Opinion on Game Scores

[-Dragmire-]

When I look at review scores, I'm looking at a persons logical (more or less) breakdown of their enjoyment of a game. However, my interpretation of the 1-10 scale seems very different from reviewers.

In my opinion, a game score cannot(should not) be judged like a math test. This seems obvious however people seem to treat it that way. To me 50% on a math test is the cutoff point before failure but I consider a 5/10 on a review to represent an average game(no real problems, just not memorable). Some review titles say things like "worst game ever! 5/10" which sounds odd to me(it actually sound much worse than "odd" but I'm trying to be polite here...).

More of a concern to me is the 10/10 problem. Most reviews that give a perfect score will usually have a minor complaint, and then proceed to say things like "but this other part totally makes up for it". To me a perfect score means a flawless game, is that unreasonable?
Yes, it is, but a perfect score is something to strive for, it's that unobtainable score that pushes quality forward in an attempt to reach it.

Of course this is all subjective, I just find it weird when people say a 7/10(70%) is a bad score.

I'm not ignoring the side of artistic opinion cannot be represented with a number, I just don't see that ever changing.

What do you guys think? how do you rate a good game as opposed to a decent one?

btw, if you agree with my interpretation of game scores and want to read some funny reviews, go to gamefaqs and look for negative review titles with a score of 7-8/10. They say things like it's worthless, not even worth renting and at the end, they give it a near perfect score.

 

[BreakfastMan]

It all depends on the site, I suppose. Most places that do it 1-10 scale have 7 as the average. You just have to understand that when looking at the score. Nothing about the practice really bothers me. Myself, I prefer the star rating system or just a simple list of pros and cons instead of a 1-10 rating system, but that is just me.

 

[Zay-el]

To me, as of late it seems like we're not really allowed to actually like anything. Any game that might be remotely good must be torn apart, there cannot be a good game in existance, apart from our current favorite, but even that'll be zero-bombed to the ground. We cannot ever be happy for anything, it's some kind of universal principle amongst gamers. Not even review scores matter, because the moment they're good, they sold out, when they're bad, they're trolling. You can't win.

 

[DustyDrB]

Scoring is ridiculous, period. I respect the staff here, but I hated it when they decided to add stars to the reviews last year.

Seriously, how do you put a number on your experience? I tried to do it a couple of times and it just felt wrong. I really had a lot of fun so...that's a 10...but it had a bad story, so that minus a point or two...but I liked the art style...the game is an 8.5! It's arbitrary, and provides little to no useful information. It makes me cringe every time I see a developer refer to their game in terms of a Metacritic score ("We're really proud of our work and feel the game is at least a 90").

 

[ikoian]

I don't like them, but what I hate more is people who decide weather they should get a game or not solely based off of them. An entire experience is completely subjective and a number score is too biased and unspecific to clearly explain pros and cons.
In my opinion, reviewers should only give out the overview of the game, clear explaination of core gameplay, and, its weak points and its strong points. Then they leave it to us on weather the game is worth getting or not.

 

[GonzoGamer]

The problem I think is that when you consider the price of a new game, most games released are not worth it.

As for the scores, I often think they're way too generous and don't take into account that most people don't get a new game every week. Basically, reviewers tend to not look for the same things that most gamers look for. And taste varies: everyone thought No More Heroes was great and I thought it was boring as hell.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The 5 point grading scale is the best one.
1/5-very bad
2/5-mediocre
3/5-average
4/5-good
5/5-great
Very simple and open to a lot of interpretation that is answered in the actual review.

 

[Locque]

The score at the end of a review is very much an abstraction, and sometimes gets in the way, but it does often help a reviewer summarise how they felt about the game overall. The actualy text of the review matters far more, except that these days, most big-site "reviews" are simply rehashed previews with a score at the end. I miss the old paper journalism of games magazines like PC Zone, who could summarise a game in quite a humorous fashion, and also give you a sense of what it's like to actually play the bloody thing.

 

[Euhan01]

7/10 is average, when it should be 5/10 but hey. Scores tend to be less important than what the game is descirbed as

 

[Void Droid]

Scoring is for lazy people.

When I read a review I ignore the score and read the article itself, get an idea of what the game is like, play it (I don't check reviews for games I had no interest of playing) and then give my own score.

 

[ScoopMeister]

That's why I generally don't look at the scores (or I do, but just as an afterthought), and concentrate more on what's actually been written.