Support NeoGAF

[Arkage]

Numbered (or grade letter) reviews in videogames will go away just as soon as numbered reviews in movies, music, books, education and employee reviews go away. Which is to say, never. Number ratings are valuable to a large population of people for a vast array of things and meta is as close to an "objective" grade you'll get for media products. And myself being an educator, I find this notion of "it's just your opinion, man" to be both valid and pointless. Everything is an opinion if you want to get that philosophical about it, but we collectively have expectations for the difference between failure and success, and we must attempt to be objective whether or not objectivity can be attained. Numbers are a reasonable attempt.

 

[Zia]

No, because sometimes it's hard to glean the difference between something like an 8 (which let's be real here, is almost a 7, which is the popular average) and an 8.5 (which is halfway to 9, almost a potential classic) because "game journalists" are so bad at articulating themselves. Without the score, how do I know which interactive consumer entertainment products I'm to spend my money on?

 

[see5harp]

That...


That is quantifying a game. You are scoring the game and giving it a quantity. Just like expecting reviewer scores to match reality when it comes to other games.

Damn leave The Closer alone!!!

 

[Richardbro]

You're a member on GAF but you don't have ten minutes to read a game review written at around the Grade 10 level or so? Where did you find the time to make this post?

Lol. Did I mention I was one of those people? Please read again and don't assume.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Ten point scale works just fine. So does 100. Stop treating it like an absolute comparative and instead treat it like an arbitrary summation of the review body.

 

[mishakoz]

What is the controversy that the OP mentioned? I dont see anything indicative on the first page.

 

[jschreier]

Strongly disagree. There are way too many games for any one person to play; review scores allow games to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The vast majority of gamers don't care about minor variations and inconsistencies in scoring. The only ones complaining about such are internet addicts who'd rather whine online than play games.

The problem with this reductive mentality is that it presumes "quality" is one standard held by everyone who plays video games. Review scores are harmful not just because they try to quantify quality but because they place every game on the same scale, when really, we should be analyzing and critiquing every game as an individual piece of art, not trying to figure out whether it's a 7 or an 8 or an 8.2 in relation to the Large Theorum Of Video Game Numbers. Suikoden V, one of my favorite games of all time, has a 76 on Metacritic, which most would consider "chaff." If I had gone by the numbers, I would have missed out on what I consider an amazing game. That "76" isn't just meaningless to me; it's actively harmful. This review score culture discourages game-makers from weird, experimental projects or games that won't "review well" for fear that they might get 6s and 7s.

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

That...


That is quantifying a game. You are scoring the game and giving it a quantity. Just like expecting reviewer scores to match reality when it comes to other games.

*Prints off entire post history to prevent myself from ever contradicting anything that I have previously said or else feel the wrath of EmCee*

 

[Marcel]

No, because sometimes it's hard to glean the different between something like an 8 (which let's be real here, is almost a 7, which is the popular average) and an 8.5 (which is halfway to 9, almost a potential classic) because "game journalists" are so bad at articulating themselves. Without the score, how do I know which interactive consumer entertainment products I'm to spend my money on?

You could always buy something because, you know, you like it. Independent of some number or affirmation from the enthusiast press. Is this getting too real?

 

[anexanhume]

Damn leave The Closer alone!!!

.

The problem with this reductive mentality is that it presumes "quality" is one standard held by everyone who plays video games. Review scores are harmful not just because they try to quantify quality but because they place every game on the same scale, when really, we should be analyzing and critiquing every game as an individual piece of art, not trying to figure out whether it's a 7 or an 8 or an 8.2 in relation to the Large Theorum Of Video Game Numbers. Suikoden V, one of my favorite games of all time, has a 76 on Metacritic, which most would consider "chaff." If I had gone by the numbers, I would have missed out on what I consider an amazing game. That "76" isn't just meaningless to me; it's actively harmful. This review score culture discourages game-makers from weird, experimental projects or games that won't "review well" for fear that they might get 6s and 7s.

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

I think the biggest problem is that reviews expect the reviewer to reconcile a game's artistic value with how fun it is and distill that into a single number.

 

[Nafai1123]

A: Must buy if you call yourself a gamer. If you hate this game you should see someone about your anger issues.

B: Buy if you like to own everything or enjoy the genre. If you do not like the genre, do not buy and then bitch about how you don't like it.

C: Maybe buy if you don't mind a mild clusterfuck day 1 and/or you like to be hip/cool/alternative. That way you can try to convince your friends that the game is "totally worth it" even though you might be the only one that thinks so.

D: Don't buy unless you like to spend hard earned money on a game that you will inevitably regret purchasing. You might enjoy the first hour, but don't bother trying to convince yourself it's worth finishing. It really isn't.

F: Fuck this game. Stay away from it at all costs. Burn it with fire if possible.

If all sites adhered to this simple rating system, the world would be a better place.

Edit: Pluses and minuses are just things that teachers come up with when they don't like a student, so if you see a plus or minus you know the reviewer has lost all sense of credibility or confidence in their score and should thereby be disregarded and banished.

 

[Dion Blaster]

I think the game that got me to really rethink the whole number system is Killer 7. Could I see myself scoring this game anything above an 8 in an "objective" review? Probably not, but I would certainly recommend it to basically anyone to experience (and that's having not even finished yet). That disconnect kind of made me realize how arbitrary the whole system is. A number can't define a game like Killer 7, and that's probably true for most games.

 

[R&D]

All gaming sites should adopt a 4 or 5 stars score system like movie reviews.

 

[patapuf]

Sure they're subjective, but there can be enough to give proper reasoning as to why someone would rate something a 7 over a 6 and how that reflects towards the overall perceived quality of the game. What can be said over a .1? What is the qualitative difference between games separated by that much? "Oh, I'd give this the extra .1 but the crosshair colour is just not doing it for me."

I've never seen a reviewer quantify in detail why the score is as high/low as it is.

My point is that as a consumer whether the score is 7/10 or 72/100 or even 3/5 all tells you the same thing. It doesn't really matter whether the extra 0.1 is properly justified or not. If you care about the justification of a score you read the review anyway - and then you don't need the score in the first place.

 

[breakfuss]

Nah, I disagree. Problem isn't the number system. Movies, music, television, books, restaurants, hotels. People aren't throwing themselves off of cliffs when those are scored differently than what they expected.

What is the controversy that the OP mentioned? I dont see anything indicative on the first page.

The Second Son reviews.

 

[mishakoz]

Nah, I disagree. Problem isn't the number system. Movies, music, television, books, restaurants, hotels. People aren't throwing themselves off of cliffs when those are scored differently than what they expected.



The Second Son reviews.

What exactly about them other than the fact that they have a pretty wide spread? I'm sorry its a 2400 post thread and I don't see anything that obviously bad.

 

[jsip]

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

.

 

[Odrion]

An exclusive on some people's favorite console didn't score as high as an exclusive on a different console.

There was much weeping.

I wonder how long this is going to last. If Driveclub or The Order, god forbid, only score a LOW EIGHTY on metacritic will we continue to see threads demanding a revolution on games journalism? More threads that obsess over a singular consensus that various publications agree on?

Like, maybe some of these threads have a topic of discussion that bears some merit, but since they're typically a reaction from what you pointed out, they have a pathetic tone to them. The same sort of tone a person has after they've been rejected.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Only if we are compiling them into an aggregate site like Metacritic or Gamerankings, which we shouldn't.

A game that gets a 3/5 sounds much better than a game that's a 6/10, even though they are technically the same percentage.

1= Bad
2= Below Average
3= Average
4= Good
5= Great/Superb

There are clear discrepancies between each of those scores, whereas the difference between a 7 and an 8 on a 10 point scale is harder to articulate. When you get down to the lower end of the 10 point scale, it get even blurrier on the difference between a 3 and a 4.

I think the deal is that even a five-point scale doesn't do a good job of explaining itself or the product being reviewed when we already live in a five-point scale (5-10) world, anyway. Maybe shortform, linear, and passive entertainment can get away with a more general method of describing the value of that two-hour movie, but games are, by comparison, infinitely more complex with many more unique opportunities for the player to find themselves quitting before even playing very far in, or to find themselves stopping just short of finishing, or having the rest of their playthrough negatively affected by an issue that cannot so easily be explained in a score. If people always want something shorter to go by, they can skim or the reviewer can write a summation paragraph or sentence. No need for numbers at all when they simply cannot inform well enough to suit the medium.

 

[Gestault]

I think the sort of complaint about review scores seen here is the result of people who aren't actually looking for recommendations for games when they see reviews, but are actively seeking out validation or points of contention for views they already have. I think the prevalence of pre-ordering reinforced that dynamic.

Regarding the title assertion: So you'll ask them politely? All of them? A review is editorial. It's not binding, as far as the end-user is concerned. I don't think you've made a compelling case for why numbered reviews "must" stop. People and outlets choose the forms they do because it's made sense for them. It's quite bold to say, in effect, you know better than their collective reasoning on formatting. I don't see how end-users are harmed by the practice, and it hasn't been explained here.

Regarding your primary question of how you can quantify a subjective work: This is a necessary process (imperfect or otherwise) to help curate any creative work. People seek these reactions out. The numbered review is a distillation of the recommendations of the reviewer. Full stop. It's no worse than pulling a selected blurb of a review. I think numbered reviews exist for a reason. That being the amount of energy it takes to read and react to dozens of write-ups for every game release. I say this as someone who goes out of his way to read long-form reviews.

I don't understand the imperative to stop quantifying the reaction to games. The written reviews are the core of the commentary. Numbered/lettered evaluations are a layer above that. They only have as much value as you ascribe them. Honestly, most people I see aren't looking to reviews for purchase recommendations. They're looking for a way to justify or react to viewpoints they've already made. If you honestly feel helpless in terms of knowing the quality of games in this day and age, there are plenty of ways to find this information. Streaming, Youtube, write-ups, discussion from users. Waiting, if you're actually concerned about the quality of a game, is a very simple thing.

 

[Synth]

What exactly about them other than the fact that they have a pretty wide spread? I'm sorry its a 2400 post thread and I don't see anything that obviously bad.

You appear to be unaware that any score under 91 on metacritic is a disaster.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

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

That would never happen when you have a number attached to reviews. Of course its going to be averaged out.

 

[Marcel]

What exactly about them other than the fact that they have a pretty wide spread? I'm sorry its a 2400 post thread and I don't see anything that obviously bad.

It didn't score as high as Titanfall.

"My AAA Burger King meal was ranked worse than your AAA McDonalds meal. These harmful reviews must be stopped."

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

That's like saying that reviews shouldn't have conclusions or summaries because that is all that a numeric score is. It is a quick summary of a review. If you want more detail then read the review.

I use scores to let me quickly filter out games that won't be worth my time to read the entire review. It also lets me quickly spot games that I'd normally overlook, but will research more due to an unusually high score. It's just a first line filtering tool.

But scores are relative to the individual. I like like GTA games about 10 points less than they review. On the other hand any game that has local campaign coop jumps about 10 points to me. Once you find a couple of sources that you trust for reviews and factor in your own person biases, scores can be highly predictive of the games you'll enjoy.

 

[ghst]

if it were a movie, i'm sure gregg turkington would've given infamous five bags of popcorn and eagerly anticipated its VHS release.

it's a shame games journalism is so immature that it can't yet hope to breed critics of his calibre.

 

[ElTorro]

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

People's individual rankings of games (from the same genre) are still very helpful, though. If I want to play a game with a good story and relaxed gameplay, and 4 out of 5 people recommend me Gone Home, then there is a probability for me to like this game that is high enough to warrant a purchase.

Scores do provide this function. They could be replaced by something different, though. For instance, consolidated "My top games" lists for different genres from different review authors.

 

[Kintaro]

The problem with this reductive mentality is that it presumes "quality" is one standard held by everyone who plays video games. Review scores are harmful not just because they try to quantify quality but because they place every game on the same scale, when really, we should be analyzing and critiquing every game as an individual piece of art, not trying to figure out whether it's a 7 or an 8 or an 8.2 in relation to the Large Theorum Of Video Game Numbers. Suikoden V, one of my favorite games of all time, has a 76 on Metacritic, which most would consider "chaff." If I had gone by the numbers, I would have missed out on what I consider an amazing game. That "76" isn't just meaningless to me; it's actively harmful. This review score culture discourages game-makers from weird, experimental projects or games that won't "review well" for fear that they might get 6s and 7s.

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

This would be great...if people didn't ultimately view Video Games as products. There is money at stake and no one wants to waste their money. Were games priced lower, you would be on to something. However, with $60 (usually) on the line and no refunds, they want to know how good the game is or how bad the game is. And they want it NOW.

Numbered reviews are just a byproduct of our "microwave" society. People want the most important information quickly so they can play with their friends when the hype is at its climax.

Blame people. Not the numbers.

 

[Riposte]

I think the biggest problem is that reviews expect the reviewer to reconcile a game's artistic value with how fun it is and distill that into a single number.

Unless something's artistic value is how fun it is. Divorcing the two naturally leads to confusion. If you want clarity, there should just be "good", not "good" and "art" and "importance" or whatever decadent deviation someone can think of.

 

[Hoodbury]

The problem with this reductive mentality is that it presumes "quality" is one standard held by everyone who plays video games. Review scores are harmful not just because they try to quantify quality but because they place every game on the same scale, when really, we should be analyzing and critiquing every game as an individual piece of art, not trying to figure out whether it's a 7 or an 8 or an 8.2 in relation to the Large Theorum Of Video Game Numbers. Suikoden V, one of my favorite games of all time, has a 76 on Metacritic, which most would consider "chaff." If I had gone by the numbers, I would have missed out on what I consider an amazing game. That "76" isn't just meaningless to me; it's actively harmful. This review score culture discourages game-makers from weird, experimental projects or games that won't "review well" for fear that they might get 6s and 7s.

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

I'm still undecided on my opinion on this topic but I don't necessarily believe the Yes/No scale is any better.

How many fun games in my opinion would I miss out on if your opinion was a No?

There doesn't seem to be a great fix for this but I agree with the person you quoted, for some of us who don't follow every game to a T as it's in development and getting previews, a score helps determine if it's worth our time or not. I'm a busy guy with a wife/kids and a full time job, sometimes I'll hear about a buzz worthy game that I might like so I'll see if it's getting good reviews on average without having to read 30 reviews that take 10 minutes each. Sad but true I guess.

It's a flawed system of course and of course I've missed out on some games I'm sure I would have liked that got lower scores, but for the most part it's treated me well and I've had a good gaming experience with the games I've ended up buying.

 

[R&D]

Nah, I disagree. Problem isn't the number system. Movies, music, television, books, restaurants, hotels. People aren't throwing themselves off of cliffs when those are scored differently than what they expected.

Yes the drama is only because of the system wars. If there was only one platform, there would be no problems. Games would be reviewed normally like movies.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

No numbers means people will have to invest time in forming their opinions. How many people do you know that go out of their way to read on a daily basis?

Personally, I really am not a fan of this kind of condescension. Honestly, I see both the pros and cons of assigning a number. The con is that obviously a lot of nuance and context that goes into formulating a complex opinion goes away when the entirety of my criticism of a game is distilled down to "8/10." But the pro is that I understand why some people just want a quick gut check of how a number of people feel about a title before diving in themselves. "What am I getting myself into here?" is a question I feel a lot of people ask. And I think a quick "the metacritic average for the game is 83" is reassuring in that it tells you that the bulk of critics think it's a good game. The score does its job there.

Where I feel everything falls apart is when people ignore that scoring isn't an exact science. It's also not indicative of good critical insight. But yet, so much time and energy will go into citing scores or nitpicking scores because it's a quick and dirty metric to make a point. And the reason why this is alarming is that -- while scores have their utility -- it's important to remember that they're ultimately arbitrary. I might think something is a 9/10 now, and a week later think back on it and whether or not I'd want to revisit it and suddenly think that with the gift of hindsight, it's really more of an 8/10. I might pick it up 6 months later and realize I missed a lot of the mechanical nuance and decide that it's really a 10/10.

And what's absolutely absurd is when people apply a set of expectations across different reviewers or even different outlets. "How can Game A get a B out of C from Outlet D while Game E gets an F out of G from Outlet H!? It doesn't make any sense!" Really, scores are just one tool that people can use to assess a game's success. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with outlets scoring games or readers wanting to see scores, but I think a lot of the meta-discussion surrounding scores tends to be awful.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

The problem with this reductive mentality is that it presumes "quality" is one standard held by everyone who plays video games. Review scores are harmful not just because they try to quantify quality but because they place every game on the same scale, when really, we should be analyzing and critiquing every game as an individual piece of art, not trying to figure out whether it's a 7 or an 8 or an 8.2 in relation to the Large Theorum Of Video Game Numbers. Suikoden V, one of my favorite games of all time, has a 76 on Metacritic, which most would consider "chaff." If I had gone by the numbers, I would have missed out on what I consider an amazing game. That "76" isn't just meaningless to me; it's actively harmful. This review score culture discourages game-makers from weird, experimental projects or games that won't "review well" for fear that they might get 6s and 7s.

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

I dont have time to read a lot of reviews and there are a lot of gamers out there like me. If a game gets a good score, then i read the review to see if anything sounds interesting to me. So if you get rid of review scores i still wont play those smaller experimental titles because those arent really on my radar to begin with, a review score is what gets my attention.

Games arent large one off purchases like electronics, a car, etc..... so im not going to spend a lot of time carefully reading opinions on them. Numerous games come out every month and for someone who is increasingly becoming more of a casual gamer there just isnt time to sit down and read multiple reviews for every game released.

 

[Marcel]

If there was only one platform, there would be no problems. Games would be reviewed normally like movies.

Can you imagine a world without system wars?

 

[Koren]

Buy / Not Buy
Read the review at least a bit if you want to see how person who reviewed it liked it.

While I agree, I usually use numbers to FIND reviews where the reviewer really enjoyed or disliked the game.

I think that (honest) dissenting opinions are usually the ones that raises the most interesting points. I can agree or disagree with those, but at least, it's informative.

I'm doing the same with most internet reviews: on Amazon, I'll read e.g. 5-stars and 1-stars reviews, to see why people were excited with the item, and which problems I may expect.

So no... I DO want the numbers. Not as a definitive decision on the quality of the game, but as a way to find most informative reviews among many.

 

[phanphare]

what controversy today? that Infamous SS got good reviews? or that GAF cares too much about the outliers?

 

[Crispy75]

There are certain things you can give objective scores for. For example, a game that manages 1080p@60fps should get a better score.

This is symptomatic of the immaturity of our medium. You don't read movie reviews to find out whether the camera was in focus, or that they used the right microphone, you just accept that the trusted methods of movie-making have been stuck to. I mean, why wouldn't they?

A 4 or 5 star rating system is good enough for movies and it should be good enough for games.

 

[sparkeysam]

Do we even need reviews anymore to make a decision on a game? With so many people expressing opinions and discussing ideas on YouTube and forums alike, reviews are seeming more and more irrelevant.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Do we even need reviews anymore to make a decision on a game? With so many people expressing opinions and discussing ideas on YouTube and forums alike, reviews are seeming more and more irrelevant.

Nope not for me. I base every decision on gaf and these bastards rarely let me down.

 

[Synth]

People's individual rankings of games (from the same genre) are still very helpful, though. If I want to play a game with a good story and relaxed gameplay, and 4 out of 5 people recommend me Gone Home, then there is a probability for me to like this game that is high enough to warrant a purchase.

Scores do provide this function. They could be replaced by something different, though. For instance, consolidated "My top games" lists for different genres from different review authors.

I would definitely prefer this, as I feel that many types of games find it essentially impossible to achieve scores similar to those in of other types, despite being pretty much perfect if you had an interest in that type of game (such as non-sim racers).

 

[Odrion]

Here's my dumb idea: Push the embargo past the release. It'll become like the modern indie music scene.

Passionate consumers get their hands on the product first, they get to consume the game and be their own interpreter of the product, said consumers get to discuss the qualities of the game before critics get to.

Then they get to obsess about what score Edge (or whoever the Pitchfork equivalent of gaming is) will give it, then they will panic and rage when Edge gives it a score two numbers lower than expected but quietly agree months later.

Of course the problem with this is that games cost $60 while everyone flagrantly steals music or listens to it on Spotify these days.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

But the problem here is, what I consider to be a 9/10 might as well be a 7/10 for another person, even based on the exact same merits. Unless you boil scores down to "yes/meh/no" you can't chalk that up to noise in the measurement. If you do so, you defeat the purpose of the review. Even then, how you translate one person's 8/10 to "yes" or "meh" is completely arbitrary. When you translate a 4/5 into a 80/100 in metacritic, you lose a lot of the nuance that a 4 holds in a 5 point scale versus how 80 holds in a 100 point scale.

Well, if I understand you correctly, now we're talking about how the review score maps onto the user's own experience. Before, I was just defending the logic of quantifying one's own experience.

You're right that this aspect of review scores is problematic. A high score from a reviewer is no guarantee of customer satisfaction. Again, I'd argue that the real problem is how people react to the numbers and not the use of numbers themselves. If a person indiscriminately buys every game that scores 90 or above on metacritic, they will not love all of them.

The way I think about a score of 9/10 is probabilistic rather than precise. I believe I am more likely to enjoy that game than a game that got a 6/10, all else being equal. I don't take it as a guarantee. I'm well aware of my own tastes and use them to adjust my expectations of how much I'll like a game accordingly.

But, importantly, the review scores aren't completely uncorrelated with my own enjoyment (i.e., arbitrary). As long as many of the same factors influence both my experience and the reviewers experience, scores will function as a rough guide. I'm not going to pretend to be so iconoclastic as to have nothing in common with the people giving the scores.

So I find scores useful in terms of flagging games that I should investigate further. I don't obsess about them or argue about them, though.

 

[Ape]

I don't think that things will change so it's a better idea to be less emotionally invested in the way games are numerically scored. Detach yourself from being effected if the next Halo or Uncharted "flop" and make it so that it only matters if you enjoy the game - a 95 on metacritic won't guarantee that either. Do what works for you, if that's reading one person's reviews or a couple of sites. Maybe it's asking a few of your friends for their opinions on the game in question.

Ultimately a high metacritic has two purposes. To pay the devs a nice bonus for hitting a predetermined number and to give fan boys fodder. Other than that I can't think of a practical reason for it.

 

[Willy Wanka]

Scores are fine, people reacting to the scores is the problem.

This is it in a nutshell. I think the 100 point system is superfluous and I have huge misgivings about metacritic and its influence on the games industry as a whole but the real problem here is obvious.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

Removing scores changes none of this

 

[Giolon]

The problem with this reductive mentality is that it presumes "quality" is one standard held by everyone who plays video games. Review scores are harmful not just because they try to quantify quality but because they place every game on the same scale, when really, we should be analyzing and critiquing every game as an individual piece of art, not trying to figure out whether it's a 7 or an 8 or an 8.2 in relation to the Large Theorum Of Video Game Numbers. Suikoden V, one of my favorite games of all time, has a 76 on Metacritic, which most would consider "chaff." If I had gone by the numbers, I would have missed out on what I consider an amazing game. That "76" isn't just meaningless to me; it's actively harmful. This review score culture discourages game-makers from weird, experimental projects or games that won't "review well" for fear that they might get 6s and 7s.

There is no separating the wheat from the chaff, because video games are personal and weird and subjective, and everyone has totally different ideas of what the "wheat" and the "chaff" are.

Even if you move only to a simplified recommend/no recommend system (or no system at all, relying only on the rest of the text) you're still only getting the reviewer's opinion and people are still likely to miss out on experiences they might enjoy.

What has failed to be explained is why video games are any different than movies, books, or restaurants in this regard. All are subjective experiences and all are rated.

 

[Marcel]

With so many people expressing opinions and discussing ideas on YouTube and forums alike, reviews are seeming more and more irrelevant.

Shhh, reviews are among the few things the enthusiast press still gets good traffic on.

Considering people around here like to heap the shit on game news sites (and rightfully so), I'm not sure why anyone cares what they have to say with regards to numbers and affirmations.

 

[GalacticGravy]

I like the numbers. It gives you an idea of what's inside. A really well written last paragraph serves the same purpose functionally. Sometimes I'll even read the last paragraph before the rest of the article to get a taste of what the reviewer feels. For example, earlier this week I saw Polygon gave MGSV:GZ a 5.5. I thought "Huh. That's a bummer. I wonder why." and then I read the review. I don't take it too seriously, I don't go "WHAT THE FUCK THIS SOUNDED MORE LIKE A 6 THAN A 5.5!!!" I just don't care that much. For me, it's like a little bow that ties a review together.

Years and years ago I used to read GameFan. When that went under some members tried to put together another mag called GameGO! They tried to be exactly what a lot of the hardcore enthusiasts wanted but unfortunately it only lasted for one issue. I think there was a 2nd but it never got printed. They made a bold statement in the front of the mag saying "We're not doing numbers!" I remember being like "Wow, how ballsy." But in the end it didn't seem as cool as I thought. It was the same thing. The exact same thing. Except there wasn't a number on the page. Nothing changed. It didn't blow my mind or make me safer or more comfortable. It didn't make a difference. I'm talking just about my views as a reader, I know stuff like Metacritic is a whole other thing. But as just one dude reading about video games it didn't matter as much as I thought.

 

[anexanhume]

Unless something's artistic value is how fun it is. Divorcing the two naturally leads to confusion. If you want clarity, there should just be "good", not "good" and "art" and "importance" or whatever decadent deviation someone can think of.

Does basketball have artistic value because it's a fun sport to play? I don't think the term is applicable as you're suggesting. An experience can be good without being fun. It can also be fun while being apathetic to any notion of art or meaningful intellectual experience.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

Let me start by saying that this topic is offspring of today's new controversy. People have been bashing reviewers today and honestly, its not their fault. The practice today is to write a detailed review and then provide a numbered score at the end.

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.

Opinions?

The whole metacritic aggregate minimum for bonus structure for devs is a poison to the industry, and only scares more pubs and devs away from taking more chances and trying drastically new things for AAA games. Scores don't mean much when a lot of reviewers actual text in the review has far more context many people don't bother paying attention to. I think Kotaku's Yes, No, Not Yet system is one of the worst incarnations of the rating system. Despite providing explanation for some of those "Not Yet" ones it doesn't feel very helpful or constructive to consumers unless it's specifically related to network issues preventing proper functionality.

I'll admit I'm part of the problem too because there's a part of me that is gleeful when seeing a bunch of 9s spread around for a title I've been anticipating for a while like TLoU, but it still isn't a healthy indicator of how I'm going to react to it necessarily (though in that case it was). Bioshock Infinite and GTA V were good examples. I hyped both up beyond belief, and then once seeing all those glowing Infinite reviews assumed this was indeed the second coming of OG Bioshock. Imagine my surprise at the ho hum copy paste affair it turned out being. Same with GTA V, but that one was less surprising because all GTA main games review well with the majority of the gaming press. I should have known what to expect going in, but later realized that game type had just grown stale on me.

It's a flawed system but unfortunately not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[EmptySpace]

when people's bonuses and careers are at the mercy of metacritic, then you know something's wrong.