Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil

[Mortamus]

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.

 

[theultimateend]

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

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].

Now with that in mind, so glad the only penis in this weeks video was a guy in a cock suit.

The CEO of our company walked by and got super interested in the game scenes and was curious what your show was. I like that watching this show at work is a bit of a mine field .

 

[Imp_Emissary]

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.

Yes, because it takes a lot of guts to say something terrible on the internet. That's why it almost never happens.
>_>
<_<

On a more serious note: The reason people hate review scores/metacritic isn't really because of the scores themselves, but because some companies have said they will fire anyone who works on a game that doesn't get a high enough score.

But they should get mad at the companies who say that, not the scores, or Metacritic.

 

[PunkRex]

I miss the red gloves Jim, you looked like a facist magician.

Also, I thought you had already done this topic but I guess not... weird... anyways, what did Koonami actually say? It sounds freaking hilarious.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

I don't mind review scores. I read reviews in a similar manner to Jim: score first, and then the full text, to see how the result was arrived at. If it's a game I don't really care about, and I don't, for whatever reason, have the time to read a full review, I'll look at the scores on a couple of different sites to see if they match up.

I also don't have a problem with using numbers. Most sites have a pretty well laid-out system for scoring games, so even when the numbers don't match up, the thoughts on quality usually do.

The only reason why I'd want to see review scores abolished is because then the HUGE FANBOYS who only pay attention to scores would no longer be able to look at a number, and then ***** and complain for months on end that the reviewer in question was paid to give it the score it got. Christ, that pisses me off to no end.

 

[xPixelatedx]

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.

 

[Mythmaker]

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.

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.

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'.

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.

 

[Aureliano]

I think the problem is that most of the 'X out of 10' outlets are secretly working on an X out of 15 system, where 15 would actually be a perfect game and 9 or 10 is just a bit better than average. And people get so confused by this that now they get pissed off at people like Jim for using the number system for its purportedly intended purpose: as a quick way to tell people how good he thought the game is in comparison to other games in the genre (i.e. games he has scored either higher or lower or the same number to).

Am I the only one who got a sympathy chub with Jim's narcissism boner at his own gloves? Fantastic Dr. Strangelove-type times.

 

[PunkRex]

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 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.

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.

 

[CaptainOctopus]

Scores are great, how else will the robots know what is good or not when they kill all humans and take over the world?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

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.

Sterling overlord you say? So does that mean instead of ruling over us with a iron fist he'll have a SILVER one?

Also, I agree with what you said about the issue.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I never understood how people could cry foul at an eighty percent or a solid B. As much as I hate throwing the "Fanboy" label around, there's some people who can't understand that everything - absolutely everything - should stand up to criticism. If you can take a game you honestly adore and still find niggles and small issues with it, you're doing your job adequately. If you're so blinded as to declare this or that game the epitome of perfection or are unable to understand that review scales change from site to site and reviewer to reviewer, then you don't understand the point of criticism in any shape or form.

No game will ever be perfect, and a eight or nine out of ten still denotes a very respectable and even commendable success. I'll buy games that sink as low as six or seven, sometimes, and I understand that all reviews are ultimately subjective.

Consider this: a friend of mine absolutely fucking loves Dead Island. He compares it to a Mêlée-centric version of Borderlands, and he loves the way combat can be fairly difficult or unforgiving. I played the same game for three hours and couldn't find a speck of enjoyment in it. It felt badly put together, poorly structured and thought out.

Who's right, then? We both are. There's no point in him trying to convert me, just as there's no point in me calling him a poopyhead for daring to like what I don't like. You can disagree with critics, and critics *will* disagree with you.

Yes, there's always going to be thorny issues like paid-for reviews and the general impression that payola is a common practice in the industry - allegedly, at any rate - but I'd still rather think that professional reviewers are hired for their ability to be honest about their preferences. This is why most pro outlets aren't just the voice of one guy testing out various games - a JRPG buff might have zero patience for a Western shooter or a sports sim. Making sure you nab reviewers from all corners of the gaming rainbow keeps things fair and balanced.

 

[mjc0961]

Okay, I'll give you that it's not the fault of the scores that people so blatantly misuse them, and yes I would love some kind of actual stand against these people beyond "well this guy is a dumbass, time to put them on my block list so I don't have to read more of their stupidity". Personally though, I still find review scores to be useless. Saying that a game is a 7/10 tells me one thing and one thing only: that whoever gave it a 7/10 liked the game despite what they felt were only minor faults. It does absolutely fuck-all to tell me if I'd actually enjoy it. I actually have to read the review itself to find that out, and by the time I've finished the review, I don't need a score anymore. It's just an extra summary put in after the written summary that uses a number instead of words.

I still want to repeatedly kick the genitals of every person who insists that because a game got good scores I'm not allowed to dislike it and it's better than a game I did like if it got higher scores. Just today some complete and utter dipshit on YouTube, in response to me saying I didn't like Sly Cooper while also recommending Ratchet and Clank to a friend, insisted that I must have never played Sly Cooper because it got better review scores than Ratchet and Clank and thus is a better game than Ratchet and Clank. FUCK. OFF. That is not what review scores mean you useless cretin!

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.

 

[mjc0961]

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.

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.

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.

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.

These "7/10 is the average because it should be the average" people really need to try out common sense sometime.

 

[Frozengale]

Review scores in and of themselves are not bad. They are actually really great. They give you a quick glimpse of whether a game is good or not as viewed by a certain person or site. I like the */5 scores that the Escapist gives their games but sometimes I already know a lot about a game, I've been following it for months, so all I really need to know is whether it was good as everyone thought it was going to be. If I see it gets a really bad score then I'll usually look deeper into it and find out why and see if the problems listed would hinder my experience to the point that I wouldn't want it.

The real problem with review scores is how much emphasis is put into them. People will point to a game and tell you how bad it is with no other explanation then, "It got low scores." Companies focus on trying to get a high Metacritic score and will make stupid decisions because of this. People will Review Bomb a product because of some perceived slight. And quite possibly people will give something a good score just because they are paid to. Scores become this ominous thing that holds such a tight grip over the video game industry, and so many call for its destruction.

In reality the thing that NEEDS to happen is we need to change how we score games. There are many places experimenting with this in various ways. You can separate the game into categories such as Gameplay, Aesthetics, etc. and give separate scores for each of those. You can change the criteria on how a game is judged. You can give pass/fail grades to the games. There are a myriad of different techniques being tried, and I hope we find one that works the best, simply because the "Overall" grade that we tend to give games now a days doesn't really do them justice. But then again that's why you should read the review as well.

 

[empirialtank]

personally i always liked X-play's old standards.

5/5 exceptional, everyone should play this game.

4/5 good, worth your money

3/5 average, worth renting, or buying if your a fan of games like this

2/5 bad, if you spent more then ten bucks on this, you were ripped off.

1/5 horrible, don't touch this sh*t with a twelve foot pole being held by someone else.

its nice, simple and keeps people from getting upset over that 8/10 crap.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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.

 

[Trokil]

Yeah, numbers totally work.

The 5 out 10 = bad, 7 out of 10 average and 10 out 10 good game "and the publisher also made a lot of advertisement on our site" system is flawless. The last spunkgargleweewee incarnation CoD Black Ops showed that.

Review scores are a stupid idea, because corporate chimpanzees now use the for team reviewing and bonuses. EA does it for example. So all hail to metacritic. Of course now everybody wants good review scores, so publishers and developers do everything for a good review and the system is getting more and more corrupt. Because videogames are serious business.

And because most game reviewers are not earning as much as the TV or movie critic, bribes have a bigger impact. Of course there is no money getting paid, just add space, early access or free trips to game presentations.

Jeff Gerstmann once gave a bad score to a game, gamespot and Eidos already had made a deal about and we all know what happened. Review scores made the system corrupt and that's why most people in the business want to keep them. Because as long as the do, publishers and developers will do everything to make reviewers feel like a very special snowflake and will pay good money to their employer. So review scores will ensure that the spice is flowing.

And the spice must flow.

 

[Kapol]

Wait, Jim takes our advice on fashion tips? Then I say he should do an episode nude! Muhaha! My evil plan is coming together! Now I just need to get the duck and a ray-gun.

Anyways, back to more serious business. I actually really like review scores. Why? Because they normally are a general indication if a game is really good or not. I'll normally look at the review of a game and read through it if it's something I'm already considering picking it up. But if it's something I don't care much about, I normally glance at the summary, the score, and move on. But if it's almost universally praised as a good game I might decide to check more into it. This has happened with quite a few games in the past and it's almost never lead to disappointment. Now, I might be missing out on a lot of games I might have liked because I didn't read the full review. But given my current financial situation (Read: Because I'm too piss-poor to be able to afford many games) I have to be more selective on what I pick up.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

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.

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.

Perhaps I shouldn't have included the term mediocre, because you're absolutely right. Halfway between unplayable and perfect would be mediocre. But if we're looking at what should be considered "average" both mathematically and a standard of quality, then our medium should be aiming higher than halfway between unplayable and perfect.

That was the point I was trying to make. A game with 6/10 shouldn't be considered better than average. It should be a game that has it's fun moments, but definitely has room for improvement.