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

At first I was wondering why things were jumping around here and there while I'm on the site, yet everything would still work fine - but occasionally some things wouldn't show - but they're less important anyhow.

With the new review scale, I think it'd be easier to "rate" games rather than think, should "this game have a 7.6, 7.5, or a 7.7?" It'd help a lot of newer reviewers and 'raters'.

Since things are getting more "organized" and "simplified", I think it'd help a lot of people find and navigate the site better, considering there's a lot of "everything everywhere" to click on. IMO the site is almost one page of links really that go around the site. But again, with the simplification and organization of reviews and such, things could help new people, old people (members), and people who may come back (as I have - see my blog way back - to the "A Lot Has Changed" - see the date between that and the previous one sort of thing).

And as long as the blog system those sort of things in the user cp are still present as the change happens, this should benefit the site big time.

I really wish you could widen the screen. I hate the two grey margins at the sides.

I don't really look into scroes for graphs, gameplay etc. because I play specific kinds of games and if I don't like a game even though it got 11 in gameplay I won't get it. I don't understand how many gamers find it enough to buy a game based on a number it had in a review.

I don't understand how many gamers find it enough to buy a game based on a number it had in a review.

gamingqueen

Exactly, I don't see what the problem is when it never was about the numbers in the first place, the actual review is what counts.

And if you don't have time to read the review, then The Good and The Bad + the medals more than make up for the loss of 0.1 increments.

.5 rating scale? Deerrrrrrrr.

Dumb.

[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?

Given that 8.8 is closer to 9.0 than 8.5 that would kind of rule out an 8.5? Unless you are going to choose to round scores down rather than up, are you? In which case let the whining begin. ;)

Think of the disparity between a 8.3 and a 8.7. Those will now have the same score, when really, one is pretty superior to the other. F1Lengend

If anything I think this change in the review system will benefit the reviewing of classic games which, imo, showed the aging of Gamespot's review system the most. Every classic game that got reviewed received a ridiculously low score even if the game was incredibly fun to play.

A while back I had posted that something needed to be changed in regards to reviewing older games and that the "graphics and sound" factors really don't play much of a factor to merit the docking of points. I see that I wasn't alone in that assesment although I'm surprised that rather than create a separate review system for all the "casual and classic" games they just opted to change everything.

While this new review system will be a great help in determining the quality of a game that doesn't have great graphics (and wasn't meant to have great graphics in the first place), I can see it start to show some holes for the .1 driven Gamespot fanbase.

If you wanted to make a "one size fits all" system I would say use the .5 increment through 9.0 and from that point on go back to the .1 system since many of us will want to see just how GREAT a game is. Up until the 9.0 point it really doesn't matter since you are really only talking about how decent or how good a game is. For most of us, if you say a game is "good" that is enough. But when you talk about "greatness" then the debates start rolling as to just how great the game is. Just my 2 cents.

If you wanted to make a "one size fits all" system I would say use the .5 increment through 9.0 and from that point on go back to the .1 system since many of us will want to see just how GREAT a game is. Up until the 9.0 point it really doesn't matter since you are really only talking about how decent or how good a game is. For most of us, if you say a game is "good" that is enough. But when you talk about "greatness" then the debates start rolling as to just how great the game is. Just my 2 cents.

SuperSamyon

The way this is going with so few scores, I don't see why there need to be numerical scores. I mean, we have the "goods" and "greats" and "fairs" and all; why not use those?-The-G-Man-

Because how do you understand exactly how much difference there is between "good", "great" and "superb" without being familiar with numerical order? Furthermore, even within those descriptors, there's a bit of a hierachy, as a game can be "great" and get an 8.0, or "great" and get an 8.5. Gamespot would recommend the latter game more, despite the fact that both carry the "great" moniker.

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]Think of the disparity between a 8.3 and a 8.7. Those will now have the same score, when really, one is pretty superior to the other. Skylock00

So basically it would be like rounding - 8.4 would end up being 8.5, 8.7 would be 9, and so on. I don't see the big deal about the numbers. All you're doing is dragging an arrow to a number you like for the game. As mentioned earlier, it's the review that counts.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]Think of the disparity between a 8.3 and a 8.7. Those will now have the same score, when really, one is pretty superior to the other. AdolChristin

So basically it would be like rounding - 8.4 would end up being 8.5, 8.7 would be 9, and so on. I don't see the big deal about the numbers. All you're doing is dragging an arrow to a number you like for the game. As mentioned earlier, it's the review that counts.

So, there wouldn't really be a 'rounding' of scores as much as simply a rescoring

[QUOTE="AdolChristin"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]Think of the disparity between a 8.3 and a 8.7. Those will now have the same score, when really, one is pretty superior to the other. Skylock00

So basically it would be like rounding - 8.4 would end up being 8.5, 8.7 would be 9, and so on. I don't see the big deal about the numbers. All you're doing is dragging an arrow to a number you like for the game. As mentioned earlier, it's the review that counts.

So, there wouldn't really be a 'rounding' of scores as much as simply a rescoring

Could you like, explain that in English please? Mathematical system...weights...on rating games? Wha?

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="AdolChristin"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]Think of the disparity between a 8.3 and a 8.7. Those will now have the same score, when really, one is pretty superior to the other. AdolChristin

So basically it would be like rounding - 8.4 would end up being 8.5, 8.7 would be 9, and so on. I don't see the big deal about the numbers. All you're doing is dragging an arrow to a number you like for the game. As mentioned earlier, it's the review that counts.

So, there wouldn't really be a 'rounding' of scores as much as simply a rescoring

Could you like, explain that in English please? Mathematical system...weights...on rating games? Wha?

Here's an example off the top of my head--not how GS does it, but just an example of weighting. Each point for graphics would contribute more to the total score than each point for sound. So increasing the graphics score by one unit, say, would increase the overall score by 3, whereas a unit increase for sound would only increase the overall score by 1.

I don't know how GS does it, but that was just an example for ya.

Here's an example off the top of my head--not how GS does it, but just an example of weighting. Each point for graphics would contribute more to the total score than each point for sound. So increasing the graphics score by one unit, say, would increase the overall score by 3, whereas a unit increase for sound would only increase the overall score by 1.

I don't know how GS does it, but that was just an example for ya.

Angry_Beaver

Actually that is very similar to how GS does it. Each point for graphics is more heavily weighted than each point in sound.

I like the new ratings system a lot actually. Its more like EGM's system, which I prefer.

No more "well game x got a 9.1 and game z only got a 9.0...therefore game x is superior". When it comes right down to it, whether or not you feel a game is .1 better than another is all opinion. Now people can make up there own minds moreso than before.

Also, I hope Gamespot DOES give out more 10's with this new rating. 10 does not mean perfect, it means one of the best for its time. Use it. Anything in the past that got a 9.6 or 7 here, was basically the same thing as a 10 anyway. Most games of high quality will still get a 9 or 9.5 I'm sure. I doubt there will all the sudden be 2 10's a week.

Here's all the evidence you'll ever need to justify changing the review setup:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/mariokart64/index.html

Could you like, explain that in English please? Mathematical system...weights...on rating games? Wha?

AdolChristin

You had Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value, and Tilt. Each of those catagories had their own score, which was averaged together to create the overall score. However, these catagories didn't contribute to the final score equally. Here's the breakdown, showing how many points of of ten each catagory would contribute:

Gameplay - 3/10

Graphics - 1.5/10

Sound - 1/10

Value - 1.5/10

Tilt - 3/10

*Edited after correction by Oilers*

What this would mean, as Angry_Beaver noted, is that a point for each catagory would add a different amount to the overall score. As I noted, it's a realtively mathmatical system. This was neat, because it was a way of having a more 'objective' way of determining a game's score...the problem, however, stems predominently from the notion that as time went along, the way that these catagories gave points out wasn't as valid across the board as they used to be.

Some games might require more weight on graphics or sound, as that's more of a focal point to the game/genre...but the GS system didn't allow for that sort of reweighting of the catagories.

So, the point is that now, without the hinderence of a mathamatical means of rating games that only allowed for one means of evaluating games, GS's editors are more capable of simply rating a game accurately based on its quality within its own genre/platform more readily, without having to deal with the rating system working against the process of actually rating the game, from what I see.

Here's all the evidence you'll ever need to justify changing the review setup:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/mariokart64/index.html

Smaqaho

Funny how after all these years this game still is probably imo the most controversial review Gamespot has ever done. This game provided hours and hours of fun and I honestly could never understand this score. It was like I wanted to ask them "can't you see how much fun this game is?"

That game could have looked like complete crap for all I cared. It just was such an enjoyable experience that nothing else in my opinion mattered.

I thought the breakdown was more like:

Gameplay: 3/10
Graphics: 1.5/10
Sound: 1/10
Value: 1.5/10
Tilt: 3/10
Oilers99

Here's all the evidence you'll ever need to justify changing the review setup:

http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/mariokart64/index.html

Smaqaho

If the best example you can pick is from more than 10 years ago, it doesn't sound like much of a justification.

Thank God we've taken a step away from fun with decimals. Now to just take one step further and eliminate halves as well... People place too damn much importance on scores.Teuvan

[QUOTE="Teuvan"]Thank God we've taken a step away from fun with decimals. Now to just take one step further and eliminate halves as well... People place too damn much importance on scores.Oilers99

Big Rigs says "hi". :P

[QUOTE="AdolChristin"]

Could you like, explain that in English please? Mathematical system...weights...on rating games? Wha?

Skylock00

You had Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value, and Tilt. Each of those catagories had their own score, which was averaged together to create the overall score. However, these catagories didn't contribute to the final score equally. Here's the breakdown, showing how many points of of ten each catagory would contribute:

Gameplay - 3/10

Graphics - 1.5/10

Sound - 1/10

Value - 1.5/10

Tilt - 3/10

*Edited after correction by Oilers*

What this would mean, as Angry_Beaver noted, is that a point for each catagory would add a different amount to the overall score. As I noted, it's a realtively mathmatical system. This was neat, because it was a way of having a more 'objective' way of determining a game's score...the problem, however, stems predominently from the notion that as time went along, the way that these catagories gave points out wasn't as valid across the board as they used to be.

Some games might require more weight on graphics or sound, as that's more of a focal point to the game/genre...but the GS system didn't allow for that sort of reweighting of the catagories.

So, the point is that now, without the hinderence of a mathamatical means of rating games that only allowed for one means of evaluating games, GS's editors are more capable of simply rating a game accurately based on its quality within its own genre/platform more readily, without having to deal with the rating system working against the process of actually rating the game, from what I see.

I don't know about that. I don't see why they can't put a provision in their policy that states the same thing they do about how they have different standards for different platforms. Take the game Rock Band for example, looking at the screens, I don't see anything wrong giving that game a 10 in graphics, because the best looking music game I've ever seen(assuming they added that provision I just suggested). Will there be idiots who think that means that Rockband looks better than a xbox 360 shooter that got a 9 in graphics, sure, but those people should not be catered to in the first place.

Overall, I see this being more of a sideways move than a step forward. When you give games like Forza 2 a 9 in graphics I get the impression they want to have control of the overall verdict. There are a lot of other examples like that, I think DKC should get a 10 going by SNES standards, but the classic reviews is another issue altoghther. Anyway, while throwing out the component ratings does give them the final say in the score, changing the increments to .5 will have it's own limitations. There's a big difference between a 8.5 and a 9.0 imo(my viewpoint on that is one of the reasons I've used this site frequently for reviews), and there will be times when a 8.7 can still be very appropiate. Hello Super Paper Mario. Speaking of that, if they all reviewed the M/L and PM games with this system it's possible all of them would recieve 9's. Now maybe it's just me but these games are not all of identical quality, and a GS reviewer in that scenario wanting to demonstrate that would have no other choice but to strech to the lower/higher score to show that. I still believe an accurate reviewer is compromised with this scale. Now I like some things, such as he concise review summaries, I can't remember the last time I read a review start-to-finish when it first went up. The screen also looks less busy which I think is a plus too. But I still can't shake the feeling that it would be more effective to attempt to tune the previous system instead of making such a brash and hasty move. Again, the uniqueness of gamespot reviews is pretty much flushed down the toilet, replaced by a cliched system that one can find anywhere.

Personally, I've always been about reading the full text review because I like to be as informed as possible when purchasing a game. I understand that most of the visitors of GameSpot don't do their reading though. GameSpot's motivation to change comes from the majority of people who want as much information as they can get in as little time as possible -- that's cool! Efficiency is your friend.

That's why I'm very excited about the medals system. The Good and The Bad were great introductions in my opinion and I think it's a great next move to expand that with the medals. On the other hand, I'm practically ambivalent about the .5-increments. I keep trying to synthesize some kind of opinion either way on the topic, but I can't. For me, scores have only been gateways inviting me to read a review in full. For example, if a game in a genre I like scores an 8 or above, I'll most likely read the review. I can't say that'll change with this new system.

Thank God we've taken a step away from fun with decimals. Now to just take one step further and eliminate halves as well... People place too damn much importance on scores.Teuvan

Here's an example off the top of my head--not how GS does it, but just an example of weighting. Each point for graphics would contribute more to the total score than each point for sound. So increasing the graphics score by one unit, say, would increase the overall score by 3, whereas a unit increase for sound would only increase the overall score by 1.

I don't know how GS does it, but that was just an example for ya.Angry_Beaver

With the .1 system, every .1 adds to the score...everything adds to the overall score...I stilll don't really follow...sorry.

[QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"]Here's an example off the top of my head--not how GS does it, but just an example of weighting. Each point for graphics would contribute more to the total score than each point for sound. So increasing the graphics score by one unit, say, would increase the overall score by 3, whereas a unit increase for sound would only increase the overall score by 1.

I don't know how GS does it, but that was just an example for ya.AdolChristin

With the .1 system, every .1 adds to the score...everything adds to the overall score...I stilll don't really follow...sorry.

Read Skylock's explanation. He went over the actual system GS uses/used.

Dear Gamespot,

YOU ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE. The 0.1 scale and the gameplay/graphics/sound/value/tilt factors made your scoring system unique and more accurate. Why are you changing that? Have you recieved complaints about it, or something? Anyway, screw your new scoring system.

Sincerely,
iamsouledge

Dear Gamespot,

YOU ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE. The 0.1 scale and the gameplay/graphics/sound/value/tilt factors made your scoring system unique and more accurate. Why are you changing that? Have you recieved complaints about it, or something? Anyway, screw your new scoring system.

Sincerely,
iamsouledge

iamsouledge

How is it more accurate if the reviewer can't control the exact score? If anything, it's the opposite.

[QUOTE="iamsouledge"]

Dear Gamespot,

YOU ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE. The 0.1 scale and the gameplay/graphics/sound/value/tilt factors made your scoring system unique and more accurate. Why are you changing that? Have you recieved complaints about it, or something? Anyway, screw your new scoring system.

Sincerely,
iamsouledge

Oilers99

How is it more accurate if the reviewer can't control the exact score? If anything, it's the opposite.

I'm talking about the 0.1 scale; it made things more precise.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="iamsouledge"]

Dear Gamespot,

YOU ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE. The 0.1 scale and the gameplay/graphics/sound/value/tilt factors made your scoring system unique and more accurate. Why are you changing that? Have you recieved complaints about it, or something? Anyway, screw your new scoring system.

Sincerely,
iamsouledge

iamsouledge

How is it more accurate if the reviewer can't control the exact score? If anything, it's the opposite.

I'm talking about the 0.1 scale; it made things more precise.

I know what you're talking about. But they weren't more precise, because Gamespot couldn't control the review score down to a tenth of a point.

Then drop the weighting system, but keep the 0.1 scale and the individual factor scores; basically, if they keep those two things, I don't care what they do to it.iamsouledge

Individual factor scores are being kept, for as much as they matter. When something is middle of the range, to the point where it doesn't affect the experience one way or another, traditionally in the 5-7 range, the individual score doesn't matter. But when the game has, say, particularly bad graphics or particularly great sound, that will be noted. In fact, the system is more versatile in that respect because the medal system can award high scores for things other than the usual suspects. Great stories, terrific voice performances, excellent writing and so forth can all be recognized.

If you're so convinced about the precision of the .1 scale, then prove it by giving me the exactly score for the following opinions:

The game looks great, but it's not that important in the grand scheme of things. The controls are really tight and the game takes a long time to complete, but it's stretched out too much and gets repetitive towards the end. Voice acting is a little grating, but the principle actors are handled well enough. Story is kind of interesting, but doesn't take up much of the experience.

Terrific gameplay, really varied and deep, but the story is obtrusive, long-winded and pops up fairly frequently. Visuals and sound are really bland, but the game could have used a much more evocative atmosphere. Difficulty curve is pretty steep, but once you get it, the game really opens up. Is a little on the short side, but really nicely paced.

I'm not thinking of specific games, those are just general opinions one might have on a videogame. You must now give it the exactly correct score, down to .1 to prove the precision of the system. Go.

I do it all the time,I enjoy rating games down to .1 . Its not a science its just how much you enjoyed a game. I like being able to use a full scale cause many times I dont feel like bunching a bunch of games together. I like being able to show that I thinkNG is better than say GoW just with the scores, with a .5 scale so many games will be jumbled up that I will have no way of seperating the games I think are better than others. dvader654

[QUOTE="AdolChristin"][QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"]Here's an example off the top of my head--not how GS does it, but just an example of weighting. Each point for graphics would contribute more to the total score than each point for sound. So increasing the graphics score by one unit, say, would increase the overall score by 3, whereas a unit increase for sound would only increase the overall score by 1.

I don't know how GS does it, but that was just an example for ya.Angry_Beaver

With the .1 system, every .1 adds to the score...everything adds to the overall score...I stilll don't really follow...sorry.

Read Skylock's explanation. He went over the actual system GS uses/used.

Yeah I missed that thanks a lot!! Now I understand it a lot better.

It's kind of weird though too - (Random values are going to be used here) - Forza 2 gets a 9 because of it's graphics and great such and such - so it's awesome for the racing genre, but you look at a diferent genre, and you give lets say, Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo a 9.5 because of all of its ups.

So I see it's a lot more complicated than just saying, "Mario Game" = 7.6, Final fantasy VII = 8.5 and so on. All based on time and stuff. Wow really - if you look at it in the extreme point.

I like the idea of removing the weighted points. I never knew graphics and sound were weighted 0.2 and 0.1 respectively, comapred with 0.3 for gameplay.The removalmakes sense when you bring alternative genres into the mix.

Also simplifying the score gaps makes for better communication at-a-glance in conjunction with the Good and Bad comments.

The only real concern I have is thatgames that would normally get between 9.7-9.9 will now be rounded up to 10.

Or is there some sort of 'filter' systemthat only allows a perfect 10 when the reviewer deems it so?

The only real concern I have is thatgames that would normally get between 9.7-9.9 will now be rounded up to 10.selbie