviewer may want to reward originality somehow, but at the same time to a newcomer who isn't jaded yet, copy-pasta sequel X may still be worth their time.
Worse, a fresh experience may genuinely make the critic like the experience more. If this rule is to be taken to it's logical destination, then a critic would have to go something like: 'wow I loved this game! Hmm, maybe it's because it's something not done before, so I'd better substract a full point just to be fair to all the copycats that will soon follow'.
I can definatly see your point but these extras have become the standard due to the tech and goals within the industry. Im not saying that every game MUST include them, its very much up to what the creative people behind the game want to acheive, but as standards increase the bar gets pushed up. Isn't this how its always been? Im aware im being quite general here but this is artistic oppinion were talking about, even if I have no problem with the use of numbers everyone has there own way of doing so as this isn't technically maths as there is no universal formula behind it.Siege_TF said: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.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 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.
Sterling overlord you say? So does that mean instead of ruling over us with a iron fist he'll have a SILVER one?Mortamus said:I, for one, welcome our new Sterling overlord.
In reference to the removal of scores, it's as old an argument as any. It just has a different title. Generally, the idea of "Take away their [tool] and then they can't do [deed that is deemed awful by it's author]" has little to no sense. If someone wants to do it, they'll find another means to do so. Plain as that.
...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.Blood Brain Barrier said: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.
Which is wrong, because if 7/10 is the average/mediocre game, then you have only 3 higher numbers to give a game a better score and 6 smaller numbers to give the game a worse score. This "7/10 means mediocre" nonsense is why people cry foul at 8/10's. 8/10 does not mean slightly better than mediocre, it means very good or great. 5/10 is mediocre, not 7/10.Lvl 64 Klutz said:It depends on how you look at the 10 point grading scale. If you look at it like an academic grade, then 7/10 *should* be the average/mediocre game. That's how most reviewers see it, even. Just look here on the Escapist where 2 and a half stars is usually accompanied by a "don't bother" recommendation and anything below that is pretty much considered garbage.
Exactly. For claiming that it's "not that complicated", he sure got it dead wrong and you got it absolutely right. Having a standard feature does not mean you did better than average. To go back to the car comparison, like you said, a radio is expected in every car, and having that is not worthy of a higher score. Not having one is worthy of a lower score, though. You'd have to go above and beyond with the radio to get a higher score, it would have to be more than a standard FM radio with a tape deck and/or CD player. Maybe it has a 5 disc CD changer, or maybe it has built-in satellite radio so you can listen to radio stations that aren't 75% idiot DJs talking about shit you don't care about and commercials. Then you get a mark up. Having a basic, average radio gets you a basic, average score. And not having one at all marks you down.PunkRex said:E.g. If I went out to buy a car and it didn't have a radio id mark it down, granted only slightly. I'd say at least 80% of cars these days have a radio, its become the standard, the absense of one would be a negative not a plus if it did have one.