Support NeoGAF

[Tidus_Great]

the scale should go 0-5
5 = this game is so good it's a day 1 purchase, classic etc...
4 = worth picking up appeals to most taste not as good as 5
3 = average game, pick it up after a price cut or pass if you aren't into the genre
2 = some people might like it who are fans of the genre, but it wont appeal to most
1 = horrid game only a very small minority would care to play this game
0 = reserved strictly for broken unplayable games

in reality there are 3 options for gamers
will but it day 1 (these would be games in the 4-5/5 range)
will but it after a price cut (games in the 2-4/5 range)
will never buy it (games in the 1-3/5 range)

at the end of the day it's subjective no matter what but this would work better.

 

[NervousXtian]

If I had it my way 95% of AAA would have been rated below a 5/10 last generation.

Maybe then we wouldn't be getting so much total dog shit in the gameplay department of all these games but god forbid we upset the developers and the fans that are just as attached to these games.

Yeah, god forbid that millions of people enjoy something you don't like... I mean hell take CoD.. even if somebody doesn't like it, they should be able to appreciate why so many people do. It's quick, rewarding, fast paced and accessible.

 

[consoul]

Numbered reviews must end?
They do end. With a number.

How do you quantify something subjective?
Subjectively. The trick is to read reviews by people whose opinions you value. That way the number is meaningful.

 

[noobasuar]

Yeah, god forbid that millions of people enjoy something you don't like... I mean hell take CoD.. even if somebody doesn't like it, they should be able to appreciate why so many people do. It's quick, rewarding, fast paced and accessible.

CoD is nothing more than a cheap high.

Yeah, I don't doubt that people enjoy a cheap high. That doesn't mean it's a very good game though.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Numbers should stay, but people should start actually reading reviews instead of just going off the score.

I don't really think that alleviates any of the issues. From where I'm sitting, the crux of the issue is simply that people would be far better off not getting emotionally invested in trying to force imprecise metrics to mean something they don't. Obviously, I should preface this with the old adage of "different strokes for different folks ." But personally, I enjoy playing games. I enjoy talking and reading about games analysis. I even like discussing the business side of things in terms of sales threads. What I don't care for is trying to force objectivity where it doesn't belong and unnecessarily throwing in my hat with some arbitrary team.

I mean, it's great when a game I like from a studio I'm a fan of has a game sell/review well on a platform I enjoy gaming on. That can only mean good things in terms of getting more of what I like in the future. But in terms of system wars showdowns and needing a "winner " in an Infamous vs. Titanfall (for instance), I just find the whole discussion embarrassing.

 

[Fletcher]

CoD is nothing more than a cheap high.

Yeah, I don't doubt that people enjoy a cheap high. That doesn't mean it's a very good game though.

I mean other than the fact that cod4 was a good game.

 

[freakzilla3000]

Not worth it
Buy it on sale
Buy it full price

I like this review scheme....

 

[Synth]

I mean other than the fact that cod4 was a good game.

Did you learn anything profound from COD4? No? 2/10 then.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Not worth it
Buy it on sale
Buy it full price

I like this review scheme....

Even that has major problems. Everyone values money differently; who's to say how that value translates into a game's worth? I'd gladly pay $60 for a 3-hour Portal-like experience, and yet it would likely get reamed on that scale.

And "get it on sale?" Well, by how much? $10 off? $20?

 

[KingJ2002]

i think the 5 star scale works.

Great
Good
Average
Below Average
Terrible


the 10 point decimal scale has always been a disaster.

 

[noobasuar]

I mean other than the fact that cod4 was a good game.

No doubt. CoD4 is a huge step above every CoD that came over it. I'm saying its transationed from being pretty great in CoD4 to being nothing more than a cheap high from then on.

 

[JawzPause]

I had a good debate about this with someone and we came to the conclusion that all reviews should be a 5 point scale. It's quite hard for us humans to differentiate between a 6 or a 7, never mind .4 or .5. A 5 star system makes the most sense for gaming.
1 is bad, 2 is not bad, 3 is good, 4 is very good and 5 is excellent.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

CoD is nothing more than a cheap high.

Yeah, I don't doubt that people enjoy a cheap high. That doesn't mean it's a very good game though.

I'm going to be less diplomatic here than I typically try to be and just state that this is pretentious drivel.

 

[kaching]

This place has no problem ripping into text, quoting out of context, arbitrarily misinterpreting comments and presenting multiple strawmen for a writer's motives, so that's another set of reasons why eliminating review numbers wouldn't solve a damn thing.

 

[AzerPhire]

It's always funny how these threads usually pop up when a big title comes out and doesn't score as well as it's fans thought it should be.

Hate to say it but it's usually after a Sony game too...

 

[pickle tooth]

Gamepro had my favorite rating system. Past few years I haven't really bothered with going by reviews. I tend to read forums, watch YouTube/twitch videos, and make a good assumption off of them. But that method is flawed as well.

Examples being titanfall and ryse. I love playing fps' and hate qte games. It amazes myself how I stopped playing titanfall just so I can continue to play ryse. I might be hitting gaming puberty as I am turning 31 in 2 weeks.

 

[NervousXtian]

This place has no problem ripping into text, quoting out of context, arbitrarily misinterpreting comments and presenting multiple strawmen for a writer's motives, so that's another set of reasons why eliminating review numbers wouldn't solve a damn thing.

Exactly, which is why the OP is being disingenuous with his request. Scores are good for someone when they agree, and bad when they don't.

Which becomes even funnier when you realize this is about a game that isn't released yet.

So people are disagreeing with reviews of a game they haven't even played.

 

[Kai Dracon]

It's always funny how these threads usually pop up when a big title comes out and doesn't score as well as it's fans thought it should be.

Hate to say it but it's usually after a Sony game too...

And after a big Nintendo game, and a big Microsoft game, and a big PC game, and...

No, there's no GAFbias in that regard. Just a lot of people who each, individually, are certain that a GAF hivemind is entirely up the arse of [insert] platform/brand.

But why is it funny a thread like this would come up due to a controversial review? That's kind of the point - people are reminded how much quantifying numbers almost cause more trouble than they are worth.

 

[Jigolo]

i think the 5 star scale works.

Great
Good
Average
Below Average
Terrible


the 10 point decimal scale has always been a disaster.

Yep I dig the 5 star ratings as well.

 

[Riposte]

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.

The actual meaning of what I'm saying is that "artistic value" isn't applicable to anything, because "art" isn't applicable to anything (i.e., it's nonsense). Instead of trying to incorporate an intangible property/brand (art, holy, etc.), people should instead be entirely concerned with what is good, which can be plainly described as what satisfies them, with "fun" just being the result of satisfying play/living (going far beyond instant gratification) and nothing excluding "education" from this process. The undermining of goodness, entertainment, fun, etc. for some highly manufactured, otherworldly value, such as "art", is a decadent attempt to create and exploit confusion, bringing you no closer to cleanly ranking things.

To get back on the topic, game scores should quickly communicate which tier, usually counting up, of goodness a game falls into. These tiers are defined by the games that are in them and the feelings/experience/meanings/emotions/etc. (these are all interconnected) they gave you; The highest tier/number always contains the highest possible and everything below is spread between that and the tier that contains the lowest, inclusively. I think using much more than 5 tiers (bad, poor, ambivalence/average, good, great) is more cumbersome than helpful.

It seems a lot of problems come from the fact people think they are dealing with mathematical numbers (8.2 after some weird average of 5 scores for several game properties ranging from 0.01 and 10.00) as opposed to categories that have been given an order by a count.

 

[injurai]

Worth failing a midterm over.
Worth playing eventually.
Not worth playing.

I'd imagine it's harder to justify giving games that top score as you get older, or stop taking exams altogether. I swear almost every game was in the top category at one point. Now most stuff is just worth playing over break.

 

[Soul_Pie]

We just have to move beyond the metacritic obsession. I mean, right now a lot of people treat it like it's some kind of scientific formula and last word, in reality it's just a collection of opinions which represents the current consensus on a game. (Consensus also has a tendency to change over time or with appreciation but metacritic doesn't reflect that) The content of these reviews becomes secondary to how they correspond or match the metacritic narrative, it's a really disappointing situation. The importance of metacritic has just been blown out of all proportion; unfortunately it offers something to the lazy and uninformed who want to make judgement at a single glance and the ones that like to use games as tools to win arguments online.

Ultimately, though, those that adhere to metacritic scores and limit themselves to some arbitrary number which a game has to hit for them to consider it ultimately miss out on a lot of games that they might otherwise have enjoyed. In the end those that take the effort to properly seek out games that hold interest to them and coincide with their tastes will find what they're looking for.

 

[Kurod]

I like Conan O'Brien's nonsensical scale of gobbledygook when he reviews a game.

 

[manueldelalas]

One big profile game that doesn't get the number people were hoping for, and we get tons of complains about journalists and reviews themselves...

I like numbered reviews, and a 9.7 does not mean is a hundred point scale.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

But why is it funny a thread like this would come up due to a controversial review? That's kind of the point - people are reminded how much quantifying numbers almost cause more trouble than they are worth.

Well, it can raise concerns on regards to what this is all really about. Mind you, it's entirely possible that a particular controversy serves to illustrate a point you've been making for some time. But it's also possible that the only reason one is reacting at all is because things didn't go their way.

If I complain about the officiating after a game, my argument becomes less persuasive if I don't have a consistent track record on this issue and instead just seem salty because the calls didn't go our way and my team lost.

 

[mangochutney]

I'm surprised that reviews are even still relevant in today's world.

When I was younger they were essential. The only way you got the latest game information was from a magazine and the reviews inside would be the only way to find out what a game was like, apart from word of mouth of course.

But now they're mostly redundant in my mind. I don't need to read a bunch of text, I can see exactly for myself what the game is like thanks to gameplay trailers and footage or you can get a fuller picture from Let's Play videos.

These allow you to form your own opinion. Not have one given to you by a reviewer.

 

[viveks86]

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

What does this question even mean? You quantify something subjective by giving it a subjective quantification! Every score is subjective and every metacritic score is an aggregate of them so that one can gauge popular opinion. It's all arbitrary and reductive, but it has its place in the industry.

What needs to end is:

1) Reviewers being so wildly inconsistent with their scoring that it becomes difficult to gauge what their score even means. Sometimes people get so hung up on certain aspects of a game that they let it bias their entire review and final score. That isn't a fair or balanced review.

2) Readers looking only at the score and not bothering to process the content and reasoning behind it

3) Gamers and game creators getting overly hung up about the scores on metacritic. Treat it for what it is - an approximation. A few points either way doesn't mean anything! It works fine in the movie industry. I'd say both developers and gamers are responsible for blowing its significance out of proportion.

Scoring itself is a necessary evil. Scoring makes lives of consumers easier. Imagine yelp without a rating system. It's ok if people choose to give an arbitrary score. That's the only practical way of doing it anyway. Just be reasonable and consistent.

 

[MC Safety]

Not worth it
Buy it on sale
Buy it full price

I like this review scheme....

It's not a good idea to base a review scheme on some kind of perceived economic value. That's when you start to equate stuff like length of play time and replay value with quality.
You know, the more is more theory....

I always loved Daily Radar's four-score scale. It forced reviewers to make a judgment about a game's quality: Direct Hit, Hit, Miss, and Dud. And it was more in line with the way people speak about a game's quality.

 

[Nickle]

No one is forcing you to look at the number that they slap on at the end of the review.

 

[quantumnerd]

I do read full reviews from reviewers I'm a fan of. But I'm not a fan of every reviewer, and I want a quick summary anyways, so I'm a fan of pro and con lists. Numbers are awkward right now, though. Nobody really knows what the scale is supposed to mean. But the statistician in me knows that the Metascore, as a summary statistic, is a pretty useful rough metric, the largest AAA games aside (I suspect reviewer buyout is standard practice). But at the end of the day, as much as we like to argue about things, I don't think people really care about review scores that much. Most of my friends don't.

 

[Hoodbury]

Well, what would the point be in multiple people offering their critical take once we've established a correct review standard?

Hmm, maybe it should be more like some sport scoring systems where there is a more standardized technical part with a score and then a more personalized did the reviewer like and have fun with the game score. And then combine them for the overall score.

That would hopefully at least weed out the 9 from one guy and a 4 from another guy.

Or is it even too hard to get a standard for technical performance of a game?

 

[pr0cs]

It's always funny how these threads usually pop up when a big title comes out and doesn't score as well as it's fans thought it should be.

Hate to say it but it's usually after a Sony game too...

Pretty much all big games, I recall several threads when Knack was reviewed too
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=715041
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=751250&page=1

 

[doemaaan]

I like Joystiq's rating system. 1-5 stars. They don't use numbers and they use half-increments, which technically makes it a "10 point" scale, but it just gives off a different vibe. On the traditional 10 point scale, you rarely see anything under a 5 or 6. 5 being in the middle, SHOULD mean the game has an average score, but somehow the number 7 took it's place.

So, when I see a 3/5 star review (it doesn't have to be stars, I just prefer the stars over numbers), I feel like that does a better job of telling the reader (especially the lazy ones who just go straight for the number score) where the game stands.

***()()
5/10

Stars and the 5 point (w/half-increments) scale look less intimidating.

 

[viveks86]

Hmm, maybe it should be more like some sport scoring systems where there is a more standardized technical part with a score and then a more personalized did the reviewer like and have fun with the game score. And then combine them for the overall score.

That would hopefully at least weed out the 9 from one guy and a 4 from another guy.

Or is it even too hard to get a standard for technical performance of a game?

This isn't practical at all. Game scores will always be subjective no matter what. That's the nature of the medium. How do you rate the technical part of a PC game where even that is relative?

We can try to reinvent this in a 100 different ways, but it will never change the fact that scoring for games can't be standardized. 2 point scale, 5 point scale, 10 point scale, 100 point scale, they all have pros and cons. People will continue to claim one is more ideal than the other, but I don't think there is a clear winner. This isn't exactly a science. The only way to mitigate this problem is by using good judgment, as both reviewer and reader.

 

[Mr. Waffle]

I think game "reviews/critics" should go away period. The system as is is very broken. Really both the new consoles are set up for this. Go to the share area, look for the game you are interested in, and watch for a bit... watch a few different people play. That will give you all you need if you are on the fence. Game "journalists/critics" can go extinct... and should have been put out of their misery long ago.

Journalists should do what journalists do. They should be reporting on the industry, the studios, the people, the culture, the players, and the adventures they have in game.
Comments like "it's too last gen" are not relevant to the industry or the players. All we need is game studios making games just to appease the critics... hence all of the multiplayer tack-ons added to games last gen. I hope this trend does not continue... it's a waste of everyone's time just so that the game won't lose critic points because it didn't have a multiplayer element.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think game "reviews/critics" should go away period. The system as is is very broken. Really both the new consoles are set up for this. Go to the share area, look for the game you are interested in, and watch for a bit... watch a few different people play. That will give you all you need if you are on the fence. Game "journalists/critics" can go extinct... and should have been put out of their misery long ago.

Journalists should do what journalists do. They should be reporting on the industry, the studios, the people, the culture, the players, and the adventures they have in game.
Comments like "it's too last gen" are not relevant to the industry or the players. All we need is game studios making games just to appease the critics... hence all of the multiplayer tack-ons added to games last gen. I hope this trend does not continue... it's a waste of everyone's time just so that the game won't lose critic points because it didn't have a multiplayer element.

I like this, the media is just to far out of touch with the players. They dont even review multiplayer games correctly, they always review them in the perfect environment with the games producers and PR hoovering over their shoulders assuring them that any flaw in the game wont be there in the final product, the publishers have to much power over them.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

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

Amazing.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

No, OP. No.

What must end is the salt about numbered reviews. So a series of review scores about a game people were anticipating weren't as high as hoped. So fucking what? There wasn't all this crying about Titanfall or Killzone or BF or KI or Stryder or TR or Thief. But now a game some put all their hope in came up just a little shorter than hyped (and still a good game by all measures!) and suddenly a review system that has been in place and useful for over 20 years must be flawed and must go rather than accepting some imperfection? No room in your egos for that, guys? All of the reviews with numbered scores offer lengthy commentaries and usually a summary of bullet points at the end, so it's not like they don't offer details and justification along with a number that can be of some use to those having a hard time figuring out what all of the preceding text means in relative terms. The number is the only way to measure how a review team feels about a product in the context of a marketplace full of similar games. It's the answer to the subjective, "which one might be better" number in the opinion of that reviewer or team. Whether you agree with the opinions or not is immaterial. It's someone's opinion, and should be weighted with all other opinions. Numbers shouldn't affect you beyond helping add a relative context to their opinion on the game compared to other games released recently or relative to other games in a given genre or franchise.

So no, how about some of you find something else to attach so much emotion and self-security to. It's just a product (that you didn't make, nor own stock in), and games are largely imperfect. That's okay. Most games will not be metacritic 90s. That's fine too. If you need MC 90s and/or GoTY commentaries to feel good about a purchase you've been looking forward to, you're doing gaming wrong.

This kind of conversation along with the existence of system warriors/fanboys are really a referendum on the insecurity and sensitivity of large cross-sections of the gaming populous. That needs to be addressed, not review score styles. If you like a game, go enjoy it. If you can't handle reviews, don't read them. But no, the 20+ year-old system -- a system older than many of you -- isn't the problem here. Believe that.

 

[Mindlog]

Is it so hard to just let shit slide?
This is the same behavior that drives threads headlong into disappointment.

I love numbers.
When they are 7-10 reviewers get bashed for using the 7-10 scale.
When they are lower than that reviewers get bashed for being trash and biased.

I don't trust any review that isn't accurate to at least the scientifically accepted four significant figures.

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

Is it two or three? We have to be accurate. This is science and not witchcraft. OP needs to get the formula out.

 

[codhand]

I love review debate, it's something unique and engaging for the industry. You can take my ten point scale, when you pry it from my clammy, carpal tunnel ridden hands.

 

[inm8num2]

I like bullet points to numbers. Summarize the main points of the review but don't oversimplify with a number score.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

No, OP. No.

What must end is the salt about numbered reviews. So a series of review scores about a game people were anticipating weren't as high as hoped. So fucking what? There wasn't all this crying about Titanfall or Killzone or BF or KI or Stryder or TR or Thief. But now a game some put all their hope in came up just a little shorter than hyped (and still a good game by all measures!) and suddenly a review system that has been in place and useful for over 20 years must be flawed and must go rather than accepting some imperfection? No room in your egos for that, guys? All of the reviews with numbered scores offer lengthy commentaries and usually a summary of bullet points at the end, so it's not like they don't offer details and justification along with a number that can be of some use to those having a hard time figuring out what all of the preceding text means in relative terms. The number is the only way to measure how a review team feels about a product in the context of a marketplace full of similar games. It's the answer to the subjective, "which one might be better" number in the opinion of that reviewer or team. Whether you agree with the opinions or not is immaterial. It's someone's opinion, and should be weighted with all other opinions. Numbers shouldn't affect you beyond helping add a relative context to their opinion on the game compared to other games released recently or relative to other games in a given genre or franchise.

So no, how about some of you find something else to attach so much emotion and self-security to. It's just a product (that you didn't make, nor own stock in), and games are largely imperfect. That's okay. Most games will not be metacritic 90s. That's fine too. If you need MC 90s and/or GoTY commentaries to feel good about a purchase you've been looking forward to, you're doing gaming wrong.

This kind of conversation along with the existence of system warriors/fanboys are really a referendum on the insecurity and sensitivity of large cross-sections of the gaming populous. That needs to be addressed, not review score styles. If you like a game, go enjoy it. If you can't handle reviews, don't read them. But no, the 20+ year-old system -- a system older than many of you -- isn't the problem here. Believe that.

 

[Prototype]

I've always liked the simple 3 way system.

- Bad
- Ambvialent
- Good

at most you could add "very bad" and "very good" and of course you would explain your reasoning, but outside of that it starts to become meaningless. For example, what's really the difference between and 88/100 and an 86/100? There is no such thing as perfection. Chasing it is fools errand. Even the pre-greeks knew this.

 

[viveks86]

I'm surprised that reviews are even still relevant in today's world.

When I was younger they were essential. The only way you got the latest game information was from a magazine and the reviews inside would be the only way to find out what a game was like, apart from word of mouth of course.

But now they're mostly redundant in my mind. I don't need to read a bunch of text, I can see exactly for myself what the game is like thanks to gameplay trailers and footage or you can get a fuller picture from Let's Play videos.

These allow you to form your own opinion. Not have one given to you by a reviewer.

Reviews will always be relevant for those who aren't so passionate about the industry that they will spend time looking at all the trailers, footage, let's play etc.

You and I can dismiss them as unnecessary because we don't need them. For people less informed, reviews still play a crucial role. They play a role in every industry and gaming is no exception. The real problem is the amount of significance placed on the score.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Reviews will always be relevant for those who aren't so passionate about the industry that they will spend time looking at all the trailers, footage, let's play etc.

You and I can dismiss them as unnecessary because we don't need them. For people less informed, reviews still play a crucial role. They play a role in every industry and gaming is no exception. The real problem is the amount of significance placed on the score by console warriors.

Made a small edit.

 

[NBtoaster]

Numbers are fine. Accept 8.1 and 8.2 as the same score, its not relevant difference*. That's why most sites have a 0.5 scale.

*except in cases of metacritic based bonuses, but thats not something reviewers or consumers need to care about.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

I like the ABCDF scale. Basically:

A - Outstanding
B - Above Average
C - Average
D - Below Average
F - Shit

You get the enough grades to accurately rate a title without falling into the decimal point/five-levels-of-bad bullshit.
The YES/NO style only works for peripherals/systems and offers the reviewer no ways to nuance their final verdict

 

[travisbickle]

The 5 point scale is too few now that metacritic has such a hold on the industry.

There's 20% difference between each point, there's a very big difference between a 60%(3) and 80%(4).

 

[hooligan]

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?

Getting rid of numbered reviews would not get rid of metacritic scoring. Movies have metacritic scores. I don't recall all movie reviews having numbers. Suck it up.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

In general I agree. All I use reviews for is a sanity check. It tells me if I'm going to be missing out on an extremely good game (Deus Ex HR is in my top 5 GOTG and I wasn't hugely hyped about it till the reviews started coming in) or a complete disaster (Almost Human had me extremely hyped till I saw the reviews). The score is immaterial and the content of the review is more important.

Kotaku is my go to place for reviews these days. I love their lack of a score and wish more outlets shamelessly copy the format. Evan Narcisse's review of Infamous Second Son today was fantastic and clearly listed the strengths and the weaknesses of the game in a fair and transparent manner without any spoilers and ended up hyping the game even more for me. Most of their reviews are very good with transparency and I consider them the best in the business at it (there are a few shocking deviations from the norm).