Review scores are pointless

[themilo504]

why do fans of dragon crown complain about a 6.5? 6.5 implies that its above average.

That?s not even getting into the fact that going by metacritic the majority of reviews are higher than 5 which means that the majority of games are above average, which is a bit of a contradiction.

Why do reviewers give scores if they don?t really mean anything?

 

[Mocmocman]

People like to look at a number, rather than read a whole review and try to figure out whether or not the game suited them, 'cause reading is super hard guys!
Also, review averages are really messed up, not just in games, but in everything. Most people will consider 7 to be average, and won't get something below 8. Not to mention that every reviewer has a different grading scale, and a different score for an "average" game.
In other words

Spoiler

Review scores are pointless

 

[Zhukov]

Okay, I'm getting a bit sick of hearing this one.

No, 6.5 does not imply that it's above average. If review scores used the whole scale, then yes, you would be right. But given the quality of games that consistently receive scores of 7-8, a 6.5 implies that it's utter crap or painfully average and unremarkable at best. A 6.5 puts it next to the bloody Kane & Lynch games.

I don't know how we got into this situation where a game has to be a utterly broken mess to score lower than a five, and yes, it's pretty silly, but there you go.

As for why reviewers give scores... well, I'm guessing it's because viewers expect and indeed demand them.

Personally I think it's a decent way to encapsulate an opinion. If you want more detail then just, y'know, read the bloody review.

 

[Superfast Blitzmann]

The review scores do not work with standard interpretation; they are to be interpreted as a power to two.
As 2^1=2 and 2^10=1024, our actual score range goes from 2 to 1024.
2^8=256, thus a game with a score of eight is actually below average.
The average would be a rating of 9. (2^9=512)

 

[Karoshi]

The review scores do not work with standard interpretation; they are to be interpreted as a power to two.
As 2^1=2 and 2^10=1024, our actual score range goes from 2 to 1024.
2^8=256, thus a game with a score of eight is actually below average.
The average would be a rating of 9. (2^9=512)

First post and I already like you. Keep at it, haha.

This system does make a lot of sense and feels just about right. Although my point would still be that reviews scores have only limited usefulness and it's a much better idea to read about the flaws and good parts and then decide. (not that many do that, sadly)

 

[Fappy]

Okay, I'm getting a bit sick of hearing this one.

No, 6.5 does not imply that it's above average. If review scores used the whole scale, then yes, you would be right. But given the quality of games that consistently receive scores of 7-8, a 6.5 implies that it's utter crap or painfully average and unremarkable at best. A 6.5 puts it next to the bloody Kane & Lynch games.

I don't know how we got into this situation where a game has to be a utterly broken mess to score lower than a five, and yes, it's pretty silly, but there you go.

As for why reviewers give scores... well, I'm guessing it's because viewers expect and indeed demand them.

Personally I think it's a decent way to encapsulate an opinion. If you want more detail then just, y'know, read the bloody review.

I think the score inflation issue can be worked around fairly easily if more sites adopted the 5-point scale. This scale excludes the use of half scores as well. A 3/5 is far more appealing than a 60% or a 6.0.

 

[hermes]

The reason is commodity. People would rather see the score of a game, and maybe then they might read the review. If the score is glowing, it will validate his opinion to buy it and won't read it; if the score is garbage, it will validate his opinion not to buy it and won't read it. Of course, if he has his mind already set in whether to buy it or not before reading the review, he might only pay attention to one group of them, since they will validate his opinion.

If the review does not have a score or a summary, people will not have that reference and possibly skip the whole thing. Being the Internet, there is no lack of opinion to find elsewhere about anything, including a game.

Another reason is metacritic. Believe it or not, metacritic redirects a lot of traffic to game sites, specially those that are not well known. Some publishers pay attention to metacritic, and they might not even consider you to get review copies if you are not listed there. In order to be included in metacritic, one of the requirements includes having an incremental and easily identifiable quantification of the game, and it had to be easily adapted to a 0-100 gradient. Because of that, most sites include one.

And no, 6.5 is not above average in terms of scores. In term of scores, most sites handle a scale that goes like this: 1s and 2s are reserved for the worst things to get the title of games, broken beyond redemption... after that, the scale starts at 6 all to way to the elusive 10. 6s or 7s are considered mediocre games. If a game is functional (and nothing more), it will rate at 6.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

I think problem lies in both gamers and the reviewers. Gamers are the one who will bash one reviewer for giving a game 8 instead of 10, and reviewers have to adjust to that by either giving everything 10 or giving it 6 to attract attention.

I personally just have a bunch of my own critics whose opinion I will listen to and whose preferences I know. So, when Jim, for example, gives some game a 2 I know that it's utter shit. And when Angry Joe gives some game his Badass Seal of Approval I know that game is worth some attention.