Support NeoGAF

[boclfon479]

Buy / Not Buy
Read the review at least a bit if you want to see how person who reviewed it liked it.
Kotaku has it right. I feel like numbered reviews are fetishising the whole process almost.

I agree. Number reviews are bad because people associate numbers with facts. They should be word scores, like yes or no

 

[spekkeh]

I'd prefer five star appraisals or something like that, but I'm not opposed to numbers, I think they can be very useful.
If I was a critic, and a game had a lot of minor niggles, I'd want to name them all, so that hopefully the game developers could do a better job next time. However, if I were to actually like the overall game, say I'd give it a seven, and was not allowed to give that grade, I would have to look at all those niggles and then start to write a matching positive point (and more) so that the overall message would on average read like a seven. That would be an incredibly tiring read with a lot of pretty inconsequential stuff.
Personally I like reviews that are nice to read. If the overall tone is veering on the negative, a score slapped at the bottom could give your actual appraisal without having to rewrite the entire review to be fair and balanced.

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

Imagine that you have tied your identity really tightly with your video game console of choice. You are really wedded to the notion that the games, the experiences, everything about this game console is just superior to the other one. How could it not be? It's your team, you're part of it, and you wouldn't be part of something inferior.

Now imagine that you get punched in the mouth with numbers. The other console gets a higher number than your console. There's really nothing to fight or argue--there are two numbers, and one number, as a matter of empirical fact, is larger than the other. Your options are to a) accept this and feel sad and upset, b) get angry at reviewers and perhaps allege conspiracies or bias, c) argue that the numbers are meaningless to begin with, or d) some combination of the above.

Most people prefer not to feel sad and upset, and choose one of the other options instead. Which is why it's a big deal.

I can see that point of view. I'm an old school FPS fan and when Serious Sam 3 came out I was pretty pissed that the game got 7s and 7.5s while games like CoD got higher scores. I was spun into a rage for that. Thanks for this. I guess the lesson would be not to get too emotionally invested into something? Or learn to let things go even if they hurt? Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Gaz_RB]

Numbers are only a problem to people when they don't agree with them.

Pick a few sites that have scores that match with what you would give the games.

 

[Marcel]

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

It's clearly the most fair measure of success. If your game doesn't make Justin McElroy joyously spin around in a circle, you don't deserve a thing.

 

[VillageBC]

I think all games should start at 10 and then have a published scale of deductions for faults. Long load times -.25, graphical tearing -.5 or something to that effect. I would probably further split the rating between artistic subjective rating and technical ability rating.

Won't work but in my head I like the idea.

 

[Calabi]

I go to the score first when I read a review. I hate myself for doing it but sometimes tells me whether the review is worth reading or not.

They need to get rid of them or use something so vague no one can understand it(five star system). It doesnt benefit the sites that use them nor the writers or anyone.

 

[Glass Shark]

I think all games should start at 10 and then have a published scale of deductions for faults. Long load times -.25, graphical tearing -.5 or something to that effect. I would probably further split the rating between artistic subjective rating and technical ability rating.

Won't work but in my head I like the idea.

No offense, but that sounds like the worst.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I go to the score first when I read a review. I hate myself for doing it but sometimes tells me whether the review is worth reading or not.

They need to get rid of them or use something so vague no one can understand it(five star system). It doesnt benefit the sites that use them nor the writers or anyone.

How is a 5-point system any more vague than a 10 or 100-point scale?

 

[BRocknRolla]

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.

I'm assuming this is all a joke?

If it's not... Your scale is full of so many idiosyncrasies that it's wholly useless. Hence, the problem with review scales.

No offense, but that sounds like the worst.

Translation:

 

[Rickenslacker]

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.

With the subjectivity attached to it it's just looks silly to give it more granularity than is necessary is all. That and the only thing padding like that seems to do is raise the perception of what's "average" and just serves to reduce any use it had in the first place.

 

[jschreier]

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.

I think that in a scoreless world there are other ways to serve you and people like you, whether that's through lists of lesser-known games to check out, databases of recommendations based on your personal interests, or other forms of coverage. While I get that you appreciate having scores as an easy rubric, the cons outweigh the pros by far - particularly when you consider how often publishers try to game the system or design games based on what will score well rather than a game's specific needs or how the creators want to express themselves.

 

[Relativ9]

www.elder-geek.com (https://www.youtube.com/user/ElderGeekDotCom)

Doesn't use number scales, a game is either worth buying, worth trying (renting), or don't bother. Mostly does video reviews.

 

[dankir]

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

BINGO ! ENJOY THE GAMES NOT THE SCORES! Y'all take this shit way too seriously.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I do think in a better world numbers would go away for rating creative products like movies, music, games, etc. I think people who just desire thoughtless expediency ("Ain't got no time to read, gimmie a 9.0 must buy gold seal") don't realize they burn themselves in the long run - where do folks think so much cynicism comes from? From buying in to being told what you like. Eventually you consume enough media to realize you don't adore everything stamped with a must buy label, then you get bitter and sneer "what's all this shit? It's all overrated junk."

There are more thoughtful ways to curate content; overly simplistic systems like number scales inevitably become used for hype manipulation. ("Bigger numbers are better so let's say only games that get 10 are worth buying.")

 

[H4r4kiri]

Well one of my favorite Gamesites here in Germany is 4players.de
They are very independent and dont jump the hype train or something. They dont even do Reviews and the first day, because they always want to test the game how it really is.
They have a very good video where they state how they think reviews should be made. Not just one journalist does it, but a couple or more. Then they decide who writes the review and how they score it.

They hate the scroesystem and you can Turn it OFF on the page ( pretty cool). They said they would like to get rid of the numberstuff. BUT they said a lot of people dont even read the review and just click to the last page and see the number. If they would abandon the numbers they wouldnt earn the amount of money to maintain everything and get a paycheck. This is sad, but shows that people (mainstream) just look for numbers

 

[sparkeysam]

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.

I tend to view most "game news sites" as opinionated blog sites now, it makes them much more readable.

 

[Trey]

Removing numbers from reviews won't teach the general population to analyze opinions and compare those opinions with their own.

That's the underlying problem. "How could so and so give this game a 7?!" will simply turn into "she said the graphics aren't that good!"

 

[rob305]

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

Haha this reminds me of the thread in which TheCloser said FIFA is doesn't require any skill. He said that he wins every online match due to depth passes which you supposedly cannot defend. A couple of other gaffers called bullshit and TheCloser claimed he would defeat everyone and still said it doesn't require any skill. End of the story was that some gaffers challenged him and posted screenshots and live updates of the results in the thread in real time. TheCloser got his ass kicked in every single game. Of course, he just had a bad day

 

[VillageBC]

No offense, but that sounds like the worst.

Quite possibly, I'm modeling after Olympic judging.

 

[IAmRandom31]

The crazy thing is, the Infamous reviews are overwhelmingly positive lmao.

Even the reviews that are giving 7's and 70's are a majority very positive. The ones giving those scores are the ones feeling like the game had too little content or felt too much like the previous titles.

I'm at a loss. I was thinking the infamous reviews coming through were awesome.

 

[Raptomex]

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.

This.

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

Haha this reminds me of the thread in which TheCloser said FIFA is doesn't require any skill. He said that he wins every online match due to depth passes which you supposedly cannot defend. A couple of other gaffers called bullshit and TheCloser claimed he would defeat everyone and still said it doesn't require any skill. End of the story was that some gaffers challenged him and posted screenshots and live updates of the results in the thread in real time. TheCloser got his ass kicked in every single game. Of course, he just had a bad day

Bringing that up was unnecessary.

 

[Skilletor]

One of the problems with numbered reviews is that many people equate them to scores you'd get in an (American?) class. A 3/5 might be average, and I'd agree with that usually, but people would then say, "That's only 60%...that's a D. That's bad."

 

[kmg90]

I remember the GamePro review system as well, at the time I thought the system was a bit information overload (given that I was 8-11 years old) I would totally love to see a similar system return... Game Informer (and until recently IGN) have similar breakdowns that quantify the aspects of game in terms audio, graphical, gameplay and so on...




What about letter grades for review scale?

I understand however grade scales are taken differently through out the world....

 

[crops55]

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.

I certainly don't mean to be condescending and I do not exclude my own bias to be swayed at times by numbers and other meta scores. There is almost nothing that I believe to be more convenient and visually simple, however expressive, than the digital representation of numbers for the human mind -- it is an intrinsic registration that dates back far beyond recorded history. I was commenting more on the reason why we have numbered reviews and why they make more sense from a financial perspective for publications to exploit and possibly lend backbone to the reason why they will not end anytime soon, no matter how many viable reasons we construct here on this forum.

 

[ElTorro]

The crazy thing is, the Infamous reviews are overwhelmingly positive lmao.

They are worse than Titanfall's by 7%. That's a major problem.

 

[dmr87]

Yeah, it's one big toxic cycle that will only end when gamers stop caring enough to make threads like this. Bonuses are tied to Metacritic scores because Metacritic scores affect sales, and Metacritic scores affect sales because gamers obsess over whether the newest AAA game just got 8s or 9s, as if a game's quality can be quantified like a piece of meat. Review scores poison discussion and remove the ambiguity of criticism by forcing reviewers to write in a way that "justifies" attached numerical values when they should be trying to capture the ambivalence and weirdness of video games, which are so bizarre and cool and so worth a better level of discourse than "OMG I can't believe Polygon gave The Last of Us a 7.5." Review scores are at best arbitrary numbers determined by whether a game holistically "feels like a 9," and at worst checklists pieced together by our predetermined expectations of game-as-product ("oh, we had to knock off a point because of all the bugs").

Review scores actively harm the development of video games, too. Publishers hire consultants and mock reviewers to go out and predict a game's Metacritic average, and if a publisher can "bump a game from the 80s to the 90s" they will make decisions accordingly, because it's more important to hit that vaunted 90 Metacritic than it is to take risks or experiment or try to make games that are nuanced and interesting and might trigger ambivalence. Fascinating games like Nier and El Shaddai and Remember Me are relegated to B-movie territory because they got 6s and 7s and are considered "mediocre" games based on our collective arbitrary standards of what a video game should be. Games are defined as critical successes and failures not because of the language we use to describe them, but because Metacritic websites decided to give them 9s or 6s. There is no room for nuance. Just numbers.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: review scores are hurting video games and they need to go away.

Great post.

I'm with you OP, scores are fanboy ammunition and Metacritic needs to go away. If you haven't made up your mind about a game before release then stop pre-ordering and wait for impressions from for example, GAF. You have Twitch, where you can watch a few minutes of gameplay and decide for yourself. I can go there right now and watch any stream of Ground Zeroes, and tomorrow, Second Son.

I have nothing against reviews in general, it's just a persons opinion and if you are interested in that, feel free to read what they have to say. What happens now is people scroll to the bottom of the review, looks at the score, then goes to their respective forum either to cry or praise the game in question. One of the reasons people care is because the score along with Metacritic has too much influence, as you can read in Jason's post above.

The crazy thing is, the Infamous reviews are overwhelmingly positive lmao.

Even the reviews that are giving 7's and 70's are a majority very positive. The ones giving those scores are the ones feeling like the game had too little content or felt too much like the previous titles.

I'm at a loss. I was thinking the infamous reviews coming through were awesome.

Because of this, this is what you have been 'taught' the last couple of years.

 

[Synth]

No offense, but that sounds like the worst.

I think it could be great. Under this rating, a really fun game with enough technical flaws has the potential to reach a negative score. What could go wrong?

Haha this reminds me of the thread in which TheCloser said FIFA is doesn't require any skill. He said that he wins every online match due to depth passes which you supposedly cannot defend. A couple of other gaffers called bullshit and TheCloser claimed he would defeat everyone and still said it doesn't require any skill. End of the story was that some gaffers challenged him and posted screenshots and live updates of the results in the thread in real time. TheCloser got his ass kicked in every single game. Of course, he just had a bad day

Amazing...

 

[Beardz]

Numbers can stay but with context, let me explain:

We need a way to make profiles of the reviewers, websites, blogs, magazines, etc. a system that can recognize patterns and assign tags, flags and so on. Something similar to Metacritic or Metacritic itself.

With this "profile" we could know:

-How many "10" a website/ reviewer has given and to which games in a x period of time.
-How many games a website / reviewer has reviewed in a x period of time.
-"This reviewer prefers FPS games" (Maybe an API designed to fetch information from their Gamertag)
-"This reviewer hates Action Games" (Based on the number of Action Games reviewed by the same person / website, and their scores)

You get the drill.

Now, you could be connected to this system too. Based on your personal review scores, games you play, time you spent on those games, etc. and "affinity" system could be created.

You could know if x reviewer / website has affinity with your tastes, in theory a 10 by someone with more affinity with you, means more to you too.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, a system like this could be expanded for almost everything.

(If someone look at this post and make this shit real, please at least let me know or say "thanks" for make you rich).

 

[Marcel]

They are worse than Titanfall's by 7%. That's a major problem.

Anti-Sony bias I tells ya. They're out to get my favorite consumer product and best friend corporation.

 

[makeitawkward]

I remember the GamePro review system as well, at the time I thought the system was a bit information overload (given that I was 8-11 years old) I would totally love to see a similar system return... Game Informer (and until recently IGN) have similar breakdowns that quantify the aspects of game in terms audio, graphical, gameplay and so on...




What about letter grades for review scale?

I understand however grade scales are taken differently through out the world....

I was just going to post this myself. Whichever one had reviews that had a breakdown on each aspect with smiley/frown faces were awesome!

 

[pompidu]

Haha this reminds me of the thread in which TheCloser said FIFA is doesn't require any skill. He said that he wins every online match due to depth passes which you supposedly cannot defend. A couple of other gaffers called bullshit and TheCloser claimed he would defeat everyone and still said it doesn't require any skill. End of the story was that some gaffers challenged him and posted screenshots and live updates of the results in the thread in real time. TheCloser got his ass kicked in every single game. Of course, he just had a bad day

Fifa is shit, especially ultimate team. All i did was stacked speed cards and put on my wingers and just through balled it all day and score like mad.

 

[BRocknRolla]

What about letter grades for review scale?

I understand however grade scales are taken differently through out the world....

Grades are taken differently by every person, not even just in different countries. Anything below a B was unacceptable for the whole of my life. (And a B was just ok.) A lot of people seem wholly happy with getting C's. The numbers themselves aren't the problem, but their implication of objectivity without explanation, and letter grades will still offer the same problem. A rose by any other color... would still do a bad job.

 

[crozier]

I agree. Reviews should be written like argumentative papers, IMO. I want to hear points and counterpoints, not see an arbitrary number that more often than not reflects reviewer bias rather than the quality of the game.

 

[Glass Shark]

Something to consider: if game reviews were not scored and Metacritic couldn't exist in the way it does now, something else similarly reductive would take its place. Just look at Rotten Tomatoes — a lot of the movie reviews it aggregates do not have numbered or graded scores, but it assigns them a "rotten" or "fresh" rating anyway. And that site is an important resource for a lot of people determining what movies to go see.

Taking away scores doesn't solve the problem that people don't have time to read a bunch of reviews of a game they are interested in. And — let's face it — even if they did have the time, most people just wouldn't want to.

There is a certain audience that will always want a number score, and if the review is not scored, they won't read it. If you want to write a game review that isn't scored, you need to go into it assuming that only a very particular type of person is going to read the whole thing. The best you can do for everyone else is not try to measure quality of games in their score and to clearly define what your scores mean.

 

[The Incredible Muffin]

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?

You make a lot of accustations in that statement, but provide no remedies.

It is just plain stupid to attack a reviewer for whatever score he gives. Like you said it is subjective. It is what THAT person thinks about the game.

This remark:

''We need to stop attaching numbers to reviews. It is pointless. It leads to inconsistencies in scoring, claims of bias and fraudulent reviews.''

Is just plain dumb.

You are contradicting yourself. It IS subjective, people that can not deal with that are not to be symphatized with. Scores are supposed to be inconsistent, they are supposed to shed light of a game in the eyes of different reviewers. THAT is what they are bloody for! If you are going after consistancy why bother having multiple reviews at all?
So what is your suggestion? Go like Kotaku? Yes you should play this game??? Isnt that subjective as well? IMO the most useless socring system ever. Some ppl might dislike Infamous for instance for different reasons that they liked it.
And to answer your question: What is the difference between a 8.1 and a 8.2? There isnt any! If anyone would justify his purchase because it scored a 8.2 instead of a 8.1 he would be daft.
Quantative scores are for people that cant be bothered to read a whole review but know the reviewer. They have agreed with his views in the past so trust their best judgement on a game. Quantative scores are here to stay and for good reason.
Personally I like all kinds of reviews. But I also know which reviews to take seriously and which to take with a grain of salt.
If people get up in arms because Gamespot gave Last of Us a lower score than other outlets did let the kids cry. Seriously who gives a damn? It is absolutely stupid to give those people attention.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I remember the GamePro review system as well, at the time I thought the system was a bit information overload (given that I was 8-11 years old) I would totally love to see a similar system return... Game Informer (and until recently IGN) have similar breakdowns that quantify the aspects of game in terms audio, graphical, gameplay and so on...

Argh, the individual breakdown is perhaps one of the worst ways in which to review a game. Are movies broken down into Plot, Acting, Special Effects, Script, etc? No, they're not, and for good reason--it's about how it comes together, not how any one element performs in isolation.

So what is your suggestion? Go like Kotaku? Yes you should play this game??? Isnt that subjective as well? IMO the most useless socring system ever. Some ppl might dislike Infamous for instance for different reasons that they liked it.

Yep, Kotaku's system's even worse, as it hilariously advices everyone to avoid a game, as if Kotaku knows what every gamer wants to play. It's silly.

 

[casmith07]

I only read reviews to see if things have significantly changed from the video, trailers, and preview articles I've seen.

I usually know right out what kind of games I like and don't like...so it's fairly easy for me to not get wrapped around the axle about a review score.

Like I said...if the review says that the game is way better than it previewed, that's great. If the review is like "man WTF happened between the alpha build we played and release?" then I'll pass.

Everyone needs to basically be their own reviewer. It's hard, without a press pass to get earlier hands on previews, but I think with the availability of gameplay videos, trailers, information, interviews, etc. it's possible.

Edit: I also liked EGM's model as well -- I think websites should have three or four guys or gals review the game and give their personal scores if they're going to do that. That way you have people who are working under the same editorial philosophy providing their critique and you can more easily compare personalities and line up your own personal gaming personality with that of the reviewers. But now I'm getting into editorial theory and stuff, lol. I'll stop.

 

[K.Sabot]

I don't follow reviews based on sites, but on reviewers usually.

Like I put a bunch of stock into Tom Chick's reviews because I like the way he looks at games even if I don't exactly share the same tastes.

Scores don't bother me, but using them as a way to quantify the game, rather than the review text itself if a horrible practice.

That said, I will never, ever take a review from the guy who gave Dragon Age 2 a 9.4 and the people who allowed him to give that game a 9.4 at PCgamer seriously ever again.

 

[Goldenroad]

Buy / Not Buy
Read the review at least a bit if you want to see how person who reviewed it liked it.
Kotaku has it right. I feel like numbered reviews are fetishising the whole process almost.

I like this the best. I don't even read Kotaku or their reviews, but I do like their system for "scoring" games. Either a game is good and people should play it, or it's not good and people should avoid it, and clearly this is purely subjective, but to the individual reviewing a game it should be a pretty easy binary decision.

Actually, instead of "Buy/Not Buy", "Play/Not Play" should really be the stand the reviewer should take, since my time to me is a lot more valuable than arguably the $3 I might end up paying for a game on a Steam sale.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Either a game is good and people should play it, or it's not good and people should avoid it, and clearly this is purely subjective, but to the individual reviewing a game it should be a pretty easy binary decision.

But people's opinions of a "good" game and a "bad" game can and are entirely different, which is why Kotaku's system is just as worthless. It purports to speak for everyone objectively, which is impossible. It can turn people away from a game they may otherwise like, just as much as a score can

 

[striferser]

Buy / Not Buy
Read the review at least a bit if you want to see how person who reviewed it liked it.
Kotaku has it right. I feel like numbered reviews are fetishising the whole process almost.

Yup, Kotaku got it right for review.

Buy/Not Buy/ Not yet

it's so damn simple, and will make reader read the review.

and probably mix in famitsu style of review, with 2/3 reviewer write review for the same game.

 

[Glass Shark]

But people's opinions of a "good" game and a "bad" game can and are entirely different, which is why Kotaku's system is just as worthless. It can turn people away from a game they may otherwise like, just as much as a score can

Agree. I can't see how Kotaku's system is any less reductive than scores are. In fact, in some ways it's worse.

 

[Calabi]

How is a 5-point system any more vague than a 10 or 100-point scale?

Because you call them stars(monkeys or whatever), that for a start removes them from the seeming objectivity of numbers. There is less room to manoeuvre, so most games will stick around the middle, three monkeys, the real middle. With the majority getting 3 stars, viewers will have to read or look elsewhere to discern what is different or special about this game.

As opposed to the out of 10 and out of 100 system whereby the majority are 7 or 80, the fake middle. The decimal point is just absurdly ridiculous. Its like the people whom use these systems really do want them to mean something objectively.

The five star system easily equates to subjective words as well. 1 star awful, 2 bad, 3 average, 4 good, 5 brilliant.

 

[IAmRandom31]

Holy shit is that not the truest thing I've ever seen LMAO

 

[Goldenroad]

But people's opinions of a "good" game and a "bad" game can and are entirely different, which is why Kotaku's system is just as worthless. It purports to speak for everyone, which is impossible. It can turn people away from a game they may otherwise like, just as much as a score can

I disagree with this point entirely. There is no such thing as an objective opinion. That would create a paradox that would swallow up this entire industry and the world as we know it. All a reviewer can say is either "I think people should play this game" or "I don't think people should play this game"....that's the closest thing to an objective opinion that a person can give.

 

[mishakoz]

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

I kinda had hopes myself it would score super high and be the next uncharted in popularity. Anything to get more infamous games. Fucking love infamous.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I disagree with this point entirely. There is no such thing as an objective opinion.

Obviously. But when they present it literally as "Should you play this game?," that's exactly what they're presenting it as

 

[Odrion]

The biggest problem with all these "Fuck all numbers!" discussions is that they always feel reactionary and hypocritical.

We didn't get a bunch of these threads when Dark Souls 2 got a 92 metascore, or when Towerfall beat out Titanfall.