I'm a supporter of review scores as they are quantifiable data that can be useful in measuring overall critical success, and their popularity does make them more relevant as a tool. Taking advantage of that means that The Escapist has its say in the meta scores, which would help increase the integrity of said scores in my view.
However, I must also express concern that the implementation of review scoring will effect or change the style of writing in The Escapist. I think that part of what makes this magazine special is that you don't approach games with apathy, but rather empathy - as you say, how it feels to play the game rather than just its objective qualities.
Review scores, though an advantageous approach in many ways, are a kind of turn off to quality thinking as opposed to quantity thinking; if we decide that a game is a 9/10 before writing the review, we may find that this changes the tone of the whole review because of authorial and audience-based expectations surrounding the 9/10 score. For this reason, I'd say that it is essential that reviewers hold their judgement on actual scores until they have finished writing the review itself. That's a minor request, but I think the team would be surprised at how consistent it helps their writing to be.
I look forward to seeing this change have the ideal impact, which is zero for the writing, but very high for the overall usefulness of the magazine.
However, I must also express concern that the implementation of review scoring will effect or change the style of writing in The Escapist. I think that part of what makes this magazine special is that you don't approach games with apathy, but rather empathy - as you say, how it feels to play the game rather than just its objective qualities.
Review scores, though an advantageous approach in many ways, are a kind of turn off to quality thinking as opposed to quantity thinking; if we decide that a game is a 9/10 before writing the review, we may find that this changes the tone of the whole review because of authorial and audience-based expectations surrounding the 9/10 score. For this reason, I'd say that it is essential that reviewers hold their judgement on actual scores until they have finished writing the review itself. That's a minor request, but I think the team would be surprised at how consistent it helps their writing to be.
I look forward to seeing this change have the ideal impact, which is zero for the writing, but very high for the overall usefulness of the magazine.
