I'm pretty sure there's an element of games these days being marketed and designed (at the macro level) in such a way that they tend to get higher review scores. In other words, what I'm saying is that large publishers have learnt how to "tick all the boxes", to almost guarantee that they get a score in the 8-9 range. This means we get a bunch of highly rated but ultimately average games that competently fulfill the common criteria used to review games. Since the review score is such a key marketing tool and will affect the sales of the game, it's no wonder really.
-
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
NullPointer
Member
I'd be more than OK with this, but I also appreciate a simple BUY or AVOID verdict as well, like what Kotaku does. Me and my buddies talk about gaming quite a bit, and we each have different tastes, but whenever we're discussing a game we've played, numerical quality scales don't ever come into it. And numerical scales with decimal point precision are probably the stupidest thing there is.
I think you could easily ditch the numbers but would-be consumers are still going to want a simple, digestible verdict. We're netizens here, and we're a skimming people.
I think you could easily ditch the numbers but would-be consumers are still going to want a simple, digestible verdict. We're netizens here, and we're a skimming people.
You are misunderstanding our system, which is designed to present a personal recommendation, not some sort of definitive statement. "If you went up to this reviewer at a bar and asked whether you should play this game, what would he/she say?" The answer is our "score." It works well in that it doesn't try to quantify something that can't be quantified, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't place games on some sort of arbitrary numerical scale that encourages conversations like "omg how did Dead Space 3 get a 10 when The Last of Us got a 7.5?"
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
It's amusing how often this topic comes up and then 5 minutes later everybody goes to the "review thread" for a game he wants and either tells people how great the game is cause it got so damn good scores or how stupid all the reviewers are cause the review gave it a low score.
It seems to me people only really care about review scores if they feel a game they like (or want to like) got an unfair treatment.
Now be very honest all of you: How many of you have clicked on a link for a review for inFamous or Yoshi or Metal Gear on a site they normally don't visit? Well?
Or visited a review thread and just looked at the numbers without reading the review?
It seems to me people only really care about review scores if they feel a game they like (or want to like) got an unfair treatment.
Now be very honest all of you: How many of you have clicked on a link for a review for inFamous or Yoshi or Metal Gear on a site they normally don't visit? Well?
Or visited a review thread and just looked at the numbers without reading the review?
It's even more reductive than the ten point scale.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
If I'm "misunderstanding" your system, you should strongly consider changing your question from "Should you play this game?" to really anything but. "Would I recommend this game?" would be a far better header, as you essentially state yourself
Hockeymac18
Member
I actually miss the old EGM review style where multiple writers/editors would give their opinion on the game. There would usually be one main person that did a large write up/review, and then a few other people would give their opinions. I believe they had information (somewhere in the magazine) about the types of games/styles each writer enjoyed. So I had a few writers that I paid a bit more attention to because they had similar tastes in games to me. I feel like this type of system was really useful (because people's tastes on games are so different), especially back in the day when it was much harder to see what a game was like without buying it (before youtube, before GameSpot, before downloadable demos...the best you could get back then was possibly a kiosk at a store).
This doesn't really solve the "score" issue, but I think a lot of reviews could be improved by this type of second/third/fourth opinions. They would be a lot more useful to me this way.
That being said, I think people get too caught up in the scores (and reviews in general). Read a few reviews. Watch videos of the game. Watch streams of people playing the game. Download the demo. Play a demo of the game at a store. It's really easy in this day and age to get a sense for a game and whether you'll probably like it. If you think it's fun, who cares what other people think? "Console Warzzzz" be damned...enjoy what you enjoy.
This doesn't really solve the "score" issue, but I think a lot of reviews could be improved by this type of second/third/fourth opinions. They would be a lot more useful to me this way.
That being said, I think people get too caught up in the scores (and reviews in general). Read a few reviews. Watch videos of the game. Watch streams of people playing the game. Download the demo. Play a demo of the game at a store. It's really easy in this day and age to get a sense for a game and whether you'll probably like it. If you think it's fun, who cares what other people think? "Console Warzzzz" be damned...enjoy what you enjoy.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Once text is the only thing to share in a review, that's all the reader can talk about. If the text cannot stand up to the reviewer's conclusion, then they hopefully fall away from relevancy if they don't up their game, and are then replaced by better reviewers who can defend their assessments with clear reasoning. Today's arguments are about the value of a score given. That never seems to spur much discussion about the content of the text that explains the score, and as long as it is the standard, it stands in the way of encouraging more intelligent discussions about the actual content of the text and not just how much the text lines up with the still uninformative score. The score is a distraction and a useful tool for business, whether it's clickbait or to arbitrarily deny remuneration.
meanspartan
Member
Holy shit is that not the truest thing I've ever seen LMAO
I love how the "possible GOTY" category looks like it's above 10.
Goldenroad
Member
No one in the world could write a review that is individually catered to each of the 6 billion people living on this planet and their unique tastes. All a reviewer can say is "from my experience with this game, is this a game that is worth other people's time?" and answer that question as honestly as possible from their own perspective. Asking them to quantify that honest opinion by assigning that opinion an arbitrary number is not helpful in the least to the buying public. No one can, or should ever be asked to, take on the perspective of another human being,
Casual readers like scores. Scores are there for readers. Not everyone has tie to read dozens of reviews to figure out what they want to buy so scores help. A buy or don't by scale is useful but for similar products that are good scores can help someone save time choosing between COD or Battlefield.
I trust that our readers are intelligent enough to recognize that any review is just one person's opinion.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Which is why they should change how it reads, as I've suggested.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
I admit it feels like there's a bit of a disconnect between how Dark Souls 2 & inFamous are getting reviewed. Both games fall firmly in the "Like the last game but a bit better" category and yet Dark Souls 2 is reviewing better than the last game and inFamous PS4 is reviewing noticeably worse.
NullPointer
Member
And it isn't strictly a YES or NO, as these verdicts also come with little disclaimers and notable comments. And you need those.
It works.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
And that means you can't change the wording, why? It's more accurate and closer to its intended meaning. Since you seem to be all about clarity, I don't know why you'd be opposed to this
On the contrary, I find much discussion about how a review score matches up with the actual review, or the legitimacy of a certain pull quote from a review.
Goldenroad
Member
They aren't j. Read through this thread and any other thread on this topic as hard evidence of this.
"Should you play this game?" or "Would I recommend you play this game?" or "Would one consider playing this game to be a good idea?" or "Buy/Don't Buy" are all getting the same idea across. People are getting hung up on semantics for the sake of creating an argument where one doesn't really exist.
synchronicity
Gold Member
I'm the same.
5- Top Shelf/Highest quality. Could potentially appeal whether you're a big fan of the genre or not.
4- Very fun, especially if you're into the genre/series. Only a few minor reservations/caveats.
3- Fun with some issues, may be a pass depending on what you think of the content of the review, subject matter, genre.
2- Serious issues that have to be considered by anyone who isn't totally sold beforehand.
1- Avoid at all costs.
Or something along those lines. I think we're capable of recognizing the basic differences within a 5 star scale, but a 100 point system is obviously ludicrous. Even a 10 point system is splitting hairs too fine imo.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
The semantics is the argument. Or my argument, at least. I don't know who else you might be talking about.
There have been plenty of sites before that tried to review "objectively"--which you and I agree is impossible. That doesn't stop the fact that it's been tried, and is often expected, as seen in the comments of many a review
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Seriously guys, look at this... The inFamous review thread was created today. 229,251 views. You can't say "stop with numbers" while almost 250.000 people (well, not people but "views") rush to a single thread whos sole purpose are those numbers.
Saying "oh they only do it for the clicks" is like saying "oh, HBO is only airing some shows to generate views"
OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO and there is nothing wrong with that. Cause apparently enough people still care about them.
Saying "oh they only do it for the clicks" is like saying "oh, HBO is only airing some shows to generate views"
OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO and there is nothing wrong with that. Cause apparently enough people still care about them.
Numbers are fun in reviews.
The problem is how serious people take those numbers.
It's fun to think something is an 8.1 over 8.3, but it's not fun to attach deep meaning I either numbers.
Don't people attach numbers to movies after watching them? I gave Die Hard 5 a 3.2 last night. Bad movie.
The problem is how serious people take those numbers.
It's fun to think something is an 8.1 over 8.3, but it's not fun to attach deep meaning I either numbers.
Don't people attach numbers to movies after watching them? I gave Die Hard 5 a 3.2 last night. Bad movie.
Not my call, for starters. But I'm perfectly fine with "should you play this game?" It's exactly what I'd say to a friend if they asked. "Yes, you should play this" or "no, you shouldn't play this." Or "not yet... wait for them to fix all the bugs."
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
To a friend, someone you know. You don't know your millions of readers. It's not at all the same
NullPointer
Member
Those reviews could also have just said YES or NO and it'd be just as large a thread, if not larger because people would seek context. You need more text context to inform a straightforward YES/NO as opposed to say, a 7-8 score, so people tend to focus on the extremes or surprises on the margins and those numbers drive the discussion.
Getting rid of numbers isn't a silver bullet, but it does have some positive aspects to it.
But that's the whole point in using numbers - is to compare those numbers against other numbers as if they were objective, static qualifiers. Like there's an example of a perfect 7 and a perfect 8 behind glass in the Smithsonian that we can all examine for insight.
If people are so offended by review scores for games they either did not play, or does not align with how they feel, why do they feel the need to listen or even care? Maybe other people do care, and do want scores? No one is forcing people to read the reviews or make a purchase decisions based on said reviews.
^^^^^^^
Holy crap THIS!!
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
This is a good point. And those yes/no could then be quantified on a metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes-type site just as easily. It would effectively change nothing. The problem isn't the reviews; it's their target demographic
I really wonder why it's such an issue in the games industry when movies have been scored similarly for decades without apparent issue, even despite there being several Metacritic-like sites for them.
Alebrije
Member
Reviews are useless since just represent a few point of views from 2-3 guys , and most of time just from one. Also most of time reviewers lack of criticall thinking.
I think forums like this are the best place to get more opinnions from a game , you get hundreds of post tha can give you a better idea of a game.
Its been years since I do not read a review from a game media.
I think forums like this are the best place to get more opinnions from a game , you get hundreds of post tha can give you a better idea of a game.
Its been years since I do not read a review from a game media.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm fine with numbered reviews.
I am not fine with the people doing reviews, who are all - with maybe 1-24 exceptions - corporate whores whose prime reason to exist is to fuel the hype machine, journalistic integrity be damned.
Totalbiscuit had a great video on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-QhIIKMmE&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ
I am not fine with the people doing reviews, who are all - with maybe 1-24 exceptions - corporate whores whose prime reason to exist is to fuel the hype machine, journalistic integrity be damned.
Totalbiscuit had a great video on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-QhIIKMmE&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ
vicoakland
Member
In the PS1/PS2 days, I'd buy OPM.
The star review system was useful.
5 stars = Artistic and technical masterpiece that almost everybody can like (10)
4.5 stars = Masterpiece with small flaws (9)
4 stars = Great game. Almost everyone will like it. (8)
3.5 stars = If you ilke video games, and you are interested in this game/genre you will probably enjoy the heck out of this game despite some minor but real issues/annoyances (7)
3 stars = This game was pretty good despite clear issues. It may be really niche or kind of broken, but there's a lot to like about this game. If interested, go for it, you will probably end up liking it! (6)
2.5 stars = A artistic and technical disappointment. Only fans will probably like this. (5)
2 stars = An artistic and technical failure. (4)
1.5 stars and below = An insult to our intelligence / pocketbooks (3 and under)
For the record, I regularly bought and had a blast with 3 and 3.5 star games. I actually sought them out!
Today they would be 6's and 7's...and that would hurt the old Metacritic score.
It would be great if we could reclaim that space (the world of 3 star and 3.5 star ratings) in the world of reviews but the financial stakes are likely too high.
The star review system was useful.
5 stars = Artistic and technical masterpiece that almost everybody can like (10)
4.5 stars = Masterpiece with small flaws (9)
4 stars = Great game. Almost everyone will like it. (8)
3.5 stars = If you ilke video games, and you are interested in this game/genre you will probably enjoy the heck out of this game despite some minor but real issues/annoyances (7)
3 stars = This game was pretty good despite clear issues. It may be really niche or kind of broken, but there's a lot to like about this game. If interested, go for it, you will probably end up liking it! (6)
2.5 stars = A artistic and technical disappointment. Only fans will probably like this. (5)
2 stars = An artistic and technical failure. (4)
1.5 stars and below = An insult to our intelligence / pocketbooks (3 and under)
For the record, I regularly bought and had a blast with 3 and 3.5 star games. I actually sought them out!
Today they would be 6's and 7's...and that would hurt the old Metacritic score.
It would be great if we could reclaim that space (the world of 3 star and 3.5 star ratings) in the world of reviews but the financial stakes are likely too high.
Colonel Nasty
Member
Maybe Infamous is just good?
But that's the point! We don't want to talk down to readers or act as if our opinions are better than theirs in any way. That's one of the reasons we don't use scores. They're too definitive. We happen to be informed gamers and experienced writers, so hopefully we're good at capturing how a game feels to play, but nobody at Kotaku wants to pretend that our opinion is better or more valid than any one of our ~12m monthly readers. That's why we write as if we're talking to a friend. It's also why we share stories and information that other outlets might not -- part of our company's mandate is to tell the "real" story behind stories, rather than the puffed-up version.
But I won't ramble on about Kotaku - to get back to the main point here, yet another bullet-point on the very long list of reasons not to use review scores is that they're too authoritative. "This game is a 7." What does that mean, and who are you to even say it?
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Scores don't indicate such either.
How is it any more definitive than literally just saying "Yes" or "No" in response to "Should I play this game?"
I've started to interpret modern review scores as essentially a four-point system. If you think about it, you can translate this into something similar to four-star film reviews:
One Star = 60 and below. "Don't bother."
Two Star = 70. "Good. Average."
Three Star = 80. "Great. Might want to give it a look if you have time."
Four Star = 90-95. "Excellent. Strongly suggest you buy it."
With 100 being a rare gold badge award or something.
One Star = 60 and below. "Don't bother."
Two Star = 70. "Good. Average."
Three Star = 80. "Great. Might want to give it a look if you have time."
Four Star = 90-95. "Excellent. Strongly suggest you buy it."
With 100 being a rare gold badge award or something.
The practice of attaching numbers to stuff is only going to increase as time goes on. I think most people here should just get used to filtering it, because it's not going anywhere. In fact if current media is any indication, it's only going to become more prolific.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365181302/ <-- See here for the media world we're now too embroiled in to really escape.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365181302/ <-- See here for the media world we're now too embroiled in to really escape.
The numbers arent the problem, its how people treat them both in terms of importance and as a bizarre single digit "summary" of the entire review. The fact that an experience is subjective doesnt mean it cant be quantified and compared to other similar experiences on a scale. The other problem is the condensed range, its like the bullshit "Nothing >70 academic marking", if youre using a 1-10 or 1-100 scale then for fuck sake use it.
It means you, the person reviewing/rating the game, thinks said game is a 7/10. As with anything based on opinion, it works better for the reader to be familiar with the site the writer produces reviews for, as well as the writer's particular tastes in games.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
This post gets it.
Conciliator
Banned
Numbered reviews are fine with me but I would be OK without them too. I think a lot of the game community just honestly can't deal with them. I know I don't really like setpiece shooters, so if Call of Duty or Killzone comes out and gets great reviews, I know I'm not going to like them anyway and that's fine. Doesn't make those reviews illegitimate, just not my thing. I don't need my opinion validated with an arbitrary number.
omg microsoft shill
omg microsoft shill
I think the "controversy" is that OP thinks the game should have reviewed a lot better. It being a Sony exclusive and all.
ElephantShell
Banned
The Completionist on YouTube uses a scale of Complete it -> Finish it -> Play it -> Look at it -> Burn it. I know his reviews are often silly but as a scale I think something in a similar fashion is ideal. Less vague than just play it/don't play it but still not a number.
Jim Sterling
Member
People have told me many times to stop using scores. Not gonna stop.
Here's a video I did a while back explaining why not - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6582-Review-Scores-Are-Not-Evil
Here's a video I did a while back explaining why not - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6582-Review-Scores-Are-Not-Evil
ThatStupidLion
Gold Member
Buy / Try / No Buy
Buy - it's a top notch made game through and through. odds are you'll enjoy it.
Try - it's a well made game. some hiccups. If you're a fan of the genre/franchise odds are you'll like it. if not, it's recommended that you rent or play the demo before diving in at full price...
No Buy - skip this monstrosity... shovelware. bug ridden. purchase at your own risk.
*there is still a chance you won't like a "Buy" game just as you may love a "No Buy" game - ultimately it's up to the consumers discretion.
Buy - it's a top notch made game through and through. odds are you'll enjoy it.
Try - it's a well made game. some hiccups. If you're a fan of the genre/franchise odds are you'll like it. if not, it's recommended that you rent or play the demo before diving in at full price...
No Buy - skip this monstrosity... shovelware. bug ridden. purchase at your own risk.
*there is still a chance you won't like a "Buy" game just as you may love a "No Buy" game - ultimately it's up to the consumers discretion.