The Fixation on numbers..

[Vault101]

if youve been keeping up with the world of gaming for a reasonable amount of time then its pretty clear that there's somthing rather "off" about reveiw scores and how people veiw/react to them

in terms of "out of 10" a 7 is the new 5, an 8 is the new 6....anything lower than a 9 and the game is now shit

the same thing with metacritic..anything in low to mid rage 80 (or below) is "bad"

not to mention how absolutly [i/]insane[/i] some fans can get if their favorate game gets a "less then absolutly perfect score" when it is already praised to the moon and back...this has always baffled me...

never mind reading the reveiws..its about NUMBERS! the numbers and decimals are important and if a reveiw comes under then obviously that reveiwer is out of his mind because YOUR FAVORTE GAME IS PERFECT

so why is this?....is it IGN that seems to stick to "low" standards or "paid for" reveiws? is it the fact that the gaming hivemind can only see things as "awsome/crap"? or is it because of games themselves what makes a good/bad game?

 

[TrevHead]

Yeah there's alot of fabid fanboyism over scores but I understand why ppl do it

While scored reviews have existed nearly as long as video games itself, I would say its the advent of metacritic that has screwed it all up as it. Review scores and metacritic can be key to how a publisher plans out each new game, IE throw aload of money at a dev team and PR, say they want a metacritic score of 80 where they can expect X number of sales.

Imo much of the importance gamers put on scores is because we are more keenly aware of how important it is to the business end. A game gets a low score means theres a higher chance it won't sell, and no more sequels or clones made in the future.

 

[FalloutJack]

"Never tell me the odds."

-Harrison Ford

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Imo much of the importance gamers put on scores is because we are more keenly aware of how important it is to the business end. A game gets a low score means theres a higher chance it won't sell, and no more sequels or clones made in the future.

this is the only reason i have ever cared remotely about the number a score gets. Obsidian got a 84 metascore on metacritic, and bethesda wouldn't give them the bonus they were yearning for because they didn't get an 85...

I mean really? that one single point? it isn't a fucking competition between teams, it's people's hard work and jobs to pay for food and their homes, and you deny someone that by one measly average point. (I'm sure this has happened plenty of times, hell i'm sure companies get shut down for reasons as such, this is just one i knew off the top of my head)

 

[Zhukov]

Gamers are an insecure lot who crave vindication and get awfully touchy when they encounter someone who doesn't like what they like.

 

[Vault101]

this is the only reason i have ever cared remotely about the number a score gets. Obsidian got a 84 metascore on metacritic, and bethesda wouldn't give them the bonus they were yearning for because they didn't get an 85...

I mean really? that one single point? it isn't a fucking competition between teams, it's people's hard work and jobs to pay for food and their homes, and you deny someone that by one measly average point. (I'm sure this has happened plenty of times, hell i'm sure companies get shut down for reasons as such, this is just one i knew off the top of my head)

thats downright awful

espeically the retarded wankery of EA say "DERP ALL GAMES MUST BE 90+" when its clear thease people don't understand how to make that happen if your not COD

again...a high score doesnt mean mcuh thease days...you just have to know what you like

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

this is the only reason i have ever cared remotely about the number a score gets. Obsidian got a 84 metascore on metacritic, and bethesda wouldn't give them the bonus they were yearning for because they didn't get an 85...

I mean really? that one single point? it isn't a fucking competition between teams, it's people's hard work and jobs to pay for food and their homes, and you deny someone that by one measly average point. (I'm sure this has happened plenty of times, hell i'm sure companies get shut down for reasons as such, this is just one i knew off the top of my head)

thats downright awful

espeically the retarded wankery of EA say "DERP ALL GAMES MUST BE 90+" when its clear thease people don't understand how to make that happen if your not COD

again...a high score doesnt mean mcuh thease days...you just have to know what you like

basically sums up EA and a decent chunk of the AAA marketing out there, they probably spend more on marketing/PR and buying up reviews then they do on polishing the game itself.

I swear, if they took 80% of the budget for marketing from ME3 or TOR and actually put it into the development budget/time allowed to make the game, the games would've been solid pieces of work (not saying they are horrible, just saying..one category is clearly sucking up too much money.) and they would've sold through the roof on their own two legs rather than EA going "HAH OUR GAME IS BETTA DEN ALL THE COD NOOB GAMEZ"

 

[Vault101]

basically sums up EA and a decent chunk of the AAA marketing out there, they probably spend more on marketing/PR and buying up reviews then they do on polishing the game itself.

it makes me wonder...is "buying" reveiws really as much of a wide-spead practice as people make it out to be?

because if thats the case somone REALLY needs to look into that shit, theres got to be some kind of rule thats being broken there

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

basically sums up EA and a decent chunk of the AAA marketing out there, they probably spend more on marketing/PR and buying up reviews then they do on polishing the game itself.

it makes me wonder...is "buying" reveiws really as much of a wide-spead practice as people make it out to be?

because if thats the case somone REALLY needs to look into that shit, theres got to be some kind of rule thats being broken there

mehh, synergy of the gaming market, you pay for advertising here and filling up our monthly budget quota, and we'll slide you some buffer reviews to pad your scores and maybe sell you some more copies (if anything, at least not change anyone's mind to NOT buy the game.)

more of a "Cover my ass and I'll cover yours" kind of thing. Since there is a decent bit of subjectivity to scores, reviewers can say just about whatever they damn please, they might think the strengths highly outgun the weaknesses, or they might not think something is a weakness at all.

Rambling a bit there, but still, as a reviewer, you don't want to be the nail that sticks out, it tends to get hammered as they say, and they just want to make their next paycheck, and the easy way to do that is to write a bland 90 score review of a game.

 

[DoPo]

Jim already made a video on this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten] some time ago. And by coincidence I actually stumbled upon a TVTropes page about it today. It's called 8.8, if you're interested, I respect you people too much to link you there.

But OT: it's because gamers, as most types of fans, are largely stupid and would happily, and loudly, bash anything that doesn't conform to their views, no matter how right/wrong/significant it is. Why, just look around and you'll see plenty of complaining about stuff. It's the same thing with scores

 

[Vault101]

Jim already made a video on this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten] some time ago. And by coincidence I actually stumbled upon a TVTropes page about it today. It's called 8.8, if you're interested, I respect you people too much to link you there.

But OT: it's because gamers, as most types of fans, are largely stupid and would happily, and loudly, bash anything that doesn't conform to their views, no matter how right/wrong/significant it is. Why, just look around and you'll see plenty of complaining about stuff. It's the same thing with scores

I am aware of Both

but comone...Tvtropes is fine....just stay out in the front part of the shop and its perefectly harmless (aside from the addiciton factor)

also are reveiwers relaly influenced that much by the mindless masses? I mean with movies things seem a little less "faked" but then that may not be true

 

[darlarosa]

To me the only purpose reviews serve is when you are TRULY not sure whether you want to buy a game or you think it won't be good, but still peeks your interest. Even then I say look at roughly 5+ reviews for a general idea of what to expect.

I dislike the 100 based ratings systems...they just seem kinda odd to use. I can understand a 1-5 scale. 3 means it is an average game, but nothing spectacular, 4 means it gets some stuff really right, 5 means it hits all the right notes where it counts, 2 means it has its problems and is worse than the standard game and 1 is..."it is a game?"

Ultimately all these number ratings mean nothing though, even though both fans, gamers, and critics pretend they do. You can give me a number but without specifics it is useless. Worse yet if a reviewer does not have a consistent rating system its annoying...what the hell is a 78.8 when coming from ONE guy reviewing.

I think collective group reviews can be more useful but even they can be tampered with.

 

[Starke]

"Never tell me the odds."

-Harrison Ford

Probably should have attributed that to Han Solo rather than Harrison Ford, because now all I'm doing is sitting here thinking of compromising quotes from Blade Runner as rebuttals.

Captcha: Senior Citizen

Yeah, everyone's a comedian...

 

[gigastar]

Ive pretty much stopped paying attention to review scores now.

If i see a game i want, ill buy it. If Yahtzee happens to review it, ill have a good laugh at everything he found wrong with it.

 

[RJ 17]

Numbers that people assign to the awesomeness of a game are absolutely pointless. Only the gamer can decide whether he or she enjoys a game or not, this is why you get the argument "That critic is full of crap, (fill in the blank) is a fantastic game!" And really that's the mentality that gamer's SHOULD have rather than having these numbers make up their minds for them. Call me old fashioned, but the way I decide whether or not I want to buy a game is simply this: "Am I interested in the concept of this game?" If yes, I'll get it, if no, I won't. It doesn't matter if every critic says "This game is the biggest piece of shit that's ever been shat out of the gaming industries shitter", if I'm interested in the game I'll give it a shot and - at least the majority of the time - I do end up enjoying the game regardless of what the critics say. Similarly, a game could be hailed as "a definite sign of the 2nd coming of Christ and that everyone who buys the game will get free blowjobs for life because it's just so good", but if I have no interest in it I won't bother with it.

In short, make up your own mind, don't let anyone else do it for you.

 

[Lilani]

"Never tell me the odds."

-Han Solo

Fixed that for you ;-)

But, yeah. As others have said, it's not that anything below a 9 means the game is shit. It's that anything below a 9 is below nearly absolutely perfect, which for rabid fanboys is absolutely unacceptable. They take the grade as a personal insult, which has nothing to do with the reviewer and has everything to do with their insecurities as a fan.

 

[malestrithe]

if youve been keeping up with the world of gaming for a reasonable amount of time then its pretty clear that there's somthing rather "off" about reveiw scores and how people veiw/react to them

in terms of "out of 10" a 7 is the new 5, an 8 is the new 6....anything lower than a 9 and the game is now shit

the same thing with metacritic..anything in low to mid rage 80 (or below) is "bad"

not to mention how absolutly [i/]insane[/i] some fans can get if their favorate game gets a "less then absolutly perfect score" when it is already praised to the moon and back...this has always baffled me...

so why is this?....is it IGN that seems to stick to "low" standards or "paid for" reveiws? is it the fact that the gaming hivemind can only see things as "awsome/crap"? or is it because of games themselves what makes a good/bad game?

Who agreed to this "7 is the new 5" standard? Who agreed to this low to mid 80 is evil thing?

What enraged fans think is something different than what game critics think. What some corporation use to justify why they are not giving bonuses is not the same thing that critics do.

Also, IGN does not have low standards or accept pay for reviews. They tend to match reviewers to the genre they prefer. The person that likes FPS will review FPS. If it a genre you like, you tend to favor it.

 

[Aerosteam]

It's because some people are use to seeing so many games get a 9/10 or 10/10 that they think those numbers are the average and anything below them is below average.

 

[FalloutJack]

"Never tell me the odds."

-Han Solo

Fixed that for you ;-)

But, yeah. As others have said, it's not that anything below a 9 means the game is shit. It's that anything below a 9 is below nearly absolutely perfect, which for rabid fanboys is absolutely unacceptable. They take the grade as a personal insult, which has nothing to do with the reviewer and has everything to do with their insecurities as a fan.

Speaking of rabid fanboys, did you really have to? Did it really matter that much?

 

[Lilani]

Speaking of rabid fanboys, did you really have to? Did it really matter that much?

I'm not a fanboy, I just picture Han Solo saying it more than I picture Harrison Ford saying it, if that makes any sense.