Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil

[metal mustache]

Heil Jim!
long live his glorious empire of video game commentary!

 

[yellowmage]

Great vid as always, Jim.

I read reviews for their entertainment value, and to try and get into the mind of the reviewer, carefully reading between the lines to parse their likes and dislikes and gain insight into their lives, making them seem more human and not just a sack of meat connected to a pair of hands at a keyboard. I buy games not because of review scores, ut based on whether or not the game itself looks good to me. Also, how much I've got on my plate at the time and whether it's good enough to justify adding to the already-ungainly-at-the-very-least pile.

One thing I do NOT do is meticulously scan the text of each review for spelling and/or grammar errors that I can use as justification for mental gloating. ...No, I definitely don't do that. ¬_¬

Also-also, NEW PAIRING!! Jim x Black Gloves. It's canon and don't you deny it!

 

[Baresark]

I do the same thing as Jim here. I look at the score then read the article. But I would never look at a review score and then buy a game. And thank god, I would have bought some real lemons, and conversely missed some great games.

 

[MB202]

I think people don't like scores for the same reason Yahtzee doesn't like using scores: he doesn't think a complex opinion can be properly expressed in numerical terms. I don't have that much of a problem with review scores, but I think too many people take them WAY too seriously, and THAT'S why people want to see them gone.

 

[leviadragon99]

Yeah, just because one or two prominant names like Yahtzee have decided not to score things on a numerical basis, people have latched onto the idea that scores just don't have a place in the world, despite movie critics and the like using them effectively. Score inflation and the industry's use of metacritic aren't sufficient reasons to abolish scoring entirely, just wake-up calls to use the system more responsibly.

 

[Something Amyss]

I wish you'd went into more detail about why you like them, you mentioned they were fun and you liked debating them, but didn't really go into the reasons.

Personally I don't mind review scores. I just dislike the way 5/10 should mean average, but most people tend to think 7/10 is average and everything below that is bad. Obviously like you said, that's peoples problem, not the scores themselves.

I'm honestly fine with 7/10 as average. The problem is that now we've gotten to the point where 8 is bad, 9 is expected, and t10 is necessary for most games with hype.

I think of it more or less like school grades and treat 7 as a C. A 6 may not be a bad game, but it's either limited in appeal or lacks polish, etc. D is still passing in the school system. And while 4 or 5 could mean a bad game, I still think there should be a basement for absolute terrible games.

Then again, I wouldn't complain much if 5 was average.

 

[Prosis]

My problem with the number review is that (in particular to Metacritic) good games with poor numbers sell
than they would have, while bad games with good numbers sell better. Usually its not an issue, but in sites which average all scores, it makes it possible to score-bomb a game up or down.

And, as already mentioned, it seem silly to have a 10 point system when the only scores ever given are 7, 8, 9, or 10. Why not use a 5star system?

 

[Xelanath]

I don't mind review scores, if it's a true scale score system.

In a scale of 1-10, five is average. Not 7 or 8. 7's and 8's can still be really good. Iv'e enjoyed a fair few games that have received such.

I'm rather irritated with that point. 5 does not have to be average. 5 just happens to be the middle number. I don't know about how you get graded but for me, if I scored a 50 on a test, I'm not going to complain that I failed because 50 is, "Average". To say that a 7 or 8 is average is EXACTLY as arbitrary as saying that 5 is. No, 5 is not inherently average. What is average is dependent on the kind of scores most games get. If average games get 7.5, then 7.5 IS average. Like...you know...by math.

I'd written out a whole response here before realising what the inherent problem with this argument is: we're confusing our definitions of "average". You're essentially arguing past each other because you're operating under different assumptions of what "average" means/should mean.

Anyway, I'd love to discuss this further, but writing that original post really took it out of me. Yawn.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

I do, sometimes. My post was more of a critique of Jim's video making, which comes across as lazy. About 5-10% of them is pretty damn funny and the problem is I don't know which 5-10%, which means I have to watch the whole thing so I don't miss anything.

So you can rephrase my quote as: Jim, stop putting random game clips in as filler because it's fucking boring.

 

[Bocaj2000]

My compromise has always been to use X/5 instead of X/10 or X/100. When it's X/5 it's easier to interpret 3/5 as average than 5/10 or 50/100. It makes the review feel more like a suggestion than a grade on a test.

It's weird how a 3/5 still sounds like a good game but a 60/100 is usually passed over. I guess with little numbers it's easier to focus on the fact that it still has 3 points instead of it not having those last 40.

I wish I knew the exact psychology on it. I might ask some teachers and psych majors the exact reasoning behind it.

 

[thiosk]

Watching the slow, inexorable acceptance of the inner facist was my favorite part to watch.

 

[Xanadu84]

I don't mind review scores, if it's a true scale score system.

In a scale of 1-10, five is average. Not 7 or 8. 7's and 8's can still be really good. Iv'e enjoyed a fair few games that have received such.

I'm rather irritated with that point. 5 does not have to be average. 5 just happens to be the middle number. I don't know about how you get graded but for me, if I scored a 50 on a test, I'm not going to complain that I failed because 50 is, "Average". To say that a 7 or 8 is average is EXACTLY as arbitrary as saying that 5 is. No, 5 is not inherently average. What is average is dependent on the kind of scores most games get. If average games get 7.5, then 7.5 IS average. Like...you know...by math.

I'd written out a whole response here before realising what the inherent problem with this argument is: we're confusing our definitions of "average". You're essentially arguing past each other because you're operating under different assumptions of what "average" means/should mean.

Anyway, I'd love to discuss this further, but writing that original post really took it out of me. Yawn.

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.

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.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I wish you'd went into more detail about why you like them, you mentioned they were fun and you liked debating them, but didn't really go into the reasons.

Personally I don't mind review scores. I just dislike the way 5/10 should mean average, but most people tend to think 7/10 is average and everything below that is bad. Obviously like you said, that's peoples problem, not the scores themselves.

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.

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)

 

[Kopikatsu]

My compromise has always been to use X/5 instead of X/10 or X/100. When it's X/5 it's easier to interpret 3/5 as average than 5/10 or 50/100. It makes the review feel more like a suggestion than a grade on a test.

It's weird how a 3/5 still sounds like a good game but a 60/100 is usually passed over. I guess with little numbers it's easier to focus on the fact that it still has 3 points instead of it not having those last 40.

I wish I knew the exact psychology on it. I might ask some teachers and psych majors the exact reasoning behind it.

,
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.

 

[daxterx2005]

Did I just see a game where you were throwing turds at a toilet.....?

 

[Joccaren]

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.

 

[Joccaren]

Did I just see a game where you were throwing turds at a toilet.....?

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 =/.

 

[Mikodite]

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

I'm surprised that Jim didn't go over this argument, or is it because its the only sensible one against scores, and Jim likes his strawmen?

 

[Jennacide]

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.