What's wrong with number scores in reviews?

[Eclectic Dreck]

If the number represents a very simple summary of a reviewer's opinion, then that's fine. But the system has to be defined. You can't just say a game deserves an 8.8 out of 10 without defining that 8-range games are generally great games, and a higher 8 is quite excellent.

That is indeed a problem with many review sites and the previously noted 7 - 10 rating scale. To me, a 7 means a game that mostly succeeds but does so with notable points of failure or perhaps does so without any flash. When gamespot hands out a 7, it means the game is damn near unplayable.

It isn't like we haven't seen the 1 - 10 metric elsewhere in our lives - afterall most of us have had some level of formal education (by which I mean at least attended school long enough to learn to read and write) where you are constantly appraised on a very similar system. If I get a game that has a 10.0 rating it had better be perfect - if it isn't it didn't earn the absolute highest score. Even my favorite games of all time are not worthy of that 10.0 rating though because I have never played a game that I think was impossible to improve upon (portal could have had more levels for example, deus ex could have been less linear and so forth)

 

[smithy1234]

It's difficult to summarize how good or bad a game is with a number that's why. "Do you really need someone from higher authority to give you a simple yay or nay before buying a game? Why don't you let them step on the other side of your face!". Wise words...

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It's difficult to summarize how good or bad a game is with a number that's why. "Do you really need someone from higher authority to give you a simple yay or nay before buying a game? Why don't you let them step on the other side of your face!". Wise words...

I don't think it's difficult to summarize how good a game is with a number; the problem is many people won't share my particular outlook on the situation. A number gives a false sense of objectivity to what is nothing more than an arbitrary value given after a subjective experience. I absolutely cannot stand playing metal gear solid and if I gave it a numeric score based on what I like it would be a 3. But, while I find it's story silly and it's control maddening, I am in a tiny minority. I can recognize that it has qualities that people like but I have to be incredibly desperate for entertainment before I resort to a MGS title.

 

[Valthek]

Maybe reviewers rate video games with a number because that makes them feel like they're objective, important and some other words that make your self-esteem grow.

 

[Veekter]

i personally don't hate them, but i find them to be a little too black and white, i think reviewers should just tell you about the game and leave you to decide

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

i personally don't hate them, but i find them to be a little too black and white, i think reviewers should just tell you about the game and leave you to decide

I'd agree with this. I do expect a recommendation at the end though. Afterall, if someone consistently likes the same games I like then their recommendation is probably going to be fairly accurate. That is, in the end what people really want to know: is game X worth my money?

 

[Steven Kyzburg]

I personally think that a numeric value doesn't convey as much information or have the same affect on a reader as an indepth description does. I for one cannot relate to a "6/10" score that someone stamps on the bottom, partly because it makes me think "and that means?" and secondly because I panic whenever I see number because my maths is terrible...

Someone will someday jump from out behind a bush and scream two times ten and send me into a coma...

But that's just me.

 

[Archemetis]

it tends to distract people from going "Ok, it scored a 9.5, 'kay i'll bother with that" *close browser*

considering this trend of companies telling reviewers what kind of people should play and review their games is growing a number just doesn't adequately represent what a game is really like, whereas if you have someone actually discuss the game (albeit to themselves) you're much likely to gain a much better understanding of how the game will play out.

personally, i prefer the no number approach.

 

[thatstheguy]

You know what, you have a point. I give this topic a 9/10.

 

[jboking]

I think numbers are unnecessary. Some people have suggested the five star methods, but if you actually read a review and couldn't figure out where it fell in that scale there is something wrong with you. In that sense numbers pander to the lazy or those who don?t want to read your review. You could be doing your work a disservice to give a numerical value for a review.

 

[Fightgarr]

For me its the same idea as representing my political opinion on a linear scale. I can't do it. Not all views are represented on that line. I don't throw around numbers when I review a game because even if I gave (for sake of example) Starcraft and Grim Fandango both say a 9/10, I wouldn't be representing my opinion very well. I feel like when I review a game, I'll tell you what the game involves and what works and what needs work, but for some reason I feel like two games that are completely different (see the two above) cannot really be judged on the same linear scale.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

What? I'm alright with a numerical rating. It's a simple representational summary of the reviewers opinion. I mean, I really couldn't care less whether people use them or not, it doesn't really change anything.

 

[Caliostro]

They're lazy, they're arbitrary and cater to the ignorant unwashed masses that are too lazy to read.

As Yahtzee once said: "I don't believe in numeric reviews because I don't believe a numeric review can be expressed numerically."

 

[ThaBenMan]

You know what, you have a point. I give this topic a 9/10.

Thank you!

And I will clarify, I do think that decimals are just stupid. If something gets a 7.7, it's like "Well, is it a 7 or an 8?" It just needlessly complicates things.

 

[defcon 1]

I think numerical scores can?t describe how fun a game is. The reason for this is that they?re too limiting. Saying Left 4 Dead deserves a 5/10 is no different than me just saying ?Left 4 Dead sucks!? I?m sure I?ve turned a few heads by now and most you are going to ask ?How could you say that?? To prove my point, I?m not going to tell you, I?m just going to say 5/10. Another problem is the person who?s reviewing it. Does the reader and reviewer share mutual interest? I could say Starcraft deserves a 9/10, but if you don?t like RTS? then I would say it?s not for you. Some people may be patient when it comes to long load times and cutscenes, but someone like me would butcher a considerable portion of respect for that. When I?m using a single number, I could not say ?This game is for this type of person.? Or ?If you like design aspects X and Y, then you?ll love this game.? Yahtzee has done this in several of his videos so now I can tell my fish eating caveman friend to disregard the 67 Sonic Unleashed got on Metacritics.

If we were to use numerical scores, think of how many games there are and how many numbers you can use. 5, 10, 100. In my opinion, there?s a vast difference in how much I enjoyed OoT and Half-Life but I would give them both a 4/5 and 9/9 because they?re both superb(One less than the best because they would have to be perfect in order for me to give them those scores). Even 100 possible numbers is not be enough because I?ll have to make sure my favorite games score higher than other games I would give 90s to. Numerical scores are also somewhat ambiguous. If I were to tag a number on something I?d go ?I unno, bout an 8.5, hmmm, bout maybe bout an 8.7.?

 

[mike1921]

You can't really compare the scores them to other games, so Halo 3 gets a higher score in everything than valkyria chronicles, despite the perfection of the latter.

you calling any game "perfect" makes you sound like an ass, just letting you know.

I don't hate the concept of numbered reviews, I just hate the flawed principle on which most operate. Especially ones like Gamespot that use a 6-9 rating whose final rating has nothing to do with the actual scores it rates the individual criteria. If you give controls a 6 and graphics an 8, why is it rated 9.5 overall? That's ridiculous.

They're a flawed concept. and As much as I hate gamestop, certain things matter less than others, and I'm pretty sure they have 5 criteria for a game.

I like reviews with numbers. The only problem really comes when you use one score to judge it AGAINST another game. And if that other game is completely different then it's not fair to say it's better or worse.

However, if I'm looking at a couple basketball games, for example, I know that each one is going to have the same basic idea. Pass the ball, put the ball through the net. Any features outside of that are purely optional and that's when you need to actually look at a box or read a review. But I can tell from a score right away that one game is better at the core parts than the other.
Same goes for a lot of racing games and fighting games, and - let's be honest here - half of the FPS games on the market.

The score on it's own isn't enough to completely sell it, but if something has a 16/100 rating from half a dozen different sources, do you really need to even bother reading the review? That is an instant "yes, buy this" or "no, don't buy this" moment. The numbers should be to make you read (or not) the review, not to say whether you'd like the game or not.

That's ridiculous. You're trusting that the reviewer likes X feature as much as you do by trusting that their score on a basketball game will reflect your opinion on the game in comparison to another one. You got to listen to the review and figure out why the reviewer scored it as such. I hate unskippable cutscenes more than any reviewer I've ever seen/heard/read so maybe while they rate a game with unskippable cutscenes a 8, I'd rate it 6.5 (yea I hate it that much)

I'd read a review for something rated 16/100. If I can't trust that the reviewers will be right about something rated highly (like halo,uncharted, and I think the witcher) then I won't trust them on a crappy game either.

 

[megapenguinx]

Scores tend to be more memorable however I don't like the rigidity of them. With comments only, you can form your own opinion and decide if you want to try the game out or not. Many people will pass on games because they got a low score, but sometimes that will be because the game had certain things that the review didn't like. Doesn't me you don't like some of those things

 

[n01d34]

Personaly I prefer one line summations that give you an idea of the reviewers opinion without the pretense that a game can ever be distilled to a number.

When you read ACTION BUTTON write something like
Dead Space is ?A gamefuneral?.

or

Gears of War 2 is ?Videogames: The Videogame?.

You get the idea and it's more entertaining.

 

[Spleeni]

...

Why can't reviewers just use an adjective for a score? A 8.7 can mean great, or good. Crappy means crappy. I never trust the scores, most reviewers gave Saints row 2 something around an 8/10. I love the game, and I give it an awesome out of awesome.

 

[TaborMallory]

The same reason intelligence shouldn't be measured in numbers. Such a broad subject could not be accurately expressed as linear.

Rating a game is very pointless. One could express one's opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion that is opt to differ greatly from the interests of another.

EDIT: Jesus Christ. Though I sometimes speak like this, I should stop being so fancy for my age.
Should I dumb it down a bit?