I'm seeing a similar 2500+ reply thread with bannings aplenty. Because of game reviews. SO much more level-headed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Numbered Reviews Must End
- Thread starter TheCloser
- Start date
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
so basically, I was right. thanks.
Mr. Waffle
Member
If that floats your boat, and all 100 games looked like something you might want to play... I'm sure you didn't read the reviews of all the games released last year. If you only went by the numbers last year you probably missed some games you would have enjoyed.
level headed? no, of course not. i said even handed.
that game's difficult birth in the eyes of the community (an obnoxious money hat deal between two corporate bogeymen combined with the incessant forced hype) meant that when reviews came, there was an entire collision of different voices. i'm sure many posters had their own angles, agendas and axes to grinds - and a hyped AAA review thread is never going to be a den of enlightened discussion - but it was a far cry from the kind of hysterical witch hunt narrative we saw in the infamous thread.
what's worse is we all saw it coming a mile off; as soon as beanies started appearing on avatars.
I haven't been through the Infamous thread, but I spent quite a lot of time in the Titanfall review thread. Yes, there was a lot of debating about the merit of a MP only game, and quite a few people were speculating that average score it received may not be as high as Respawn/EA/MS would be expecting after the E3 awards. There wasn't however much of any complaining about the score being too low, so the media must be biased. If anything the most common contentions within that thread were from people claiming that it should be scoring lower for being a full priced game without an offline campaign, and "lol, watch this publication score Infamous lower next week". So it's probably not the best thread to use as an example of Sony fans not being more sensitive to these topics.
EDIT: I should add that User Reviews were a completely different matter though, lol. There was a lot of discussion around the hundreds of 0 point user reviews being put up.. but I don't think many would disagree that these were fueled by bias.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
it was a game where people said they felt the game should have scored lower etc, and you use this in relation to the infamous thread where people are upset the game should score higher. the former being a xbox console exclusive and the latter being a sony exclusive. doesn't help your point much. obviously there would be a "witch hunt" in the latter based on that. and the part you seem to ignore is there were numerous threads that titanfall spawned that ended up getting locked due to things getting out of hand.
Petrae
Member
I admit to using Metacritic as a purchasing tool. Gameplay videos only show me how games look or sound-- I have no grip on how the play controls are, or how they feel. If I spent $60 on games that looked or sounded cool, I'd be buying a ton of crap.
I also admit to looking at numerical values first. I usually look at the top two and the bottom two, and will occasionally skim the written reviews for each.
I really don't want to make video game purchases into full-blown research projects. I don't wish to waste what time I could be spending on playing games instead watching videos and reading walls of text. In the magazine era, this wasn't a big problem as many reviews were in shorter form and had clear scoring formats which, in turn, made my purchasing decisions a bit easier.
I'm fine with scores. I'm not using them to justify my purchases. Once I own a game, reviews (and their scores) are irrelevant. I don't care at all what the Metacritic average is at that point. I cross my fingers and hope that the game is as good as advertised; sometimes it is... and sometimes it's not.
I also admit to looking at numerical values first. I usually look at the top two and the bottom two, and will occasionally skim the written reviews for each.
I really don't want to make video game purchases into full-blown research projects. I don't wish to waste what time I could be spending on playing games instead watching videos and reading walls of text. In the magazine era, this wasn't a big problem as many reviews were in shorter form and had clear scoring formats which, in turn, made my purchasing decisions a bit easier.
I'm fine with scores. I'm not using them to justify my purchases. Once I own a game, reviews (and their scores) are irrelevant. I don't care at all what the Metacritic average is at that point. I cross my fingers and hope that the game is as good as advertised; sometimes it is... and sometimes it's not.
ChrisMahoney
Banned
I need numbered reviews. I have a very limited amount of money per year to spend on games. I don't have time to try them all before buying them. Other than my favorite franchises, I'm only buying 90+ Metacritic games at $40+. (I still love to buy cheap $10 old gems like Dokapon Kingdom and many other old overlooked games.)
1000% agree what happened when people bought games because they wanted too? Honestly now if a game gets lower then 7 or 8 its considered shit.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
I think what is being said about the game is more important than the # and is better at helping you gauge whether you the game is for you or not.
and are you seriously telling me you never played a game that scored lower that you enjoyed much more than a game that scored higher? there are numerous games for me that are not AAA titles but I enjoyed much more than most of the AAA titles.
<edited>
How do you know which of those games you might enjoy if not for reviews/media filters? By the quality of their marketing? By the box art? By looking at a single screenshot or two?
Are those better or more fair metrics on which to judge your prospective interest in any particular game than the opinions of people who have played that game and many, many others?
As for me, I went by the numbers -- be it the number/popularity of threads on the game here on Neogaf or the Metacritic average -- to determine which games were worth considering, and then read more detailed reviews/impressions of those games that passed that bar to make a determination on what to buy/try. It's not a perfect system (Tomb Raider was more heavily recommended than Guacamelee), but everyone needs some heuristic to make their decisions and I haven't found one better.
I think it's just part of the "AAA" culture, people will still buy games they wanted to, but it's just that there are often more politics and outrage around the actual reviews these days. For others it has to do with the cost I guess, so they need to weigh the pros and cons of 2 different games on 2 different platforms, threads aren't usually as big for smaller indie titles with a lower price entry, a lot of those games are actually lower in production values with much lower metacritic but people aren't as emotional invested, at least from what I can tell.
I had a friend that said the same thing to me a while back. This is one of the few issues I have with the current scoring system. It appears that in general games are scored simply in comparison to all other games, rather than to games within a genre. So, when you look into arcade/non-sim racers, you find that the best entries still miss out on this final 10% window.
Burnout Paradise, Project Gotham 4, Wipeout HD, Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, Sonic & Sega Allstars Racing Transformed, Blur, Forza Horizon, and so on. Not one of these manage to reach a MC of 90. So unfortunately, when someone such as yourself places this as a restriction on what game to buy, this entire genre gets culled. I think this is partially why the genre has struggled so much over the last generation, and has taken out so many talented studios. It shouldn't be possible to the best of a type of game to only score in the same ballpark as games that are widely seen as massively flawed in others (e.g. Final Fantasy XIII). It's as if there's a completely separate reviewing scale that they must adhere to.
The numbered scale is fine, but there needs to be transparency...and more than one number.
For example: Reviewer A loves FPS, and Action/Adventure games. List some.
Reviewer B loves RPGs, indie, and puzzle games. List some.
Both reviewers give a score.
Also, more adherence to the lower end of the scale. 1-3 (basically unplayable) 4-5, playable for diehards of the genre 6-7 (some great ideas, but falls short) 8 (great) 9 (fantastic) and a rare 10 for a masterpiece. Most games falling in the 6.5-8 range.
AND, tell us whether the publisher submitted a review copy and in some place on the website say that a certain publisher gives X amount of dollars in advertising. (Ya know, while we are dreaming).
For example: Reviewer A loves FPS, and Action/Adventure games. List some.
Reviewer B loves RPGs, indie, and puzzle games. List some.
Both reviewers give a score.
Also, more adherence to the lower end of the scale. 1-3 (basically unplayable) 4-5, playable for diehards of the genre 6-7 (some great ideas, but falls short) 8 (great) 9 (fantastic) and a rare 10 for a masterpiece. Most games falling in the 6.5-8 range.
AND, tell us whether the publisher submitted a review copy and in some place on the website say that a certain publisher gives X amount of dollars in advertising. (Ya know, while we are dreaming).
When the standard response, by some, to a game not performing as well as some expect in reviews is claims of moneyhatting and biasedness, it just comes off as immaturity to me. There are tons of games that have been both panned and praised that I disagree with, but a lot of that revolves around personal preference and expectations. Reviews are opinions, and using a scale to qualify those opinions are more than acceptable to me. We use scales to rate and quantify most things in life, and the familiarity of them gives us a automatic understanding of good, great, or bad, off of a simple number.
Synth_floyd
Banned
Numbers are not bad but having anything more than a scale of 4 to 5 is useless. What's the difference between an 86 and an 85? Or with scales of 10 usually either the bottom half are not used or if they do get properly used, people will mis-interpret anything less than a 7 as shit.
This would be a good scale:
5 - Masterpiece, probably only a few games per generation should get this
4 - Excellent, overall a great game. Excellent gameplay and is enjoyable by a wide variety of gamers. Excels in its genre.
3 - Good. If you're into the genre then you will probably enjoy this. A decent experience but nothing special
2 - Fair. Most gamers will not like this. Maybe if you're a die hard fan of the genre or series it's worth checking out.
1 - Bad. Just a bad game. Little to no redeeming values. Poor gameplay mechanics, buggy, incomplete, etc.
This would be a good scale:
5 - Masterpiece, probably only a few games per generation should get this
4 - Excellent, overall a great game. Excellent gameplay and is enjoyable by a wide variety of gamers. Excels in its genre.
3 - Good. If you're into the genre then you will probably enjoy this. A decent experience but nothing special
2 - Fair. Most gamers will not like this. Maybe if you're a die hard fan of the genre or series it's worth checking out.
1 - Bad. Just a bad game. Little to no redeeming values. Poor gameplay mechanics, buggy, incomplete, etc.
distinction without a difference.
Because mass bannings typically happen in threads devoid of hysterics.
Some people express their enthusiasm through trifling avatar edits, others express it through sympathetic appeals about a game's "difficult birth".
You feel a 76 hurts Suikoden V but defend a system that would have gotten that same game a "NO" in some outlets like the one you work for? I'm having trouble finding the logic to that.
CaptainGyro
Banned
posts 10,12,21,31,34,35,39,41,46.47,54,59,66,70,79.108,111,119,147,151,186, 202,233.234,316,337,341,345,350,353,356,362,378,403,417,430,441 and 478 nailed it as usual
I hope this new style of quoting doesn't catch on.
Ok, let's test Metacritic with 4 games I absolutely adore off the top of my head and see what's what:
Super Street Fighter 4: 92
TLOU: 95
Zelda ALBW: 91
Uncharted 2: 96
Yeah, those raving scores sound good to me.
Now I remember I was quite disappointed with KillZone: Shadow Fall:
Killzone SF: 73
5/5 for metacritic. Compelling stuff right there. Of course, I would have given less to Killzone and Uncharted 2 probably didn't deserve a whole 96, but I played that game non-stop. I remember.
Metacritic scores are a tool. I will also look at footage of the art style, the animation, the genre of the game and previous games from that studio, as well as playable demos if there are any, ontop of reading actual reviews before parting with my hard earned dollars.
I firmly believe that a score out of 100 (A.K.A 2 digit score) is the best way to go, as long as you don't treat it like gospel. IMDB does it, Rottentomatoes does it, Metacritic does it. I think it's the sweet spot for the human brain to rate things from 0 to 100 or 0.0 to 10.
Super Street Fighter 4: 92
TLOU: 95
Zelda ALBW: 91
Uncharted 2: 96
Yeah, those raving scores sound good to me.
Now I remember I was quite disappointed with KillZone: Shadow Fall:
Killzone SF: 73
5/5 for metacritic. Compelling stuff right there. Of course, I would have given less to Killzone and Uncharted 2 probably didn't deserve a whole 96, but I played that game non-stop. I remember.
Metacritic scores are a tool. I will also look at footage of the art style, the animation, the genre of the game and previous games from that studio, as well as playable demos if there are any, ontop of reading actual reviews before parting with my hard earned dollars.
I firmly believe that a score out of 100 (A.K.A 2 digit score) is the best way to go, as long as you don't treat it like gospel. IMDB does it, Rottentomatoes does it, Metacritic does it. I think it's the sweet spot for the human brain to rate things from 0 to 100 or 0.0 to 10.
I rely on scores. It's a good general guide on whether a game is worth my money now rather than later when its cheaper.
I feel kotaku rating system is weak (yes/not yet/no), but I feel detail numbers like ign's 8.7 a bit meaningless as well.
Im fine with GB's 5 star rating. Its a good middle ground. Joystiq has also start attaching server ratings to their reviews which is an excllent idea.
When metacritic works, its an excellent tool to make sure publishers are held accountable for the product they bring in to market.
I do admit occasional when it doesn't work, it's poo.
I feel kotaku rating system is weak (yes/not yet/no), but I feel detail numbers like ign's 8.7 a bit meaningless as well.
Im fine with GB's 5 star rating. Its a good middle ground. Joystiq has also start attaching server ratings to their reviews which is an excllent idea.
When metacritic works, its an excellent tool to make sure publishers are held accountable for the product they bring in to market.
I do admit occasional when it doesn't work, it's poo.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
but imdb and rottentomates tend to use the almost"full scale"
anything above an 8 on imdb is considered really awesome
anything between 5-8 is considered average to really good
On rotten tomatoes anything between 50-70 tend to be considered average-good
anything above 70 tends to be pretty damn good
anything 85 and up is considered really good
90+ = awesome must see
On metacritic
anything below 70 - don't even waste your time
anything between 70-like 84 is considered shit (but worth trying if you're bored) - very fucking medicare.
84-89 - good
90-92 - really good
anything above 92 is considered awesome.
Now, it's not how I personally view scores on metacritic…but it's how most people, at least on these forums, tend to view the scores.
so you can't really compare imdb and rotten tomatoes imo as people view their scales differently.
with that said…The Pianist gets a 85 on imdb and a 96 on rotten tomatoes so it's supposed to be a AWESOME and a life changing movie….and I hate that fucking movie.
Scores don't mean as much to me, as does the content.
As someone who does 90% of their gaming on nintendo systems, I have to say welcome to 2006.
I dont want to sound disingenuous to the OP though, so I'll elaborate.
Since 2006, perhaps longer, every single nintendo review has started off with a blurb from the reviewer about the state of play of their business. Whether motion control was popular at the time, whether the blue ocean was still being explored, or whether some of those trends had fallen out of favour.
Good or bad, the reviews were always such that every game was placed in a context in which it could be reviewed, rather than on its own merits.
When I wanted to know if Goldeneye Wii was a good game, it didnt matter to me whether every man and his dog was playing MW2 at the time. When Red Steel 2 was reviewed I did not care as to how many unfulfilled promises had been missed on the system, or how people were migrating to kinect.
Too many reviews get caught up in unrelated narrative, rather than focussing on the game itself.
As a consequence, I pretty much forget about reviews except when its a borderline case. But I will usually seek out demos, impressions and trailers of actual gameplay before resorting to a review - and that said, I usually know if I'm going to get a game a long time before it comes out based on developer reputations anyway.
I do appreciate a well written review, be it scathing or full of genuine praise. I just dont find them to be all that easy to find these days.
I dont want to sound disingenuous to the OP though, so I'll elaborate.
Since 2006, perhaps longer, every single nintendo review has started off with a blurb from the reviewer about the state of play of their business. Whether motion control was popular at the time, whether the blue ocean was still being explored, or whether some of those trends had fallen out of favour.
Good or bad, the reviews were always such that every game was placed in a context in which it could be reviewed, rather than on its own merits.
When I wanted to know if Goldeneye Wii was a good game, it didnt matter to me whether every man and his dog was playing MW2 at the time. When Red Steel 2 was reviewed I did not care as to how many unfulfilled promises had been missed on the system, or how people were migrating to kinect.
Too many reviews get caught up in unrelated narrative, rather than focussing on the game itself.
As a consequence, I pretty much forget about reviews except when its a borderline case. But I will usually seek out demos, impressions and trailers of actual gameplay before resorting to a review - and that said, I usually know if I'm going to get a game a long time before it comes out based on developer reputations anyway.
I do appreciate a well written review, be it scathing or full of genuine praise. I just dont find them to be all that easy to find these days.
Numbers are for quickly garnering mass opinion. They also help you find the reviewers who liked a game the most and hated it the most, so you can see the biggest differences in opinion without having to read thirty different reviews.
Numbers are here to stay.
But here's the rub: if you don't like numbers, just ignore them! Since when is more information a bad thing?
Numbers are here to stay.
But here's the rub: if you don't like numbers, just ignore them! Since when is more information a bad thing?
Nikodemos
Member
I want segmented reviews back. A return to the time when SFX, musical score, general graphics, visual effects, story, gameplay fluidity etc. were graded separately, instead of being mashed together in the name of "overall experience". And skip a final mark. Let the reader decide what parts s/he likes best, and which of the niggles s/he can put up with while still enjoying the game.
Oh, and 1-5 please, with no fractions. None of that 7.8 nonsense.
Oh, and 1-5 please, with no fractions. None of that 7.8 nonsense.
Conspiracy, let alone "grand conspiracy" doesn't make any sense. That implies some sort of subtlety or secretiveness. The corruption in the games media industry is neither of those: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/ Great article, but if you actually do think the games media has any integrity whatsoever then it might also be a depressing read. Suffice to say - by and large, they don't.
As for your first question - that's really tough to answer. There's a fine line between enthusiastic and positive reviews and simple PR isn't there? Looking through that IGN review the first thing that stands out is the absolutely absurd level of hyperbole:
The next is ignoring negatives or even trying to spin them into positives:
Now that players have had some time with the game many are complaining that 6v6 is the only mode possible. This review simply references it and tries to spin the removal of options as a positive.
Similarly:
The multiplayer campaign mode has been more or less universally panned as crap - yet here the reviewer somehow even manages to sugar coat that by referring to it as "a laudable attempt." Implying the only problem with it is that the game is just too exciting for him to follow the storyline. People aren't paying $60 for "laudable attempts."
I have to give him at least some credit for touching on reality there and mentioning the frame rate, but once again we see more sugar coating. Instead of simply calling bad graphics bad graphics - we are met with "My eyeballs remain un-melted..." and "the [graphics] are all perfectly acceptable..."
That is probably the most direct critique made, yet once again we see a careful selection of sugar coating. That little phrase "available at launch" entirely changes the connotation of the sentence and for what purpose? We obviously know he's reviewing it at launch. The whole point is to imply "but that's okay because things can/will change."
And of course to fall in line with the OP:
8.9/10
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
Reviews came to a point where it's so bipolar and subjective that they're actually helping developers sell their game because it's forcing consumers to buy the game and see if the game is good for themselves!
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
/signed
If you are basing your decision based on the score alone then you are doing it wrong.
The system isn't as one-dimensional as you think, OP.
Dark Octave
Banned
You guys have it all wrong. I'm all for difference of opinions. The thing that makes no sense to me is how they can be so wide. A 3 and an 8 for the same game is ridiculous. We've all grown up on the same franchises and we all have similar enough standards for what is acceptable.
I feel that if the game at least is functional on a basic level, it should be no less than a 3. If it is mediocre or maybe a few hitches or just not your cup of tea but otherwise unoffensive, it should be no less than a 6 or 7. Anything after that should scale accordingly. This is just a rough example but it's at least SOME kind of structure. Right now it seems like reviewers are allowed to give a great game a 1/10 because he didn't like the way the main character's ass looks in a pair of jeans.
Again, nobody is asking to take opinions away. I'm simply asking for some kind of concrete and clear structure behind the scores, that's all.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
These two statements are at complete odds with one another.
Okay, you may feel that way, but others may disagree. (but how often has that even come up anyway?)
Huh? A game can be perfectly functional, and still be completer garbage in someone's opinion. Cite: Paper Mario: Sticker Star. The game's technically fine, but I hated the experience the entire way through. But some people loved it. I don't see why games should be treated any different from films, where even a technically competent film can get lambasted by some.
I'd like to see fundamentally broken games like skyrim ps3 and battlefield 4 get scores of 2/10 or less.
i don't believe kotaku gives numbered scores and i know arstechnica for sure hasn't for a few years now. however, as you said, it's all subjective. why shouldn't they gives numbered scores or stars or any rating system that we've been using to judge in the olympics, boxing, mma, chicks on the beach, film and music, etc. as long as you can understand that it IS subjective, you can check a couple other reviews from the same reviewer to calibrate your opinion to theirs and move forward like that.
CaptainGyro
Banned
no it doesn't seem like that...at all
Interesting idea! Given how little dignity gaffers were able to comport themselves with during the 6-8 months run-op to release of PS4 and XB1 last year, I'd worry such would run the risk of resembling metacritic's user reviews section pretty fast.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread. The problem here are the fans. Metacritic is a great way to measure the temperature of reviewers. But when the audience and critics are both fans and are emotionally invested in the product it becomes a problem.
Checking metacritics for movies, for example gives this:
Inside Llewyn Lewis - 92
Dallas Buyers Club - 84
Blue Jasmine - 79
Frozen - 74
Don Jon - 66
Thor: The Dark World - 54
Now these are all movies I'd consider watchable. Let's find games in the similar rating-category:
Dark Souls II - 92
Infamous: Second Son - 81
Strider - 77
Thief - 67
Knack - 54
The problem with video games is that the crowd that plays them are too homogeneous which creates an inflated score. If everybody's an expert then the scores are more aligned to their critique of the subject not opinions. The worst thing we can do is try to create an "objective" way to evaluate games in order to get a "balanced" review score. I'd be more happy if we brought the "playable span" down to 100-50 instead of 100-85.
Edit:
This is exactly the mentality I want changed. A 3 and an 8 for the same game is perfectly reasonable to me. That we grew up on the same franchises and have similar enough standards is a weakness and not a strength and we should work against that mentality.
And, I'd like you to find us one single review where something like a pair of jeans brought down the review-score!
Checking metacritics for movies, for example gives this:
Inside Llewyn Lewis - 92
Dallas Buyers Club - 84
Blue Jasmine - 79
Frozen - 74
Don Jon - 66
Thor: The Dark World - 54
Now these are all movies I'd consider watchable. Let's find games in the similar rating-category:
Dark Souls II - 92
Infamous: Second Son - 81
Strider - 77
Thief - 67
Knack - 54
The problem with video games is that the crowd that plays them are too homogeneous which creates an inflated score. If everybody's an expert then the scores are more aligned to their critique of the subject not opinions. The worst thing we can do is try to create an "objective" way to evaluate games in order to get a "balanced" review score. I'd be more happy if we brought the "playable span" down to 100-50 instead of 100-85.
Edit:
This is exactly the mentality I want changed. A 3 and an 8 for the same game is perfectly reasonable to me. That we grew up on the same franchises and have similar enough standards is a weakness and not a strength and we should work against that mentality.
And, I'd like you to find us one single review where something like a pair of jeans brought down the review-score!
sometime reading the review show u the opposite of the score.
You are wrong because you give the fault to the score that's a mere number and not to the one that gives that score. The score doesn't matter, it only reflects the review, if the review is bad/unfair the score will be bad/unfair, if you cut the score the review will still be bad/unfair.
People should just stop relying on reviews, often reviews smell of moneyhat and when they are honest they are still subjective, so what's the point?
Judge with your own brain, people tastes are different, what is good and what is not is different from person to person, people should understand that there's no absolute objective judgment for a game(or anything else), a reviewer cannot speak for everyone.
Years passed since the last time i read a review and you know what? I'm able to buy the games i like! Unbelievable right? You should try it too
BumblebeeCody
Member
This. I also find it funny how members of NeoGAF are the ones complaining about review scores and we have threads like this . I just ignore review scores in general now. I watch trailer videos and watch AngryJoe/Total Biscuits or the odd review from GameTrailers(but still ignoring the review score). Even AngryJoe does it which makes fuck all sense. It's the content of the review that matters.
Has someone already compared Gaf's top ten/twenty [say 2013 for argument's sake] to the top ten/twenty games on Metacritic? what's the correlation?
GTAV didn't seem to come close to the top, did it? And yet the Last of Us ran away with it. So it's not all faulty. This metacritic numbers game.
In depth reviews ought to be for games deserving of it. Honestly, I'd worry for the sanity of somebody writing more than a couple of pages for FIFA 14. On a side note, it's practically the same dam game every year but for the roster, and yet reviewers don't call that out often enough.
GTAV didn't seem to come close to the top, did it? And yet the Last of Us ran away with it. So it's not all faulty. This metacritic numbers game.
In depth reviews ought to be for games deserving of it. Honestly, I'd worry for the sanity of somebody writing more than a couple of pages for FIFA 14. On a side note, it's practically the same dam game every year but for the roster, and yet reviewers don't call that out often enough.
No thanks.
I enjoy reviews with a real score, especially the granularity that a 100 point scale gives when it comes to ranking games. I can definitely quantify the feel of one point differences in scores, because if you follow video games you have a vast array of data to compare that against.
I enjoy reviews with a real score, especially the granularity that a 100 point scale gives when it comes to ranking games. I can definitely quantify the feel of one point differences in scores, because if you follow video games you have a vast array of data to compare that against.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
I like numbered reviews and do not even read reviews without. There are usually just way too many spoilers to be found in the review text. So I usually just stick to the final verdict and the review score. Gives me a good impression of how the game is.
Hydrargyrus
Member
How about stoping the review and score threads?
I can't stop reading "I don't give a fuck about the scores", but every damn release has a review thread with >100 page of rage and absurd discussion.
I don't want to ban the reviews, only that this kind of threads only causes stupid bans
Boy Wander
Member
If you've been gaming for years then surely by now you know not to just go off of numbers and use your intuition. Numbers for me are a guide but only if I am comfortable that I understand the range and meaning of the numbers for a particular publication. So for instance, I'm very comfortable with EDGE as I've been reading it for years and I can use their scores as a general guide.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
A rating is fairly important - we need to seperate bad and terrible, and good and great which at times can be difficult just going by review text. But the problem becomes one of granularity. The more demarcation you have, the sillier and less representative it becomes. What's the difference between 92% and 93%?
I favour the /5 system used by Paul Davies in the heyday of C&VG in the mid-nineties. No fractions, no points, no percentages, just 1,2,3,4 or 5 out of 5.
I favour the /5 system used by Paul Davies in the heyday of C&VG in the mid-nineties. No fractions, no points, no percentages, just 1,2,3,4 or 5 out of 5.
Yeah, I didn't like that movie either.
The way I look at it:
anything below 74 - don't even waste your time
anything between 74-like 79 is considered shit (but worth trying if you're bored) - very fucking mediocre.
80-84 - good
85-87 - really good
anything above 88 is considered awesome.
You make some good points about score compression. IMDB scores have to be heavily weighed by the number of reviews, and then you have to filter out some overrated local films (mostly british and indian) that get overly positive scores from the local populace and do not really deserve them.