Except reviewers get their games for free so they have nothing to base the value off of.
-
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
Except reviewers get their games for free so they have nothing to base the value off of.
Aha. Got some examples of 100% objective reviews which don't rely on the reviewer's experience/don't contain one bit of a personal opinion with/of the piece of art at all?
Look at the top 100 Metacritic rated games. Look at the bottom 100 Metacritic rated games. Are you claiming that the distinction between the two groups does not make sense?
For the record, here are the top five of 2013:
GTA V
The Last of US
Bioshock Infinite
Skulls of the Shogun
Super Mario 3D World
And the bottom five:
Ride to Hell: Retribution
Motorbike
Double Dragon II: Wander of the Dragons
Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny
Citadels
Should someone in search of a game to buy dedicate as much time to independently researching the bottom five as to the top five by playing demos, watching trailers, and reading long-form reviews? Scoring is vital for finding the diamonds in the rough.
Riposte
Member
Why not 1, 2, and 3? Maybe add another value below 1 for the really bad games and another above 3 for the really good games?
So next Tuesday let's all agree to never say shit about eachother again, never go to SeaWorld again and to stop going to Metacritic ever.
We could make the world a better place if we gave a shit enough to try!
I agree that a single number is pretty bad at quantifying how good a game is.
Which is why you read the text / watch gameplay videos.
That said i also don't think it's inherently wrong to put a number on the end of a review. If a reviewer you like gives a game a good score you may want to look it up further.
The actual problem with scores has way more to do with fanboy wars and marketing hype/expectations than whether a 100 point scale is actually accurate. The less people care/argue about 1 point differences, the fewer 100 point scales we will see.
Which is why you read the text / watch gameplay videos.
That said i also don't think it's inherently wrong to put a number on the end of a review. If a reviewer you like gives a game a good score you may want to look it up further.
The actual problem with scores has way more to do with fanboy wars and marketing hype/expectations than whether a 100 point scale is actually accurate. The less people care/argue about 1 point differences, the fewer 100 point scales we will see.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I've used the same general idea of what I define as good from when I first got into reviewing movies when I was young. At the start I was just trying out my luck. I needed a measureable scale that I could place movies in so that I could know what I liked. From then on out I've been using it for that purpose. To measure how much I enjoyed something and to put it into perspective? Is it perfect? No, of course it isn't.
So, what has this got to do with numbered reviews? We need someway to easily reference experiences. Personally I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about numbered reviews. I tend to only read negative reviews for games I expect to enjoy since the "normal" media is so hype soaked that it's hard to get a reading. The nit-picks are mostly what bothers me and the reviews that bring them up are the ones I tend to enjoy.
But I don't really think that the hype soaked media are the worst culprits in the numbered reviews-drama. It's the fans. They who expect that anything they like is universally worshipped. We've had it here on the forums a lot of times. And a few times to many. InFamous: Second Son and Titanfall are some recent examples (but nothing will top Twilight Princess). The fans who can't accept that 3/5 is a good score.
So, what has this got to do with numbered reviews? We need someway to easily reference experiences. Personally I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about numbered reviews. I tend to only read negative reviews for games I expect to enjoy since the "normal" media is so hype soaked that it's hard to get a reading. The nit-picks are mostly what bothers me and the reviews that bring them up are the ones I tend to enjoy.
But I don't really think that the hype soaked media are the worst culprits in the numbered reviews-drama. It's the fans. They who expect that anything they like is universally worshipped. We've had it here on the forums a lot of times. And a few times to many. InFamous: Second Son and Titanfall are some recent examples (but nothing will top Twilight Princess). The fans who can't accept that 3/5 is a good score.
Dr.Schlomo
Banned
Exactly.
Who cares if Infamous only has an 81 and Titanfall has an 86. Oh yeah, fanboys. There will be tons of people who prefer Infamous over Titanfall. If you are undecided about a game watch a lets play and decide for yourself. If people who are so upset about reviews actually stop visiting the reviews than I bet thing would change. Also, understand that at it's foundation a review is an opinion. If you get upset because you think Infamous should be a 10 and some random reviewer gives it a 7, you have more problems than numbered reviews...
MiamiWesker
Member
I am so sick of numbers bashing. "What is the difference between an 8.1 and an 8.2" 8.2 is a higher number, how hard is that to understand. It is not an exact science and everyone's scale is going to be diferrent but at least it gives you a reference point to where that particular game fits into the grand scheme of things.
I play a ton of games and regardless of what people say they are all in competition for my time and money. So yes I need comparisons. Sometimes a written review can seem negative but still have a high score and vice versa. I could be disappointed in a game but still think it's way better than most games I play. Unless you spend a ton of time writing which games it's better than or not better than then I would like a simple number that fits it into a category of quality.
Scores are fine, people reacting to the scores is the problem.
I play a ton of games and regardless of what people say they are all in competition for my time and money. So yes I need comparisons. Sometimes a written review can seem negative but still have a high score and vice versa. I could be disappointed in a game but still think it's way better than most games I play. Unless you spend a ton of time writing which games it's better than or not better than then I would like a simple number that fits it into a category of quality.
Scores are fine, people reacting to the scores is the problem.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
This is really the core of it. I'd go one step further and say that just because they agree or disagree doesn't mean there's a logical or objective reason for it.
There's nothing wrong with numbers. It's people's interpretation of those numbers that is out of whack.
semiconscious
Member
this!...
actual customer impressions >>>>>> 'reviews'. i wanna check out a book? i go to amazon. i wanna check out a game? i go to gaf. i want to know how people like myself, who actually paid for the book/game, felt about it...
a reviewer knows no more about gaming than anyone else up here. all he/she has, that the average gamer doesn't, is a soapbox. because of the deadline pressure they're under, the fact that they're often playing games they have no real interest in personally, & the possibility that their motivations are agenda-based, their opinions are, much of the time, of very little value to me. & are ever only that - 'opinions'...
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
dark_prinny
Banned
Everything should be scored 10. That way fanboys and insecure people will be pleased and Metacritic will be useless.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
You think 4/5 stars is different than 8/10?
That is the conclusion i came to after reading all the reviews. I valued the game at a 7-8 because thats how i weigh its value to myself. I would never post a score because i want the readers to come up with that on their own. Read my review, read others review and weigh its value by yourself. By posting numbers, you are not allowing the readers to come up with their own value of the game.
I'm sorry but i don't view it as a knock out. He can feel free to dig into my post history if he likes. I didn't buy the game because i don't buy online only games. I don't really care what console it is on. He should go look for an instance in which i have bought an online only game. Then i would be contradicting myself.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Scores are not arbitrary, but they are imprecise.
When gamers stop treating them like they are exact indicators of quality, and realize that there is no meaningful difference between an 86 and an 88 on metacritic, or a 9.1 and a 9.4 on IGN, and start using scores as a general guideline as to whether the game might be something they should look into further, maybe we won't have to call for the end of quantification every other week on GAF.
There's nothing wrong with numbers. The problem is that the consumers of these numbers don't understand what they mean.
When gamers stop treating them like they are exact indicators of quality, and realize that there is no meaningful difference between an 86 and an 88 on metacritic, or a 9.1 and a 9.4 on IGN, and start using scores as a general guideline as to whether the game might be something they should look into further, maybe we won't have to call for the end of quantification every other week on GAF.
There's nothing wrong with numbers. The problem is that the consumers of these numbers don't understand what they mean.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
oh ahah I missed this!
John Kowalski
Banned
Dyack all up in this bitch. GAF will never admit how right he was.
chickdigger802
Banned
It's weird. Many sites switch out of scores at least once, but always seem to go back for some made up reason.
I don't assign grades now. I just say what I have to say.
However, when I did, I came up with a scale I liked a lot. It afforded me exactly what I needed every time.
A+ Must own
A Must play
B+ Highly recommended
B Recommended
C+ Above average
C Average
D Below Average
F Fail
F - Epic Fail
The text next to the letter grades said it all.
However, when I did, I came up with a scale I liked a lot. It afforded me exactly what I needed every time.
A+ Must own
A Must play
B+ Highly recommended
B Recommended
C+ Above average
C Average
D Below Average
F Fail
F - Epic Fail
The text next to the letter grades said it all.
Metacritic (or Rottentomatoes for example) is a fine tool,
that I don't wanna miss.
It helps me to look for reviews of a game.
And it helps me to look for games in general.
I don't get that part at all.
How will it lead to more transparency?
And lack of transparency is not a problem reviews have in my book.
(unless they outright lie, but I have never seen that happen)
BRocknRolla
Member
While I do think there are a lot of bad reviewers out there, and people who are just bad at their jobs in the video game press in general, there is a fundamental problem with attaching a numbered score to a review.
As you said, reviews as subjective, whereas numbers are not. They lend a sense of objectivity to something which, at its core, is about subjective experience. This might not be a problem as it's really just allowing the reviewer to put as fine a point as possible on their feelings for the overall experience, but that implies that the reader understands what the reviewers overall experience was. Does the reader know? They might not if:
-The reviewer does a bad job conveying their feelings and experience. (Which happens A LOT.) or;
-The reader didn't read the review, which is completely the reader's fault.
People want fast information, and not everyone wants to read a full treatise on why a game is good or bad, which is understandable, but a lot of these same people also want to pass judgement on things without fully understanding them. They want to look at a metacritic score and feel they know everything they need to know. Ignorance is something many people willfully embrace, so what's the real answer here? I honestly couldn't tell you. Number aren't going to go away, just like Fox news isn't going to improve its reporting accuracy. Why? Because a large contingent of people just don't give a damn about whether or not they are getting quality information, video game journalism included. These outlets ultimately rely on meeting numbers, not quality.
Frayne Daddy
Banned
More like people gotta stop thinking 7's and 8's is a failure. I don't have a problem with the number system. It's the bitching about say an 8.5 I can't stand like it's a totally crappy game.
And that reviews are not be-all end-all indicator of what you should play. I would have never played Nier if I listened to incompetent reviewers like Justin McElroy who can't read an X on a map.
Doug Heffernan
Member
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic.
vxXJordanXxv
Banned
Well I also find a problem with reviews on the numbers side because you can see what that reviewer gave another title as well. Like I dread bringing this up but a lot of people were upset that Adam Sessler gave Titanfall a 5/5 and Infamous a 3/5. I wonder how many people actually watched the review and instead just looked at the score. The same could be said for other reviewers as a lot of people just look at lists of what a person has reviewed in the past number wise without reading their in depth articles. Personally I like Kotaku's way of doing it because you actually have to read the review to see the reason behind their decision. The numbers just seem like tl;dr to me.
The problem is not "quantifying something subjective", it's that any useful metric requires internal consistency. If <observed quality A> is a negative for game X and leads to <penalty>, the same must apply for every other game on that reviewer's table, or ideally for all reviewed products within the scope of that publication. The current review industry is horrendously bad at providing any such consistent rule sets. So we don't even have a starting point to work with.
Thread ended.
I agree that Kotaku has the right idea, but it doesn't give quite enough depth. Maybe a scale something like this would work:
Yes, play this right now even if you have no free time
Yes, play this eventually, but it's not groundbreaking just overall pretty fun
If you like the Genre, Try it Out, otherwise avoid
Generally poor, don't play this at all
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
timetokill
Banned
Op, in your opinion, What is it about gamers that makes them unable to handle review scores? Movies seem to handle being scored just fine.
Bobs Big Boy
Member
Have been told by editors that they are there for clicks and that readers actually want them. If it were up to most writers, they likely wouldn't exist.
Metacritic only works if you're doing large-scale statistics like that. Can you say Battlefield 4 is an objectively better game than Assassin's Creed 4 because it has 3 points higher on metacritic? No. It only helps get rid of absolute garbage.
But they are arbitrary. Reviewers add or subtract points for the same elements in different games. There is a system to the general idea, but that doesn't mean that even within a single reviewer's reviews you will get any semblance of consistency. At the end of the day they're arbitrary AND imprecise.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Decimals will infest that range and you'll be back at a ten-point scale.
-MD-
Member
I imagine the Infamous reviews have something to do with this thread.
dark_prinny
Banned
O lawdy.
What the hell, I'll answer instead. (from another thread about reviews)
Infamous didn't score high enough on metacritic....
vxXJordanXxv
Banned
The Infamous reviews that weren't even bad might I add.
100 scale is too much for sure, it's ridiculous. 10 scale or 5 star systems though, they can work in theory at least. Review scores aren't completely meaningless, they just seem to be inflated in a weird way for games.
Metacritic should only be used as a ballpark estimation of a game's general quality. If it's 80 and up then chances are it's pretty solid for its type of a game. If it's 70 or less then most of the reviewers probably had some issues with the game and perhaps you should read or go look up what they criticized and if it'll affect your opinion, or maybe the game just was divisive.
In any case, if you simply look at the scores of games and make your decisions solely based on that then it's not the system's fault that you don't spend more time researching. So, numeric scores aren't inherently bad they just need to be interpreted correctly. Also the idea that the review scores of a publication who have multiple reviewers could be somehow consistent is pretty utopian.
Metacritic should only be used as a ballpark estimation of a game's general quality. If it's 80 and up then chances are it's pretty solid for its type of a game. If it's 70 or less then most of the reviewers probably had some issues with the game and perhaps you should read or go look up what they criticized and if it'll affect your opinion, or maybe the game just was divisive.
In any case, if you simply look at the scores of games and make your decisions solely based on that then it's not the system's fault that you don't spend more time researching. So, numeric scores aren't inherently bad they just need to be interpreted correctly. Also the idea that the review scores of a publication who have multiple reviewers could be somehow consistent is pretty utopian.
Rickenslacker
Banned
Yeah, it's a higher number, but what ends up determining something being .1 higher than something else? If it can't be justified, it's not really all that great a scale is it?
The Elite
BOSS
Yup. People who obsess over scores are partly to blame for the weight they have in the industry.
If we had to settle on something I would go for a four star system.
Please explain the part that is funny? Is it because i made that comment on titanfall? An online only game which is a policy i refuse to support? Or perhaps, its because the game is also available on PC and xbox 360?