Why We're Using Review Scores

[Miral]

Yay for Metacritic links! (I was about to humourously post something more snarky about selling out to Metacritic, but that joke's been done to death.)

As long as the long-form experential reviews stay intact and don't get dumbed down to feed the Score Monster, then this'll work out fine. (Although it might necessitate more banhammering in the forums.)

 

[luckshot]

So the reason you changed is why exactly? Because everyone else is doing it? Because you can? Because you just got sick of the debating it over and over? It is a shame to see something like this happen. It will be even a bigger shame to watch the posts in the reviews degrade to "well you gave game X 2 stars and gave game Y 3 stars when game X is a better game." Or the classic "This game deserved X stars"

And where Bobcat may not have concerns about the integrity I do. Your reviews used to read like a user review. A fellow gamer reviewing a game and giving thier thoughts and opinions of it. This put your reviews miles ahead of Gamespot or IGN's since it sounded like you were playing games for the love of the game. Not for the love of a paycheck. It looks like now you will have to play the games you review. Not want to play them. And that will effect the integrity of the reviews. Afterall it is hard to give a game a fair chance when you really want to be playing another.

im glad im not the only one that noticed that no reason to switch to giving them a hard rating was given

they reevaluated the situation and changed their stance? why?
i dont necessarily mind a score, but i dont pay attention to them at all and can see the potential abuse of integrity.

one of the main reasons i read the reviews and articles here is because they are so good and previously did not rely on scores to do the talking

edit: the idea that a complex and multifaceted opinion on an equally complex game would be shoehorned into a simple number bothers me, what if you start writing reviews based around your scoring method....instead of a complex multifaceted opinion we would get "this section was 3 star, that was a 2 star bit..."

also, scores force comparison where there should be NONE. game a gets 4 stars, but game b gets 2...there will be complaints and forced comparisons.

 

[heyheysg]

Boo...

Even though I follow review scores, I trust Kotaku and Escapist especially because they don't have a magic number at the end.

G4 gets an Ok for the similarity to the Buy/Rent/Avoid scale

 

[BlindChance]

Oh, and for those wondering why?

I'm not part of the editorial staff, so I can only speculate, but I will, as others have: Metacritic. It brings in hits.

Why now? Again, I can only speculate. But I'd bet this had something to do with it.

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213659/crispy-gamer-closes-editorial-department-ceo-resigns-in-protest/

Crispy Gamer was a site basically trying to be the next Escapist. It offered similar commentary and review style. And it just, effectively, got gutted.

Guys, you need the money. It's not an option to ignore it. A cautionary tale:

I used to write for White Wolf Games Studio. Pen & paper roleplaying game developer. Their game, Wraith: The Oblivion is critically regarded as possibly the best game they ever made. It was passionate, experimental, serious in its intent, dark and beautiful.

And it flopped, crazily. Why? Because it never found a market.

They then brought out another game, Hunter: The Reckoning. It was mocked for its used of gung-ho violent artwork, which didn't fit the tone of the actual game. For insisting on putting in new powers in every book, which was blatantly commercial. There was some decent stuff in the line, a lot of people agreed, but it was so galling to see it be so commercially focused.

And y'know what? We managed to bring out a LOT of books under that line, with a lot of good stuff in them. Because it SOLD. And if it sold on violent artwork and crunchy, market friendly powers, well, so be it.

You have to make compromises sometimes. Often it's a choice between putting out compromised art, doing some good, or being taken down, and doing no good.

The money HAS to come in. That's always true.

 

[JaredXE]

Funnily enough, I don't visit this site for game reviews. Ah well, whatever keeps you going.


And it's ALWAYS stars.

 

[Lord Krunk]

I prefer the Siskel and Ebert-style thumbs-up/down reviews. It tells me what I want better than a number ever could. It's also the reason why I read reviews on The Escapist as opposed to any other site: because you guys did it different, and did it better.

But now what? Are we just going to become another IGN or gamespy, morally questionable 'journalists' with a 9 point scale? That's a question that I want answered, and won't be answered until this new system settles in.

 

[chantzzzzz]

I do agree with the part about the people who read reviews only for a score are not likely to be reading reviews now anyway, so saying you might gain people is not far off the mark, actually.

So its a cash in. Sacrifice artistic integrity for higher traffic numbers. Thats how this is looking right now.

Just my opinion anyway. You guys review any way you want.

This isn't a "cash in". If you'd read about the part where Russ says that this might encourage people who only look at review scores to actually read the entire review, I'd say that that's looking more on the positive side of this change. Maybe people will actually realize that there's maybe something worth reading above those stars. And, as pointed out in the article, The Escapist (hopefully this is the right code to use!) is merely trying to keep up with trends, like online sites have to in order to maintain a presence in the online world.

I did read it, twice.

That part of the argument doesn't fly with me. I simply don't buy it as a viable reason for doing this. It just implies the possibility of some small positive side affect.

Get ready for whole bunch of "How can you give such and such game 3 stars??? What is the matter with you???" posts by the people who haven't read the review. Thus we see another kind of forum spam aside from the "FIRST!!!!111!!!!!11!1!1" posts. Do the possible positive outweigh the definite negative effects?

While this could be a concern, reviews already tend to be contested on a regular basis. Look at Zero Punctuation. No numerical score, just opinions, yet there are some pretty strong comments on some of those threads. People are never shy about disagreeing on other people's opinions, especially something as subjectively objective as a game review. Hopefully people will at least try to qualify their statements a bit more than just a brief opinion. In that case, there could be a lot more in-depth discussions about game reviews.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Sigh... such a shame.

One of the many reasons I always enjoyed the escapist was because of the lack of score reviews and possibly one of the many inspirations for my own reviewing.

While I understand your need I don't want the Escapist to end up as name in a list next to the Metacritic machine, we're so much better than that.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

That's a real shame, I can never shake my cynicism that review scores exist only to sell games to people who don't like to read paragraphs. And also for them to be rewarded with having their name printed on the game's site and box. Cue a million threads arguing the arbitrary score of a new game also. The fact there are no scores is what really attracted me to this site. It was more personal and subjective. Call of Duty was good if you love fast paced shooters. S.t.a.l.k.e.r was good if you love slow paced survival shooters. What if the review prefers one over the other?
They may express it in words but the score will be lower. I understand that you'll say it changes nothing, but no matter what score is what a game is eventually judged by and when you do up the list page there is will be. When a friend watches a movie I don't ask him for a score I ask him if I'll like it.
It makes no personal difference to me but I just feel like what made this site so cool is being lost. Look at the right bar on the home page and you'll see what I mean.

 

[kingmob]

I understand the need to make money and therefore make compromises, but I am afraid this decision will make the escapist 'one of the pack' and with that, lose its identity. Now that still makes money, but no fun.
In the end, the review will boil down to the score and the discussion will revolve around it. that is a sad internet fact I guess. People only interested in scores are now not part of your readers and will be in the future, but they might hurt your other user base. As you can see I am new here, I signed up in the end to comment on a GREAT article about lost love, depression and gaming as an escapist (pun intended) tendency.

I do not read or comment on zero punctuation, because it is impossible to filter through al the youtube like comments. I can already see myself skipping review comments. If I skip them, I think about the effect it'll have on the writer, and it'll surely be negative. I am afraid it will lead to less honest writing and more focussed on the scoring system. It will lead to degradation of quality, even if only because the lack of scoring is/was a blatant advertisement of intent I really liked...

Lastly, I think with the lack of scoring, but many great hits (like zero punctuation) on your site, you were educating some readers. probably not much, but still. Lured in by the fast-paced unique content, one such a user might actually read a review and find it refreshing and more informative. And thus another person is on the road of intellectual improvement. Educating your users isn't a bad thing, especially if it leads to a higher quality standard, but I understand it is not an effective (short term) business model.

In the end, the only good way to know if you like a game, is to ask people's opinion. But you need to understand where there opinion comes from, a scoring system is simply like asking "did you like it?" and stopping at "yes" or "no". It makes sense on a very broad scale. With many scores you can divide games in 'liked by nobody' and 'liked by everybody'. it is the games in between that might get left out, because apparently it is somewhat of an acquired taste and you need to see if it might be for you. It is in that category that games will fall that you will learn to love, because it is impossible to make a perfect game for everyone. For that reason it makes no sense for an individual site to score a game, the score is useless in itself.

 

[thatlaurachick]

While I also dislike review scores, at least The Escapist is committed to backing up the score with actual reasoning. Nothing is more frustrating that to see a review marked "85/100" that doesn't say anything, good or bad. I want to know why you docked or gave points! An don't even think about using "cinematic" or "compelling"...

 

[Geoffrey42]

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. ;-)

SECONDED!

We know you guys had fun making that anniversary edition... wouldn't it be grand?

 

[Poomanchu745]

I know the REAL reason. Its cause they want to get on metacritic.com and influence the score!

 

[Russ Pitts]

I know the REAL reason. Its cause they want to get on metacritic.com and influence the score!

No, dude. The ACTUAL, REAL reason is that I'm setting the stage for an eventual Gerstmann-style flameout. Stay tuned. It'll be awesome!!

"Ubisoft wants us to give them WHAT SCORE? Not gonna happen! Not on my watch! Burn the place down, boys! We're going out IN STYLE!"

 

[Tharticus]

Something tells me that Mr. Pitts in that article mentioning about publishers persuading to change scores.

Maybe I should type about Dan Hsu's legacy about his editorial integrity for the Escapist article.

On a serious note though, I enjoy Escapist Magazine reviews and their fine detailed summary of what this game is about, how flawed the game is and why you should/shouldn't buy it. But if you must place the scores system, doesn't change a thing but I'm a bit disappointed that The Escapist is the next GameSpot, IGN or even that lam bast magazine Gamepro that gives high scores like candy.

 

[Astalano]

I don't really have a problem with this, as long as you don't start giving 4 and a quarter stars or something. Personally, I only ever look at the score a game gets when I'm not really interested in it or I just want a general idea of how it did. An example of this is Dark Void. The only review of it I've seen has been the Gametrailers one, which is a video review and that's only because I watched it for a laugh and couldn't really be bothered to read about a game that's apparently been disappointing all around and I have no interest in anyway.

If say, Dark Void had started getting 9's and 10's everywhere, I would be more compelled to read the reviews, so I think scores DO help, but should NOT be the focus. The review should be the main focus, communicating an opinion about a game in a way that shows you have a deep understanding of the game, knowledge of its flaws, its weaknesses and mentioning who will and who won't like said game.

/For The Love Of The Game

 

[CD-R]

Well after reading the comments on the Dante's Inferno review can't say I'm exactly looking foward to a score system. But thats nothing liberal use of the ban hammer can't solve Personally I thought the whole reccomend don't recommend system worked fine. As long it's still the same Escapist I'm fine with it.

 

[Galad]

So long as the reviews remain as thorough and clear as they are now, that's alright with me.

 

[Russ Pitts]

A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but I've yet to see any reasoning suggesting that consistency on this issue was foolish in any manner.

Really? Look around for some other commercial game review outlets that don't offer scores and tell me what you find. I'll wait.