Changes to Gamespot (Page Layout, Scoring, etc.)

Gamespot has announced that they're making some significant changes to the review scoring system and to the site layout.

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/presentations/Evolution/index.html

In addtion Jeff has posted a Letter from the Editor.

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Jeff/

What are your thoughts?

Let us try to keep this one on topic ; )

I can't say I'm fond of the .5 point increments myself. Sure you can say it is a 20 point scale but really most games only score in the upper reaches of that scale, and Gamespot is very careful about giving away the highest scores right (something I hope doesn't change). So in most cases how many possible scores are there? Not many.

In the end it won't matter much to me as the quality reviews are the real treasures. Maybe I'll like the scoring system better after I see it for a while but as it stands I'm a bit skeptical.

I can't say I'm fond of the .5 point increments myself. Sure you can say it is a 20 point scale but really most games only score in the upper reaches of that scale, and Gamespot is very careful about giving away the highest scores right (something I hope doesn't change). So in most cases how many possible scores are there? Not many.

In the end it won't matter much to me as the quality reviews are the real treasures. Maybe I'll like the scoring system better after I see it for a while but as it stands I'm a bit skeptical.

duxup

Well, if it will lead to people actually reading the reviews instead of staring at the numbers, I'm all for it.

I have to say I'm dissapointed with this new .5 review change. That's quite a difference, with pretty heavy implications as to the overall quality for games that contain a wide variety of differences each to their own. Does a 9.0 indicate a better game than a 8.5? It does with the current system, as it has the individual aspects of the game (graphics, sound, etc) scored to reflect the overall number score.....it has the framework underneath that lends to the whole. If those component scores are removed, by what rationale and basis does the new number score derive from, and how is the numerical score at all justified? Why even have one?

.5 score differences given to a large variety of games, which will lump them together no less, seems awfully static, simplistic, and quite honestly like a disservice to the game's uniqueness and individual qualities. Isn't one of the reasons for the differences in game's scores is to be able to compare and contrast them to other titles? Now they will all be thrown together in the same bucket.

At present, I don't agree with this.

So I assume the first big reviews to use this system will be Ninja Gaiden Sigma and The Darkness. I predict 9.0 for NGS and 8.5 for the Darkness. You will be amazed at my ability to predict scores. :Pdvader654

But this change brings forth new possibilities for review-predictions,

I predict that both will receive the "Brutal" award. And Ninja Gaiden some sort of "very hard"-award.

I'm having mixed feelings about this. I think the current system is great and really sets GameSpot apart. The technical review system might not be popular, but I feel as if it forced the reviewers into giving an objective score. Personally, I'll miss the 8.6's and 8.9's and I have a feeling we will see a lot more Editor's Choice awards.

On the other hand, I can see why they feel there is aneed to do this. GameSpot has grown exponentially over the years, and let's face it, a lot of the regulars here don't quite understand the current review system, so a new-comer is bound to have some problems. If they wanted to simplify the system though, perhaps they should've just bitten the bullet and get rid of the decimals entirely and upped the standards a bit for adjustment - kind of like Edge or Eurogamer.

Everything else sounds great. Incorporating emblems into reviews is simply brilliant and will offer some valueble information at only a quick glance. I just hope we will be able to use it in our own user reviews.

This could be because of Zelda, because the crying over the 8.8 could just be rounded to a 9.0.hendrix29

...or an 8.5.

Of course, we aren't going back and touching the old scores as a part of this, so I guess we'll never know, will we?

I think the current system is great and really sets GameSpot apart. The technical review system might not be popular, but I feel as if it forced the reviewers into giving an objective score. UpInFlames

A Music/Rhythm game, for example,isn't going to be heavily focused on graphics at all, but sound is pretty much the most important aspect of the game outside of gameplay to some degree, so you'd have to adjust the weight accordingly. Realistically, different genres really would have to be approach and weighted out differently for such a more objective system to really work across the board, which can be a bit tricky to figure out, and makes understanding the scores even more convoluted than it should.

It's a bit of a drastic change, but the rationale behind it seems solid to me.

I mentioned this on Jeff's letter but I am actually thinking this may be what GameSpot needs to do. To be honest, when I first heard of this dramatic change, I had varied feelings of it. This was mainly because it sounded like simply 'dumbing' down which I am not a fan of and it wasn't until I read the letter from Jeff I realised this may be really good. I happen to like reading the long, detailed reviews that GameSpot provide but in the end, its all about "Should I buy this game or not?" and I think that many people who do not enjoy the mass reading involved on each and every game choice will benefit from this change.

With the scores being only on the .5s and such, it should make things a little easier for some people. Also, the reviews won't be bogged down with as much information on things that not every gamer cares about. Its going to be all about whether we want to get the game or not and after all, when it boils down to it, thats why we all come to this website and read the reviews put out there.

I still expect the reviews at GameSpot to be of the highest quality and I am looking forward to seeing how this is going to be pulled off. Hopefully it will benefit the people that its being aimed for. I will still continue to read the reviews here anyway. :)

After reading Jeff's blog and his explanation, I'm wondering why keep numerical scores at all? Why not get rid of them andjust have the regular review with medals awarded for the outstanding aspects? The synopsis of the game would not have to be shownby numerical score at all, it could be just as it is now without the correspondingnumber.

Anybody that bases their purchasing decisions on the numerical scorealone without fully reading the reviewdeserves what they get anyhow.

The review system revamp is the best news to come out of Gamespot in a while. It's really been long overdue. It's too bad the GS staff won't be going back and converting any of the old scores. Of course that would be a monumental task, but it would definetely be interesting to see the results.

I don't know how I feel about the site design yet, however. I guess it depends how it will all work out. My work computer which runs Linux has had a lot of issues with the use of flash on this site, so I'm hoping the redesign won't incorporate a lot of that.

It's a bit of a drastic change, but the rationale behind it seems solid to me.Skylock00

Oh, I get it. I read Jeff's letter and I can definitely see where they're coming from. Just wanted to voice a few observations and concerns, is all. :wink:

I'm eager to see the first reviews. By the way, the cat is out of the bag - The Darkness is going to getthe "Brutal" emblem! :o

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]It's a bit of a drastic change, but the rationale behind it seems solid to me.dvader654

Oh, I get it. I read Jeff's letter and I can definitely see where they're coming from. Just wanted to voice a few observations and concerns, is all. :wink:

I'm eager to see the first reviews. By the way, the cat is out of the bag - The Darkness is going to getthe "Brutal" emblem! :o

What's the brutal emblem? Or am I totally missing some joke.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]It's a bit of a drastic change, but the rationale behind it seems solid to me.dvader654

Oh, I get it. I read Jeff's letter and I can definitely see where they're coming from. Just wanted to voice a few observations and concerns, is all. :wink:

I'm eager to see the first reviews. By the way, the cat is out of the bag - The Darkness is going to getthe "Brutal" emblem! :o

What's the brutal emblem? Or am I totally missing some joke.

Games get medallions like us users and a potential medallion is a "brutal" one (manhunt will get one). Other medallions are "funny" "artistic graphics" "good voice overs" etc.

So are you mods gonna be cracking down in the individual console forums alittle more?Seems like you cant say anything in GGD without hurting somebodies feelings or getting modded while in the individual console forums you can say just about anything and never have to cower down from mods. Do you guys\gals even read the other forums? Just curious. :)Wellfedmonkey

Really? I've watched the "Ask the Mods" forum for a while, and it seems like getting moderated in those forums has been a common occurance, assuming of course that a consistent percentage of those who get moderated in the various forumsvoice their concerns in that manner. Particularly, sometimes just mentioning that you like a competing console's feature vs.a similar or absent feature on the forum's namesake console has been moderated as possible trolling in a few instances.

As far as the forum topic goes, I am a little put off by the changes. Personally, I don't really think scores are all that important -- far more important to me is the text of the review, because that goes much farther in giving me a warm fuzzy on whether the game itself will be interesting to me than any score, no matter how divided it is, could do -- at least, it does so if the reviewer himself is competent and detailed. Still, if you are going to have scores, it seems they should be as fine and granular as possible, and leaps like a .5 incremented scale don't seem to do that in my book. Though I like the idea of emblems, I don't really care for them being listed as demerits vs. merits. I think my reasoning is as follows -- I've seen many Oscar caliber movies which had blatant advertising in them, and never thought to myself that this actually hurt the movie. I don't see as much reason why it should hurt the game either. Now obviously, there's nothing wrong with noting a lot of advertising in the game, but why is it listed automatically as a negative -- in the sense that it must hurt the game experience somehow, or implying that advertising (something we see everywhere these days) is inherently wrong.

I am interested in seeing how it will all pan out, but I am not completely sold on the idea yet.

Will a special exception be made to give GTA 4 a 9.6?

Not a fan of a .5 or a .1 system. I really don't think a score really represents how good a certain game is. People put too much emphasis on scores and ranks, it just isn't fair. I would just like a system that rates aspects of games that can be measured like graphics, sound etc. But the quality of the game should be written in words, not scores. Many times I don't think an 8.6 game is actually better than an 8.3 or that a 9.5 is a must buy when an 8.2 isn't. It all depends on many factors.

I think a great game should be reviewed as a great game, not an 8.0-8.9. The problem is that these scores are distracting and should be removed, that's all.

My thread got hijacked, not fair. :P

I had something well written and then it was locked so I lost what I wrote. I just wanted to say I do enjoy a larger range of numbersfor scoring. I do think the score aspect of a review is important, of course the written part is the most important but without a score to go along you can misjudge the way someone really feels about a game.

dvader654

you know it is like he hijacked it, he locked it, then made his own. I had posted like 3 or 4 things totally on topic things before it got kinda off topic. However, it was really unneccessary, I think everyone was finally ready to move on, and them bam a lock. So no I'm not gonna post another longwinded argument for why I think this is a bad idea, because I already did, in fact I'm tempted to copy and paste like DUxup...Burn

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

My thread got hijacked, not fair. :P

I had something well written and then it was locked so I lost what I wrote. I just wanted to say I do enjoy a larger range of numbersfor scoring. I do think the score aspect of a review is important, of course the written part is the most important but without a score to go along you can misjudge the way someone really feels about a game.

HiResDes

you know it is like he hijacked it, he locked it, then made his own. I had posted like 3 or 4 things totally on topic things before it got kinda off topic. However, it was really unneccessary, I think everyone was finally ready to move on, and them bam a lock. So no I'm not gonna post another longwinded argument for why I think this is a bad idea, because I already did, in fact I'm tempted to copy and paste like DUxup...Burn

I really didn't mind the way reviews were done, but the one thing I had wished for (multiple reviewers for the morehyped games, and that didn't get promised. As for the change to a .5 system, I don't see why they would really need to bother, unless they are tired of people complaining about "grave scoring injustices" because this game or that game scored .01 higher points than another. I think doing away with the individual departments for scores such as gameplay and sound is really more of a step back than a step forward, if you wanted to know how a reviewer really felt about a certain game you'd just have to look atthe tilt. Basically if GS thinks this more"accessible"new system and shorter 1up style reviews isn't gonna alienate their fanbase, then they are completely wrong because thats where I see the site heading.

Basically I'll give it a chance, but I'm extremely skeptical, and there is a huge possibility that I could start completely ignoring GS's reviews, and end up having to go with IGN(whom I'm not crazy about either)or Gametrailers.

Basically yes, it does make more things easier for the reviewer, but does it make it things more informative is the real question. And it sounds like the answer is gonna be a big no, instead of dumbing down the review system, why not just get better reviewers? Seriously no one else would rather see them implement a system where multiple reviewers review the more high profile games, maybe I'm just insane idk anymore.

I agree with Rekunta's points basically.

I agreed with Trifecta's post from the last board also:

I think it's going to make the reviews less interesting. By removing the formula gamespot has removed everything that made their reviews unique. I grew up on the .5 scale, it works but gamespot really isn't going to be able to seperate their reviews from 1up/Game Informer besides the different writers of course. I wrote a few user reviews I think you can't beat the current system as far as precision goes. I think the scores will rise as well, you had to excell in all areas to get a AAA score now it's all opinion based.

You are just lucky im not a mod here, id make everyone wear silly hats and throw poop at each other!GodModeEnabled

And now what Im suppossed to do with all these hats and poop?

On topic, I like the layout rework, and while I was a bit skeptical about the revamped scoring system, after reading Jeff-s post it really does make sense.

After reading Jeff's blog entry and giving it some thought, I personally felt that the technical scoring system that they had set up ultimately was counterproductive, and somewhat needlessly convoluted of a concept, simply because it's getting harder and harder to accurate classify what standards one could used to rate each of the catagories, in addition to how the weighting of catagories wouldn't make full sense across all genres and platforms.

I know I had real difficulties working with the technical system when trying to rate Killer7 when I was doing my reader review, because the weighting of the system made rating the game difficult to do for me given how I was viewing the game, and how I wanted the reivew to pan out. Ultimately, I simply rated sections of the score to make the final overall score match what my review was saying overall.

It's almost like in order for the older system to really work, IMHO, one would have to have different catagory sets for different genres, with different scale weights across catagories for different genres, which would only make things more convoluted and difficult to manage, when at the end of the day, the numeral score really shouldn't be the focal point of a review...the actual written review should be, which seems to be part of the point here with the change from what I see.

While moving to a .5 scale and such might reduce uniqueness between game's scores and such, the premise behind the reviews, as well as the rationales for moving away from the technical scale system make this move a lot better overall, IMHO. Just because the technical scale made GS 'unique' doesn't mean it was inherently better as an approach, and while there is no perfect scoring system, I feel that this one will allow review scores to reflect reviews more accurately, and help remove issues regarding the desparities in focus and importance between different genres.

After reading Jeff's blog entry and giving it some thought, I personally felt that the technical scoring system that they had set up ultimately was counterproductive, and somewhat needlessly convoluted of a concept, simply because it's getting harder and harder to accurate classify what standards one could used to rate each of the catagories, in addition to how the weighting of catagories wouldn't make full sense across all genres and platforms.

I know I had real difficulties working with the technical system when trying to rate Killer7 when I was doing my reader review, because the weighting of the system made rating the game difficult to do for me given how I was viewing the game, and how I wanted the reivew to pan out. Ultimately, I simply rated sections of the score to make the final overall score match what my review was saying overall.

It's almost like in order for the older system to really work, IMHO, one would have to have different catagory sets for different genres, with different scale weights across catagories for different genres, which would only make things more convoluted and difficult to manage, when at the end of the day, the numeral score really shouldn't be the focal point of a review...the actual written review should be, which seems to be part of the point here with the change from what I see.

While moving to a .5 scale and such might reduce uniqueness between game's scores and such, the premise behind the reviews, as well as the rationales for moving away from the technical scale system make this move a lot better overall, IMHO. Just because the technical scale made GS 'unique' doesn't mean it was inherently better as an approach, and while there is no perfect scoring system, I feel that this one will allow review scores to reflect reviews more accurately, and help remove issues regarding the desparities in focus and importance between different genres.

Skylock00

My thoughts exactly, but better put.

The 0.5 incremental scores are the part I like least about the new scoring system, but I see the advantage, which I think more than makes up for the drawback(s).

Ideally, they could have kept the component scores while having the game's actual rating derived from overall impression rather than it being a weighted average.

It seems to me like that would have made more sense than removing the component scores entirely.

[QUOTE="hendrix29"]This could be because of Zelda, because the crying over the 8.8 could just be rounded to a 9.0.Jeff

...or an 8.5.

:lol: I was thinking the same thing

After reading Jeff's blog entry and giving it some thought, I personally felt that the technical scoring system that they had set up ultimately was counterproductive, and somewhat needlessly convoluted of a concept, simply because it's getting harder and harder to accurate classify what standards one could used to rate each of the catagories, in addition to how the weighting of catagories wouldn't make full sense across all genres and platforms.

I know I had real difficulties working with the technical system when trying to rate Killer7 when I was doing my reader review, because the weighting of the system made rating the game difficult to do for me given how I was viewing the game, and how I wanted the reivew to pan out. Ultimately, I simply rated sections of the score to make the final overall score match what my review was saying overall.

Great point, I've had that difficulty as well and had to give points to an aspect that I really didn't feel deserved it, only to get the corresponding number score. But that aspect is not flawed enough (and has the ability to berevised) so that it would be more consistent.

It's almost like in order for the older system to really work, IMHO, one would have to have different catagory sets for different genres, with different scale weights across catagories for different genres, which would only make things more convoluted and difficult to manage, when at the end of the day, the numeral score really shouldn't be the focal point of a review...the actual written review should be, which seems to be part of the point here with the change from what I see.

I can see how the component (and numerical) scores are hard to determine. What do you use to compare one score to another? What game sets the bar that the CS scores comes from, and what specific genres set different standards for each said game? But if that's so, then how are .5 differences justified at all, and given preference over what is now there? Is it there to lessen the need for the reviewer to explain the small differences in the scores? Then they should creat a .2 difference, not half a point.....that is a bit extreme IMO.

I also agree the numerical scores shouldn't be the focal point.....but the answer shouldn't be to try to implement a much more simplistic number rating system as opposed to one that generally functions adequately. There should either be numerical scoring system that tries to be as precise in it's critique of a game as possible, or none at all. First they're going to remove the CS that make up the main score, and then on top of that they're going to make it in .5 increments? That makes absolutely no sense to me. How would we all feel if they only used whole numbers for reviews? Once this revision happens, we will be halfway there.

While moving to a .5 scale and such might reduce uniqueness between game's scores and such, the premise behind the reviews, as well as the rationales for moving away from the technical scale system make this move a lot better overall, IMHO. Just because the technical scale made GS 'unique' doesn't mean it was inherently better as an approach, and while there is no perfect scoring system, I feel that this one will allow review scores to reflect reviews more accurately, and help remove issues regarding the desparities in focus and importance between different genres.

Not inherently better, but surely better than what is proposed. It will never be perfect, but should not be overly simplifed whilst striving to be so. About the underlined: review scores will be grouped together, and as I see it in no way will reflect the varied opinions found in the review text, but will serve to do the exact opposite. Such a regimented scoring system will stand in stark contrast to the reviewer's opinions and will only serve to confuse the reader more.

I would either keep the .1 scoring system and modify how the CS affect the overall score, change it to .2 increments, or get rid of the numerical scoring altogether. Considering Greg's statement that the industry has changed to include a wider variety of genres and games makes me think that the system proposed to succeed the current one would be the one in desperate need of an overhaul. The industry has grown and gotten more complex and varied, sure, which necessitates a more detailed review system, not a more simplistic one.

The industry has grown and gotten more complex and varied, sure, which necessitates a more detailed review system, not a more simplistic one.Rekunta

This rating system isn't based on the sum of the small nuanced components of some mathamatical system, but instead acts as a baseline general grade of the game's quality based on the editor's assessment, which takes into account the genre, platform, and other detailed attributes that cause that score to exist, with those details expanded on in the review.

From my viewpoint, the only way to counter complexity is with simplicity, not the other way around, as countering complexity with complexity only begats more convoluted concepts, more scrutiny, and more headaches for the editors and readers. This process focuses the review process for the reader down to three main points: 1. The general grade depiciting the general recommendation of the product. 2. The highlights of things in the game that are significant to note, either good or bad. 3. The review itself, which justifies and rationalizes the previous two catagories through the writing. Each step gets progressively more complexed and nuanced, but it all begins with a simple, clear message and concept, which, to me, makes it more effective.

And really, from the standpoint of purely acting as a consumer recommendation guideline, I really don't see why we need to go into a very detailed level for the basic score, but that's just me.

[QUOTE="hendrix29"]This could be because of Zelda, because the crying over the 8.8 could just be rounded to a 9.0.Jeff

...or an 8.5.

Of course, we aren't going back and touching the old scores as a part of this, so I guess we'll never know, will we?

I'm pretty sure it does have to do with people whinnying about Zelda's score. There's probably been other scores that people have complained about, but Twilight Princess seemed to have garnered the most attention. I mean, I understood the context of the number, and it became even more apparent after seeing the Gamecube version get an 8.9; sound is a factor in the old review format, and let's face it, the sound in Twilight Princess was not above a 7. In fact, I've read several reviews from major reviewers where they also mentioned that the sound was sub par, but they still gave the game a 9.0 or higher. Jeff even went so far as to tilt the game to 10, but he had to adhere to the system, and the 7 in sound definitely had an effect on the overall score.

My point is, even though many us may have understood the context of an 8.8 or a 9.1, there's a lot of people who don't. Jeff was very diplomatic in his post by saying that they were "rewarding us" by simplifying the system, but let's face it, what that really means is that they need to dumb it down; the Internet is filled with idiots and I think that this reflects that.

For those of us who have understood Gamespot's methods for reviewing, this change really shouldn't have an effect. They're still going to review games in the same fashion, and the arbitrary differences between an 8.2 and an 8.0 or 8.5 is only going to matter to people who don't understand the context of those points. I respect Gamespot's reviews the most because I agree with their philosophy of

"Should I buy this game or not?"

Just keep up the good work, Gamespot staff.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]The industry has grown and gotten more complex and varied, sure, which necessitates a more detailed review system, not a more simplistic one.Skylock00

This rating system isn't based on the sum of the small nuanced components of some mathamatical system, but instead acts as a baseline general grade of the game's quality based on the editor's assessment, which takes into account the genre, platform, and other detailed attributes that cause that score to exist, with those details expanded on in the review.

From my viewpoint, the only way to counter complexity is with simplicity, not the other way around, as countering complexity with complexity only begats more convoluted concepts, more scrutiny, and more headaches for the editors and readers. This process focuses the review process for the reader down to three main points: 1. The general grade depiciting the general recommendation of the product. 2. The highlights of things in the game that are significant to note, either good or bad. 3. The review itself, which justifies and rationalizes the previous two catagories through the writing. Each step gets progressively more complexed and nuanced, but it all begins with a simple, clear message and concept, which, to me, makes it more effective.

And really, from the standpoint of purely acting as a consumer recommendation guideline, I really don't see why we need to go into a very detailed level for the basic score, but that's just me.

Fair enough.

I do think that the more complex any form of media becomes, the more detailed and complex a system has to become to truly delve into every aspect of what makes up what it is to be able to fully understand and appreciate it. To do the opposite possibly ignores and overlooks many crucial factors. I almost view it with a scientific scrutiny,but I can understand the need or want for simplicity to make it easier for not only the reviewer, but for the audience as well. After all, it is only a game.

In response to the bold: Being that so many different aspects work together in a game, there should be seperate scores for each part that composes the whole. Perhaps the component scores wouldn't need to correlate with the overall numerical score? Either way, using both scoring systems allows it to be broken down to a mathematical formula regardless, granted less complicated using the .5 one. Any rating system, whether it's 5 stars, 10 tomatoes, 4 cookies or what have you can always be converted to a percentage. That percentage will always be compared to the main review text, therefor it should have the ability and strive to be as accurate as possible. This is why I believe it should be used in it's current form, slightly modified, or not at all.

Anyhow, thanks for elaborating. Can't say I agree, but it's good to debate and to hear your reasons.