Jimquisition: Review Scores Are Not Evil

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
I like them. It's a natural way to summarize the subjective opinion of the reviewer. Any game will have its ups and downs and it can be hard for a reader to guess how much those ups and downs influence the game. A score will help keep the perspective.

Maybe the game looks very ugly, but if the reviewer gave it an 8/10 I suppose the graphical presentation isn't so important in that case.

Like Jim I like to look at the score first and then see how the reviewer reached that conclusion. It's an important piece of the puzzle.
 

rebelscum

New member
Jun 8, 2009
44
0
0
I prefer letter grades to X/10 or X/100, since pretty much everyone who reads it is well aware that C = average. That said, one major issue I do have with the final scores is when, say, a game's campaign is awful but it has a really good, innovative multiplayer, the final score winds up being an average because the two balance each other out. Unfortunately, that means that really good ideas in the multiplayer get ignored because it's percieved by idiots/Metacritic as "just average". The same thing in reverse is likely to be what happened to Spec Ops, since the single-player was amazing but the multiplayer was blatantly tacked on.

I dunno, maybe reviews should have an individual score for every "part" of the game, so CoD would have a separate grade for campaign, multiplayer and zombies. That's just my opinion though.
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
I like a lot of games rated only 5 or 6 out of ten.
And I consider myself an connoisseur, a game-gourmet. I don'T play every shit because it's got a high rating.
 

GrimHeaper

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,012
0
0
sindremaster said:
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.
I'm sure glad I don't read anything.
 

Another

New member
Mar 19, 2008
416
0
0
Andy of Comix Inc said:
Xanadu84 said:
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".
I believe he's referring to 5/10 meaning "of average quality." Not the maths of it. On an opinion scale of 1 to 10, 5 should be the middle opinion, and if you weigh 1 as "worst ever" and 10 as "perfect," then 5 comes out as "average." Of course once you apply maths to the score system then things start to get a bit skew-whiff, but I think most people accept that the qualities associated with number scores - especially stars - are permanent, not dependent on a bell curve or what have you.
Exactly what I was going for. I simply think that its silly that on a ten point scale of opinion only 3 of the 10 scores (8,9,10) are considered good. It think it gives the scale and the reviewer more flexibility.

I also seem to have offended Xanadu. Part of that is my fault, as I meant to describe the median, not the mean value.
 

Griffolion

Elite Member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
41
I don't inherently mind scores, but sometimes I look at what was said in the review article and go "wait, so, you just said that about the game and gave it that number?". It's about the reviewer as well, they can be as much as a raving chimpanzee as the troll who gets upset when their favourite game doesn't get a 10.

Also, Jim, that last bit was disturbing and hilarious at the same time.
 

Tallim

New member
Mar 16, 2010
2,054
0
0
No mention of Cliffy B throwing a tantrum because Eurogamer gave Gears Of War 3 an 8/10?

My biggest problem with the scoring system generally used is there is no consistency.
All the score tells you is what that particular reviewer thought of the game. Now the one thing that does annoy me about it is when the main body of the review contains little information that relates to how that score might have been decided upon, that makes me suspicious.
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
931
0
0
I'm on board, but I don't know how I feel about companies (large companies, apparently) handing out paychecks or bonuses based on a game's metacritic score. These things should be seperated, in my opinion. I suppose it's your responsibility when getting hired at a developer to know what you're getting in to, but to be eagerly refreshing metacritic on release night in hopes you get another 2 grand on your annual salary seems inane.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Yeah, you are right there I think.

But as often you are forgetting the implications of review scores outside the immediacy of games themselves, as you say I personally dont have an objection with honest review scores, I understand they represent a particular experience, which is fine but they also can be used for motives fully outside the games themselves, and as you say it's hard to judge the reviewer when someone plays the "its just my opinion" card.

I personally believe the question about what should the average score be, is rather pointless. I do find it funny that people want 10's for their fanboyish needs. But I also find it funny that anyone thinks 5 should be the average, since most games released are normally not just "a test" but a number of tests, QA corrections, talented artists, and dedicated developers. Not to say that no game is BAD, there are many BAD BAD games, but as a whole, the quality of products that actually get published is at least technically quite proeficient. So its hard to judge it out of context.

Of course, the world is not going to end because a review score responds more to money pressures or the desire to stand out, but it can be annoying, especially when someone takes games seriously.

And dont get me wrong, for me the important aspects in a review are: clarity, coherence, honesty and the intention of objectivity. When Yahtzee does a critique, I don't ask those values, because I expect it to be a more visceral, raw and personal view of the game, but he does not score them either, which makes perfect sense to me.

You may be a good reviewer, and as such professional, someone who wants to really inform the audience about the quality of a game based on a coherent score that you give. But as good as you might be, it doesn't mean you are the norm, or that it doesnt lend itself to bad practices.

The problem is when these situations start blending: A pretty funny case was a single negative review I read of this year's Journey in a web called quarter-to-three(which is the only negative review of the game that you can probably find anywhere). I personally thought that beyond any technical criticisms (and many can be had), Journey was a fantastic, well crafted experience, that spoke insightfully to the current state of gaming as a whole and managed to debase my "artsy fartsy" worries by also delivering an extremely engaging -game-. But then I found this review that spoke with almost inslting ignorance (almost felt trolling), and I couldn't find any other explanation for it other than getting hits on their web.
Is this ok? I suppose, but it bothers me as much as when resident evil 6 gets a suspiciously inflated score on IGN even when the written review is actually quite critical about it $$. More than a review these are ADs for different motives.
Let me ask you Jim, are you okay with paid reviews? Is it fine if a company offers money to get their product rated higher as to -cheat- people into consuming? I don't like it in any order of things, I can't lie.
Am I going to go on a murderous rampage because of it? no. But in my views it does shine a negative light on the ecosystem as a whole.

So, no I dont think review scores are the issue, obviously. As everything -objects- Guns, Bombs and Drugs are not the problem, its what people do with them... but that would have been a more interesting discussion that we chose to avoid here.. again
 

Di-Dorval

New member
Jan 11, 2012
25
0
0
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

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
CrossLOPER said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
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

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
finally, i met a reviewer that likes scores, im going to read your reviews from now on.
 

kodra

New member
Dec 24, 2008
13
0
0
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

New member
Sep 23, 2010
143
0
0
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

New member
Oct 9, 2010
216
0
0
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

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
kodra said:
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

Not Gone Gonzo
Jan 16, 2009
454
0
0
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