Support NeoGAF

[TheRealTalker]

they should get rid of the decimal system and separate review into two portions

a tech/engine/performance review and a story/gameplay review

 

[3bdelilah]

I really like Kotaku's way. Just three verdicts: buy, wait (I think?), and don't buy. As it should be.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

The question is, how can you quantify something that is subjective? It makes no sense. What is the difference between an 8.1 score and an 8.2 score? How do you quantify the .1 difference? Is there a checklist that all games must fulfill?

My point is this, reviews are not quantitative but they are qualitative. We need to stop attaching numbers to reviews. It is pointless. It leads to inconsistencies in scoring, claims of bias and fraudulent reviews. We have all seen the ign EA gif where the score increases as the money goes to ign. It will lead to a lot of transparency if numbered reviews just stop.

Agreed. Unless it's a lack of depth and framerate drops, in which case dock 2-3 points.

 

[Giolon]

Why is it that this seems to only be an issue in games? Plenty of other subjective products are rated:

movies, books, restaurants - all something frequently rated by stars, which is just a fancy name for points.

Even Buy / No Buy is still a numerical system of 1 or 0.

What's nonsensical are the grade scales like 0-100%, or 100 point scales masquerading as 10 point scales. (8.6 is better than 8.5! because reasons). It's a question of what does increased granularity even mean?

Has there been any proof that Metacritic or ratings specifically affects sales? If that were true, Okami should've been a huge seller and Super Mario 3D World should be driving Wii U sales. I feel like word of mouth, and general review sentiment (e.g. this is awesome buy it! This is garbage don't waste your money!) would have a far more noticeable effect than "11/10 - IGN"

 

[entremet]

I think the problem with reviews is the widespread distrust of game journalists now, so I'm not sure if changing the numbers would end that. It would be an interesting start though, although those scores probably get a big number of hits or sell a few extra magazines, so it's unlikely ever to happen.

Outside some outliers, I find reviews as an aggregate to be very consistent. I'm really not seeing this huge distrust of reviews and reviewers outside of more vocal internet circles. IGN still does crazy numbers in terms of hits.

If you look at Metacritic averages they're pretty in line with GOTY contention.

I do think handling MP only games is something that needs to be addressed.

 

[shandy706]

I loved that system too. Even image 3 meant it was average or better...worth checking out. Image 4 was a definitely good. Image 5 was excellent.

Buy/Wait/Rent/Ignore is fine too. However, I prefer the 5 step sad-to-excited images across each category.

 

[TheLetdown]

I dig the way Kotaku started doing the mini-reviews in the center of the review that gives you the pros and cons at a quick glance, and whether you should play it.

For me at least, the chances are that I have read about the game beforehand. A quick glance at the cons helps to make sure there are no deal breakers.

Also, this thread can't possibly go too long without the gif of the score going up next to a Doritos and Mountain Dew logo, can it?

 

[Marcel]

Honestly I sometimes feel people like numbers because it makes the choice for them on whether to purchase or not. We are notorious for not researching ideas before believing them (partly why marketing works so well).

I'd hate to be a person who chooses or avoids their entertainment experiences based solely on ultimately meaningless number averages. What a boring life that must be.

 

[Panda Rin]

there's nothing wrong with numbered scores. Sometimes I don't have the time to read every review/impression on a game. Review scores help me separate the bad from the good.

 

[The_Monk]

While I kind of agree with you fellow GAFfer, the numbered scores just try to give an idea to the most core consumers about one game.

It's more concerning the wars between members/players who rage, curse and are rude to each other on the internet simply because one website gave a 6 out of 10 while another gave it a 8 ou of 10. Hate towards the website, people questioning their integrity all the time has become a normal behavior but it shouldn't. To me, a numbered score and metacritic means nothing to me. I get my impressions from other gamers. That's the beauty of this fine community, I can try and make an honest opinion without the other GAFfer trying to sell me something or giving me a title to offer him more "clicks".

Even the Yes/No Buy/Don't buy are very subjective, I don't believe there's any sort of scale that can make a valid point to every single reader. Because there will always people who will agree and disagree. As someone who plays games and is an avid consumer of many goods from this gaming industry, I rarely made my decision based on a website who is reviewing a game. I do all my own research outside of that sort of media, I see user generated content that is spread online or even streams where the gameplay is not "planned" unlike many of those Dev. videos and in the end, I always make my choice using my own wallet. It works every single time.

 

[The Illiterati]

Agreed with the thread title. I don't agree with the Buy/Rent/Don't version either because it adds a monetary value judgment that also differs too much. I'm budget strapped/frugal/poor. I rent everything I can or buy on sale.

Play or not even worth your time. Most things would be play. Make your own opinion.

 

[Beardz]

y no use dragon ball power levelz?


guise?

 

[Riposte]

I find it funny people complain about numbers, yet they want to rate games based on monetary value, as if a set amount of dollars is worth the same to everyone. Buy, rent, skip is simply a 3-point scale, except now you are are basing your categorization on your personal budget situation that is assumed to be true for everyone (instead of, you know, ranking a game's quality directly).

Anyway, scores don't need to "end" (and for that matter, can't end, just be hidden), they just need to become simpler.

 

[Chill Penguin]

A 100-point scale is stupid. Believe it or not, I actually prefer the old GamePro scale:



There are certain things you can give objective scores for. For example, a game that manages 1080p@60fps should get a better score in that category than a different version of the same game running at half the frame rate, or you may give a game that stutters to single digits a low score in that category. Things like audio and gameplay may still get high scores in this scenario, though, which is perfectly fine. There's too much stuff happening in games at once to lump everything into one score, imho.

Agree, the overall score seems kind of pointless. I've always loved the gamepro scale, it's a shame their magazine ended up going to shit. They were the authority in the early to mid 90s.

 

[Eggbok]

IGN wasn't capitalized, thread = 7.9/10.

 

[Naminator]

So the review numbers should go away because a bunch a fanboys can't help themselves and love to rage every time their game/system doesn't get a score they wanted?

You're looking for a solution but you have yet to understand the problem.

 

[VMGamez]

Numbered reviews may not ever go away. However, I believe that a 100 point scale is too much. I would even go and say that a 20 and 10 point scale is also a little bit much. For me a five star rating is what is the best. It gives you a general idea of how good a game is and doesn't have the randomness of an 8.1 vs an 8.2.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Other forms of media seem to get away just fine with quantified reviews, people just need to stop looking at meta-critic and start looking for people they trust. Criticism can be entirely separate from a general recommendation and not art-form deserves only one.

 

[SephCast]

Reviews should be based on how much money the reviewer thinks the game is worth.

The reviewer's favorite games/genres and past notable and comparable reviews should also be listed on a sidebar so we can know his taste.

Sadly, that will never work because no publisher would give a game that costs $59.99 for them to turnaround and say, "It's probably worth about $30 bucks, it's not a must play groundbreaking experience. Wait til it drops."

 

[Trey]

"Must" is the wrong way to look at it. Numbers or letters, binary buy/not buy, people will distill reviews to their most basic parts. That's what people do.

Have to change consumer behavior instead of (or alongside) these half solutions.

 

[monocle_wearing_hyrax]

I hope not, i like numbered reviews specially the decimal system , 8.2, 8.0, 7.5, etc. What i don't agree with is reviewers not using the whole scale and making 7 the average when many of their own guidelines say that 5 is the average.

 

[KillerIsJed]

I disagree with people that say this. While I do agree breaking it down to 8.1 and 8.2 is pretty pointless, I believe a number scale is a great thing.

The biggest problem is inflated scores, and the "four point review scale".

That and most of us have the mentality that anything below a 70% is a failing grade based on our school grades, so I'm sure most of us think that about video games.

On our site our review scale encourages 5's for average games.

 

[zebwinz]

The problem with reviews that lack scores is that you have to read them.

Yup, and the majority of people chose not to read. Several sites and magazines have tried to give up scores over the years - always resulting in a huge drop in views/reads.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Numbers are useful for summarizing a general feeling for a game, overall, but they should never be treated as a quantifiable indicator of quality. It's like gauging how many times the reviewer said "badass" in the review and averaging those together. It's useless without context.

 

[GamerJM]

Numbers are important in reviews, I think. There's a reason other mediums' reviews have numbers too. It's sort of a nice to put the material on a scale and be able to say in a very general sense whether it's good, average, bad, etc. with a number.

The issue is the culture in gaming surrounding review numbers. The way people judge a game based on a number given in a review. For better or worse, for several years, the numbers have become the review itself. People care more about the number than what the review says. And even then, the numbers aren't really accurate; often times people look at games being given 7s and 8s and judge them as trash right away. This is absolutely ridiculous, and it distracts from the greater issue plaguing gaming journalism, which IMO is shoddy writing.

 

[OriginalThinking]

I just think GAF needs to get less upset about numbers.

I don't think a number alone is enough, but given that a review is an evaluation of a product there's no harm in it. GAF just gets wound up by the subjectiveness of reviews and gets upset by metacritic, a website which attempts to balance subjectivity by providing a wider score card. There's no winning.

Anytime a game comes out with lower scores than the GAF hype train demands a legion of people who haven't even played the game come out to attack the review. Any sort of rational, objective reasoning goes straight out the window.

And bizarrely GAF only trusts Gaffers opinions despite Gaffers also being subjective and likely biased in some way.

When it comes to review scores and methodology GAF is pretty damn hypocritical.

 

[Ronin Ray]

I go to neo gaf, twitch and watch Gaint Bomb Quick looks to see if I would like a certain game. Taste in games is so subjective that the only thing i would need a review for is to make sure a game doesn't have game breaking bugs and glitches. But Most game review sites miss these bugs or glitches in there review anyways.So kinda useless to me.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Agreed. Unless it's a lack of depth and framerate drops, in which case dock 2-3 points.

lokiohh.gif

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

The question is, how can you quantify something that is subjective?

Movie reviewers do it. Music reviewers do it. Book reviewers do it. Pretty much any kind of media review does this. It isn't difficult, nor is it controversial.

 

[bryehn]

This will never happen. I'd put the onus on the consumer to actually read the review rather than focus on the score. When I was writing, I used a five point scale. By today's consumer logic a 3/5 is seen as "60%", but there were a lot of games I really enjoyed and scored a 3/5, usually knocking points for technical issues and accessibility/ease of use problems.

I always liked to think that if a reader took the time to read the 8-1200 words I wrote that they would be able to relate that to their own taste and at the very least, good or bad, make an informed purchase.

 

[Uno Venova]

Agreed. Unless it's a lack of depth and framerate drops, in which case dock 2-3 points.

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

Numbers are only a problem when people believe that they are useful in creating some sort of comparison between reviewers. When combined with prior knowledge about a reviewer, they can be quite informative.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Movie reviewers do it. Music reviewers do it. Book reviewers do it. Pretty much any kind of media review does this. It isn't difficult, nor is it controversial.

No they don't.

 

[Dawg]

I really like Kotaku's way. Just three verdicts: buy, wait (I think?), and don't buy. As it should be.

I think it's a fun system, but it's very black and white. That said, I'm sure every system has a downside to it.

 

[Lingitiz]

Ratings attached to reviews are fine, especially because most good sites have defined ratings systems with rubrics to explain scores. The problem lies in what Metacritic has added to the conversation. Now all of a sudden, scores mean a lot more than they used to since we have shit like publisher contracts and execs and whatnot citing it as a measure of success.

Their 100 point version of scores doesn't make a lot of sense when there are so many different rating systems out there. For example, Giant Bomb gives a lot of 4/5's, yet that's translated to an 80%. Plus, the weighted ratings aren't outwardly explained, so it doesn't seem to be an objective average either.

 

[intheinbetween]

People that think an 8 is equals to a bad game must change not the numbered reviews, just because they don't give a 10 to the new over hyped new game it means the reviewer is bad or the game.

fuckin this!!!!

 

[Ogimachi]

I'll take numbers over "YES/NO" kotaku crap any day, even though I'm not fond of scores.
Similar taste is the key IMO, and it's very hard to make journalists take a different audience into consideration.
Opinions from people that start a review with "I'm new to the series" or "I've never played many games of the genre" will barely have any influence in the decision to be made by a considerable portion of the audience. I'm not interested in whether a journalist that voted Skyrim for GOTY considers Pillars of Eternity a "yes" or "no", for example, and that's what makes so many people look for opinions in message boards instead.

Agreed. Unless it's a lack of depth and framerate drops, in which case dock 2-3 points.

Ouch.

 

[Sadist]

How about everyone just stop giving a fuck about Metacritic. That's a start.

Thread done.

 

[RoKKeR]

Scores needs to go, industry focus on Metacritic needs to go, Kotaku system needs to be accepted by all.

"Yes". "No". "Not Yet." - Figure out whether it lines up with what you think/agree or disagree with what is said in the review that lead the author to that decision.

Simple as that. If only.

 

[EGM1966]

I'd love to see numerical scores go. At worst I'd accept some form of good, decent, poor, etc. wording in summary but I say make people read the review. If they can't be arsed then they can chose based on the ads and case covers like the old days.

While we're at it I want to see numerical or star based reviews vanish from films too.

 

[Oersted]

What if we are reading the reasoning behind the scores and not invest our time into conformation bias?

 

[LordBaztion]

maybe scores are subjective too.

 

[LouisaFerre]

I don't have a problem with people giving them numeric ratings based on how much they enjoyed the game, but it should not be taken really as any measure of the games quality. Any technical issues and things like that should be separate, as that's a more objective issue with the game. To help the consume, I think it's much more effective to compare it to other games or genres(Good for people who liked the following...), since I feel that would assist them in picking games based on their specific tastes, even if the reviewer didn't particularly enjoy it.

 

[Marcel]

No they don't.

Media critics don't use numbered review systems? Uhhh.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I think we used to have these exact topics more often in the distant past...but nearer to the beginning of last generation when people put greater weight on the questions over the legitimacy of reviews and gaming journalism when it matters most in the console war.

How about everyone just stop giving a fuck about Metacritic. That's a start.

Too late. I hate review scores and review aggregator more, but the genie is out of the bottle and the younger, more immature demographic that makes up a lot of gaming's userbase will never give it up as long as it suits someone looking to win something. No one wants to actually read the content of the writer's review because they either don't want to hear or know that there is context and reasoning behind it, or they only care about how it looks to others, or they only care that what they hate/love gets the score they think it should...other views be damned or written off as stupid/lazy/bought off/biased shit. If reading the content of the reviews was regular and scores were tossed aside, over time, you would see a huge improvement in the quality of the review writing and critique as well as better-informed and smarter readership.

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

How about everyone just stop giving a fuck about Metacritic. That's a start.

After what happened with Obsidian I am 100% for this.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Media critics don't use numbered review systems? Uhhh.

They definitely don't "quantify something subjective" as quoted. It's just another subjective aspect on top of subjectivity. Suggesting book/movie/music review scores don't suffer from the exact same issues is utter nonsense.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I dunno. I've managed to get by reading reviews using the same system for ~30 years or so. I just use them as a rough guide and ultimately make my own mind up. This isn't life and death to me, it's just video games. Perhaps people need to stop taking them so seriously?

/Shrugs

 

[kris.]

i really like the way kotaku does it. no numbers, just tell me if it's worth my money. should i buy it or not. yes or no. a score is irrelevant.

 

[BruiserBear]

I think people just need to accept they're not always going to agree with reviews.