Why We're Using Review Scores

[Ophiuchus]

As Russ said, the only thing that's going to change is that there will be a little gold star at the end of the review. We like our format. We think communicating what it's like to actually play the game is the most important thing, not whether a game gets an 8.6 or an 8.5 and how you can possibly quantify that.

So... why bother changing? You (that is, the Escapist staff rather than you specifically) think that's the most important thing and we agree, obviously, that's why we're here. Frankly, the addition of review scores seems like nothing more than a desperate cry to be included by Metacritic, as backed up by the last paragraph of the first page... and that's something I would never have expected. Everything about The Escapist is far superior to the rabble, so why join them? It's a slippery slope.

The rest of my thoughts are well put in the quotes below.

Well everybody else pretty much said what I was going to regarding this. You don't seem to have anticipated the possibility that you will actually lose some of the people who appreciated the fact that you never pandered to the lazy asshats who can't be bothered to actually read the review and want a simple distillation of a complex opinion. None of your arguments convince me that this is a good thing, and frankly, I'd rather you indirectly tell anybody too goddamn lazy to actually read to just fuck off. It was one of the reasons I actually appreciated the content on this site over the big sites like IGN and Gamespot.

This is my feelings as well. Though I am by no means a frequent poster, I did use the Escapist for reviews.
If you intend to fall in line with the rest of the reviewers out there, there will be no point in reading yours over that of any other. Numerical grades tend to draw the eye and "force" people to skip to the end of the review. As a result, the writing deteriorates, as the writers realise that there is no need to exert themselves. Do you think places like Gamespot became what they are today over night?

There is no need for the Escapist join the dark side, we have enough of those sites out there already.

EDIT: And the reasoning that this might make people that normaly just look at scores read the review is pretty weird. I think you might have cause and effect backwards there. People that read only scores can hardly be sucked into reading the review, since by their definition they read the score and move on. The quality of the unread text is immaterial.

 

[_Nocturnal]

Scores are meaningless, so you can do whatever you want with them. Try to be different or jump on the bandwagon: it's all the same to me. It's not a part of reviewing that I care about.

My problem is that I fail to find this "experimental" quality that's been mentioned several times in the article. All the ones I've read have been by-the-books. I can't name a single memorable review here, despite the high quality of your other content. I can sympathize with your ideals, I just haven't seen them applied yet.

I try to keep an open mind, so I'll gladly take a look if someone points me towards something special I could've missed. I'm also thinking of examining one or more of your reviews here to illustrate my point, but at this time it seems like doing someone else's job instead of them.

Either way, it's much appreciated that you explain your decisions and share your beliefs with the community in such a way. You're good people.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Why join the rabble? Because we want to stay here, providing content for you guys. In order to do our jobs better, and provide better content, it's become clear that this is one battle we have to concede. If we want to keep fighting the bigger fights, sometimes we have to give a little ground. And this is one of those times.

Nothing else about the reviews is going to change. I certainly understand the concern, but please don't automatically assume that we're suddenly going to stop caring about how we do things simply because we've added a score.

 

[The Random One]

...and it's always stars.

I'm not happy, mostly because I thought of the Escapist as the proof that a review didn't need scores to be meaningful. But I can't stay mad at Russ while he's wearing that adorable DA avatar.

You're off the hook, Russ... this time.

 

[Mory Buckman]

It bothers me that an article called "Why We're Using Review Scores" gives not a single reason why you're using review scores. You give plenty of reasons why we shouldn't see this as a bad idea, but not a single one as to why we should see it as a good idea. And there's a pretty big gap between outright bad ideas and actual good ideas, a gap filled with ideas that are pointless and counter-productive.

What you've said, and even repeated a few times, over the course of this article is that changing with the times isn't bad, and that you're going to try to hold on to your integrity, and that you're willing to overlook all the downsides. But you haven't made it at all clear how the times have changed to warrant this (Was there not just as much of an argument for review scores four years ago?), or whether it might be easier to preserve your integrity without review scores, or what you're getting out of this that's worth overlooking the downsides for.

To be perfectly clear: I actually like review scores, and have no objection to them whatsoever. It's this article which I think is silly, and if anyone dislikes review scores I doubt this'll persuade them.

 

[Echolocating]

Well, to "long time listeners" this isn't a surprise. But you have to promise that when you start to make too much money, you'll return to your roots and go back to a weekly publication with that stylish magazine layout. That was the cat's ass and still would be. ;-)

 

[khaimera]

You want to put in scores because some people only want the score? If hey won't read the review and just look at the score, why do you even want their traffic? I know if I wrote something I would want it read and if you only want some artificial number to decide things for you then I don't want to share my opinion with you anyway. Don't read, piss off back to sites like IGN.

I might just be a snob, but that how I feel. The kind of people who will come here just to see the score are not the ones we want here anyway.

I agree with all of this. I scoured this article looking for logical reasons to include review scores and could not come up with much beyond, the industry likes it and so do some gamers. If I understand this article correctly, it saddens me.

I also liked what you said about not wanting those people here anyways.

 

[Twilight_guy]

As a wise man once said "oh, dis is sad day!". One of the things that makes the Escapist unique and separates it from the crowd has been lost. I suppose adding review scores doesn't really hurt what already exists and may encourage new people to join but it also invites in the kind of elements that are often keep out of the Escapist in order to differentiate itself and accumulate an audience from a different crowd. Well, here's to hoping this doesn't backfire and destroy the site eventually!

 

[JeppeH]

I just hope the starsystem doesn't devalue over time as seen on some other sites.

Maybe you should use the starsystem on different criteria like graphics, action, story, voice/music and so on - thus having several stars or sub-stars before a final judgement.

Or maybe the fifth star shoud be graphically smaller than the first four. Because the fifth is the final bonus hard-to-get star.. not like the other four stars. But its still takes up 20% of the visual grade!
So I suggest that you make the first four stars the same size and the fifth a smaller one to be given on special occation.

 

[BlindChance]

While I too deplore the move to add a rating, at least you have followed the advice of Clint Hocking and gone with "Five Stars and the Truth". It will be difficult for you to game that system, and I applaud it.

"Be honest, and unmerciful." -- Lester Bangs, Almost Famous.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Maybe you should use the starsystem on different criteria like graphics, action, story, voice/music and so on - thus having several stars or sub-stars before a final judgement.

Oh God, that's exactly what I think any website should avoid; breaking down an object into smaller pieces. To quote Salen and Zimmerman: "A system([game]) is more than the sum of it's part."

 

[BlindChance]

Oh God, that's exactly what I think any website should avoid; breaking down an object into smaller pieces. To quote Salen and Zimmerman: "A system([game]) is more than the sum of it's part."

Quoted for truth.

Less detail is better here, guys. If you have a percentile system (1-100 or 1-10 with decimal points allowed) you can game it endlessly. "Oh, you want a higher score to imply you're better than this game? OK, we'll make you an 8.6. We're all happy!"

Five Stars and the Truth. If you must have a rating, that's how to do it. The Escapist chose the right system of ratings, if it must have one.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I thought it was for Metacritic...Honestly.

 

[BlindChance]

For those asking for a more granular system with separate ratings for graphics, gameplay, etc. I urge you all to please read Clint Hocking's Five Stars and the Truth -- He goes into the whole mess of how videogame ratings are insane. While different ratings for each part aren't his focus, the same logic begins to apply: It's too much detail. It's also very much against the holistic focus of The Escapist, where a game is assumed to be more than the sum of its parts.

Keep it simple. If there must be ratings, make the ratings easy.

Clint Hocking's Five Stars and the Truth can be found at his website.

http://clicknothing.typepad.com/Design/hockingc_GDC09_Microtalk_FiveStars.zip

 

[Pimppeter2]

While I personally do not like it, I believe you have justified yourselves in this respect. It won't hinder the experience, it'll just mean that more will enjoy it for different reasons.

 

[Enigmers]

On the plus side, your scores can now be factored into Metacritic, can they not?