Let's Have A Discussion About Reviews and Scores
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Should games be given such specific scores?
Should games be given scores at all?
Does the industry hand out too high of scores on a regular basis?
Does giving a game a score promote fanboyism?
The reason I want to have this discussion is that I feel like the score that a game recieves is married to it in a way that criticisms and reviews for other forms of entertainment aren't. I never read a movie review and feel as though that review has a tangible effect on my enjoyment of that film. Does giving a game a score add an artificial weight to the text of a review? I don't know, sometimes I think it does.
I definitely feel that giving games a specific score promotes a certain amount of fanboyism, and I think it can also be misleading when you try to compare one review to another review, or one game's score to another game's score. I think that by giving a game a score it allows us to compare, where maybe we shouldn't... A 9.0 from Gamespot isn't a 9.0 from 1up, but we treat it that way sometimes. A sports game that recieves a 9.0 shouldn't really be compared to something like Puzzle Quest for XBLA. Same scores, different genres, different pricepoints, different pros and cons.
I never sit back and try to compare Fellini's 8 1/2 to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. That would be absurd, they have next to nothing in common, aside from being great films. Just because both films recieved the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in the years that they came out, doesn't mean that one should be compared to another.
Do review scores exist to help us figure out what to buy/spend our time on, or do they exist to validate our own opinions?
I am posting this because I am bothered by my own reactions to the Ratchet and Clank review among other things. Review scores don't exist in any real sense, but for some reason I think a lot of us, myself included, place too much weight on them. Let me know what you think. Review scores aren't real. Games shouldn't be defined by their score. I'm guilty of saying, "Oh that game is a 9 for sure!". I don't treat movies or books that way, but somehow games are married to their scores in a way that over forms of entertainment aren't.
I think one of the reasons for so much weight being placed on game reviews (and not movies and books) is because of the high cost of buying a game. For $8.50, I can afford to be wrong. For $65 (after tax)? Not so much.
Games are super-expensive when compared to other forms of entertainment.
I think one of the reasons for so much weight being placed on game reviews (and not movies and books) is because of the high cost of buying a game. For $8.50, I can afford to be wrong. For $65 (after tax)? Not so much.
Games are super-expensive when compared to other forms of entertainment.
Shame-usBlackley
Definitely. Gaming has to be one of the most expensive past times that I can think of. It just bothers me that I remember what critics think of games long after I've formed my own opinions of a game I've played. Maybe I'm a special case in that regard.
Edit: That is one thing I value about Gamespot's reviews. They do seem to try and take into account how a game will be percieved after the hype has died down. As I've said before, I played the Bioshock demo, and I knew for a fact that the game was going to be huge, and incredible, and mind blowing... and then I played it, and came away with a different opinion.
Should games be given scores at all?
Take away the scores and I bet I can put two reviewsof games that got a nice sized difference in score and you guys wont be able to tell which one got which score. The score sets the tone of the review, it is a great well to tell how much someone enjoyed or disliked a game. Many times reviews just write about the pros and cons like a stat sheet but you know what games are many times bigger than just a list of what is right or wrong with them. Sometimes I can really like a game and I can't actually explain exactly why that is.
dvader654
It would be really interesting to see something like this done... the main reason I ask whether or not games should be given scores at all is that I suspect most people don't even read the text of reviews. I suspect half the time people are disagreeing with the score of a review without having even read the reasons why a game scored the way it did. This would drive me nuts if I wrote reviews for a living.
Does the industry hand out too high of scores on a regular basis?
I don't know, I think all of us kind of got used to this universal scale where a game in the 70% range is decent or average and 80% is really good and 90% is the special must have games. There are a bunch of scales out there but thats how I see it, and I know I am not alone. If someone does try to say, "hey we think we need to be much harder on our scale make 9's really really hard to get" then it will be shown as a site that just underrates games, so they would really need to be clear about it. As of now I think we are so set in our ways that its to hard to do, thats how the scale is.
dvader654
I use the same internal scale as well, and personally I don't have a problem with more games scoring higher, as it probably means we are playing better games. The reason I brought this up is that I was reading a thread over at NeoGAF where people were whining about how too many games are scoring perfect 10s this year. It struck me as odd, as though there is a limited number of 9's and 10's that a website should hand out within a given year, regardless of the average quality of games within that year. Some people even went as far as to say that no game should ever recieve a 10. If no game should ever recieve a 10, what is the point of having that number on the scale?
Definitely. Gaming has to be one of the most expensive past times that I can think of. It just bothers me that I remember what critics think of games long after I've formed my own opinions of a game I've played. Maybe I'm a special case in that regard.
Edit: That is one thing I value about Gamespot's reviews. They do seem to try and take into account how a game will be percieved after the hype has died down. As I've said before, I played the Bioshock demo, and I knew for a fact that the game was going to be huge, and incredible, and mind blowing... and then I played it, and came away with a different opinion.rragnaar
Not really, it's human nature to question oneself about one's own judgements, especially in the face of an adverse opinion (especially one formulated by somebody who's profession is gaming editorials).
I personally think the problem with any sort of review is that the reviewers spend too much time with their subject, as strange as that sounds. That's why I think movie reviews are so out of the sphere of reality, to the point that a relative few take it seriously, and slowly but surely gaming reviews are starting to join that trend. The reviewers acquire a "refined taste", and become somewhat spoiled, and perhaps a bit bored.
I could liken it to the parody of the movie critic in "Lady in the Water", where he was depicted as predicting what will happen next because he's seen so many movies that deal with a similar theme. He seemed almost bored with the events up until the point in which died.
Game critics are probably much of the same. Regardless of how well put together a package may be, if it's not "revolutionary", they've already played it, and this sentiment carries over into their review. It doesn't matter if there are readers out there who haven't played a game like it, or a game in that particular series. It doesn't matter if the overall package is bigger and longer and has more tricks up it's sleeve if it's basically the "same game", it's not top cla55, not editors choice, with a few awkward exceptions.
A problem exclusive with game critics it seems is that Fun Factor is lost. A game could be mediocre in presentation but manages to be the funnest game ever created, do you think it'll score over a 7? I was under the impression that people play games for fun, or am I just missing something?
Not really, it's human nature to question oneself about one's own judgements, especially in the face of an adverse opinion (especially one formulated by somebody who's profession is gaming editorials).
I personally think the problem with any sort of review is that the reviewers spend too much time with their subject, as strange as that sounds. That's why I think movie reviews are so out of the sphere of reality, to the point that a relative few take it seriously, and slowly but surely gaming reviews are starting to join that trend. The reviewers acquire a "refined taste", and become somewhat spoiled, and perhaps a bit bored.
I could liken it to the parody of the movie critic in "Lady in the Water", where he was depicted as predicting what will happen next because he's seen so many movies that deal with a similar theme. He seemed almost bored with the events up until the point in which died.
Game critics are probably much of the same. Regardless of how well put together a package may be, if it's not "revolutionary", they've already played it, and this sentiment carries over into their review. It doesn't matter if there are readers out there who haven't played a game like it, or a game in that particular series. It doesn't matter if the overall package is bigger and longer and has more tricks up it's sleeve if it's basically the "same game", it's not top cla55, not editors choice, with a few awkward exceptions.
A problem exclusive with game critics it seems is that Fun Factor is lost. A game could be mediocre in presentation but manages to be the funnest game ever created, do you think it'll score over a 7? I was under the impression that people play games for fun, or am I just missing something?
NECR0CHILD313
Great points! I've often wondered if getting to 'play games for a living' is really all it is cracked up to be. Granted it has to be better than working in a coal mine, but I wonder what it is like to spend so much time with something that used to be your hobby. Do reviewers still have fun with games? I think it is a worthy question to be asked.
In my opinion, review scores wouldn't be nearly as important if it weren't for what I believe is an inherent game industry flaw - multiple game systems that only play a number of selected games. Imagine a DVD player that plays only select films. An mp3 player that plays only certain music. The mere notion is idiotic. With game systems and games themselves being so expensive (let's not forget, time-consuming), you can't blame people for seeking out validation for their decisions. Of course, that's no excuse for being a jerk about it. Game publications are not at fault because people are using their reviews for their own personal agendas. You don't see film and music critics getting rid of scores.
For me personally, how much does the review matter is completely dependent on the game in question. For example, The Orange Box could've gotten zeros across the board, sea basses with frickin' lasers attached to their heads wouldn't stop me from buying that game. On the other hand, I would like to read a few reviews from credible sources about The Witcher to make sure I'm not about to waste my money and time on a sub-par game. Scores in and of themselves don't mean anything to me - Unreal Tournament III can get 10's from whomever, I ain't getting it. On the other hand, I'm getting Kane & Lynch no matter what, it's made by a respectable developer and I absolutely love the concept.
In my opinion, review scores wouldn't be nearly as important if it weren't for what I believe is an inherent game industry flaw - multiple game systems that only play a number of selected games. Imagine a DVD player that plays only select films. An mp3 player that plays only certain music. The mere notion is idiotic. With game systems and games themselves being so expensive (let's not forget, time-consuming), you can't blame people for seeking out validation for their decisions. Of course, that's no excuse for being a jerk about it. Game publications are not at fault because people are using their reviews for their own personal agendas. You don't see film and music critics getting rid of scores.
For me personally, how much does the review matter is completely dependent on the game in question. For example, The Orange Box could've gotten zeros across the board, sea basses with frickin' lasers attached to their heads wouldn't stop me from buying that game. On the other hand, I would like to read a few reviews from credible sources about The Witcher to make sure I'm not about to waste my money and time on a sub-par game. Scores in and of themselves don't mean anything to me - Unreal Tournament III can get 10's from whomever, I ain't getting it. On the other hand, I'm getting Kane & Lynch no matter what, it's made by a respectable developer and I absolutely love the concept.
UpInFlames
*Stands up and applauds*
I hope that someday we will have a console like the one you speak of. It is ridiculous that we, as gamers, are divided by our console of choice, or PC in your case.
...and I agree with you about reviews. Nothing that any reviewer can say will stop me from getting Super Mario Galaxy, but some games it is nice to know what you are getting into. I was going to buy Folklore until I read that you have to play each section of the game twice to advance the story. I've got better things to do with my time.
About the reviewers not stopping you from buying a game, I get what you are saying, many times I make choices of games I want to buy and I will buy no matter what cause I know its something I like or I am a big fan, like RE: UC. But how about something like the DMC2 example I gave, lets say we live in a crazy universe where Mario Galaxy is a pile of trash and everyone does give the game bad reviews and says its not worth it, I know we would probably be able to see it from the beginning, but in that case there is a game that was a "sure buy" that I would pass up. It happend wth Sonic the Hedgehog this year, that was a game I said was review proof, I loved the other SA games, I knew it would get so-so reviews but I did not expect it to be a complete disaster like what it was, the reviews told me that. I guess I am saying you guys are exaggerating a bit, you wouldn't buy a game if it got zeros across the board.
dvader654
I wouldn't be so sure. :P
In all seriousness and seriousity, I agree. There is a point at which the score a game gets will change whether or not I choose to buy the game... in most cases...
There's also a massive double-standard on the public's side.
Take Zack and Wiki, a game that averaged 8's. Most people were plenty happy with that because it was an unknown IP that sort of came out of nowhere and delivered.On the other hand, Mario Sunshine gets an 8.5 and it's the end of the world. Why? Managed expectations.
And then there are entire genres whose base is immune to the whole "it should've scored this much higher" thing. Look at Guitar Hero 3 -- it gets an 8.0 and there's no outrage, no indignation, no account suicides. Why is that?
A 7.5 - 8.5 score is perfectly acceptable for most of us assuming it isn't one of our sacred franchises.
There's also a massive double-standard on the public's side.
Take Zack and Wiki, a game that averaged 8's. Most people were plenty happy with that because it was an unknown IP that sort of came out of nowhere and delivered.On the other hand, Mario Sunshine gets an 8.5 and it's the end of the world. Why? Managed expectations.
And then there are entire genres whose base is immune to the whole "it should've scored this much higher" thing. Look at Guitar Hero 3 -- it gets an 8.0 and there's no outrage, no indignation, no account suicides. Why is that?
A 7.5 - 8.5 score is perfectly acceptable for most of us assuming it isn't one of our sacred franchises.
Shame-usBlackley
I think the public outrage stems from Gamespot being the outlier in the controversial reviews. I can't really remember much outcry when a game scored poorly everywhere, including here.
Scores! A complex issue, I believe. I guess the importance of reviews and scores nowadays reflect how the fanbase has evolved, just like the industry itself.Reviews are still informative, in-depth opinions, aiming to provide guidance in a possible purchase, but their numerical value lends itself too well for game-to-game and even system-to-system comparisons, and thus, they are always used (and willalways be used)as weapons in the neverending console war.
Games should be reviewed, and scored as well. It's not the reviewer's problem if the score he/she just handed to a certain game will be flung by vehement gamers towards each other's faces, in an effort to show the superiority of their systems, or the inferiority of everyone else's ones. A bit of chest-pounding, I think. To allow gamers to make a conscious, well informed purchase decision; I guess that is the primary purpose of a review. The score is the numerical value attached to the review, it's meaningless (in my opinion) without the context provided by the review itself.
However, it should be noted that an informed decision should be backed up by as many reviews as possible, since relying on just one could be misleading. Reviewers can be affected by hype, genre bias, jadedness, you name it. How many of us could honestly understand what it's like to play games and write about them for a living?
There are manyaspects of this industry that we don't know; even forum-dwellers like us are constantly surprised by unexpected, surprising news; so it's difficult to say if high scores are being given way too freely nowadays. In the end, I guess that this is a lose-lose situation for reviewers and the specialized media outlets. They will always hear complaints, either because of being too generous, or way too harsh.
I don't think that giving scores promotes fanboyism (hell, I don't even like the term). If a gamer is vocal about the system of his/her choice, he'll try to make himself heard about it, scores or no scores. This is just a part of what we have evolved into, as part of the collective gaming community, I think.
I think the public outrage stems from Gamespot being the outlier in the controversial reviews. I can't really remember much outcry when a game scored poorly everywhere, including here.
NECR0CHILD313
According to Metacritic, there were seven other sites/publications that rated Twilight Princess for the Wii at or below what Gamespot did. One of them rated the game a 7.8, definitely enough to take Gamespot out of the outlier category. Yet all holy hell broke out on these forums over it.
I think you have a point, but I also think people have preconceived notions for what a game deserves before they've even played it a lot of times.
*Comes in*....God of War!!! Argh!!! Talk about my most misleading review, hype type thing. So it gets solid scores all across. Alot say it is great like DMC and NG...*Goes picks it up with DMC3SE*. And Thy God Should of Smited Ye Old Self!!! Talk about the worst varying experience I played. Combat pretty much on par with a Dynasty Warriors game, Absolutely no difficulty, Replay value...pretty much excint, Story..the same quality as every other action game generic and laughable(One thing it had right with DMC and NG lol). Its just like...So Presentation got a 9+(Good soundtrack, voice acting, visuals, and level design)? Because nothing else is exceptional here. Pretty much that was when I haven't cared at all what most reviews think. I had DMC3SE on the other hand...arguable the best Action game ever. And God of War arguably the most overhyped and misleading.
Reviews for the most part are good for a laugh or two now. I throughly enjoyed the R/C one and want many more like it lol. Reviews as I see it now in this day are more for ammo in fanboy wars(Consule or game) in proving thier purchase adquete then anything else since Demos are slowly becomming the standerd now. Then actually being needed to decide if the game is worthy buying or not. Not to mention stuff like Gamefly and Blockbuster Gaming card where renting is easier and better then ever before.
The only reviews I actually think are worthwhile in a decision now are gamerankings
I think reviews are always a bit flawed because of hype in the first place...as professional game reviewers they try not to let it effect them. But Im willing to bet there still is some bias/hype in them..
I like to use Bioshock as an example. Tons of sites gave it 10/10's, 9.5, there were people on this board saying it deserved 9.5-10's and really really high scores. I believe it was mostly because of hype. Now that the game has been out a while, people have played it, the hype has died down. People are realizing that the game wasnt as wonderful as they originally thought. I see more and more posts saying how it was all presentation and the actual gameplay wasnt that great (which I said from the beginning and got flamed to hell for)
I think there are way too many factors that influence peoples perception on games. So I see reviews as a really really general range of the game..whether its good or not. Everybody likes different games, different play styles. Its ridiculous to have one person review the game, and have people just go by that set score on how good it is (system wars).....
I would like to add, I think a better system of gamespot reviews would be having like 3 reviews of the game from 3 diff gamespot reviewers. And then averaging them. Having one guy do a review and having that represent your entire site seems kind of crazy to me. It would make a hell of a lot more sense having 3 of the gamespot reviewers rate the game, and then averaging their scores to come to the final score the site gives.
Has gamespot ever even considered that system?? It just makes so much more sense than the system now.....
Scores are trivial and ambiguous at best. 6.4 for Mario Kart 64? Psh...
They only do one thing: represent the opinion of the writer. And even that is flawed, because it's really a ranking. Imagine all the games in 1 line. You got your 10's here, 9s and so on. It's simply rankings based on one person.
What we should focus upon is the content or what the game is ABOUT. For instance: I won't buy VF5, if I had a PS3, because a) it's not online and b) my friends would be lost at to how to play.
I think Gspot could do a better job if they simply highlight the key important aspects of the game. No, I'm not talking about some pro's cons. I'm talking about some key facts that are objective. Something like: 4 players, 10 players online, no splitscreen... stuff like that.
Man just got a 360 today... ahhh.
Well, here's my two cents.
The score is most definitely the 'least important part of the review for me and is not entireely necessary but even if I plan on reading a review I often check the score first but a well written review should be able tos tand up without one.
I've been lucky enough tof ind a magazine with well written and entertaining reviews (I read absolutely everything in the magazine inclouding reviews of games I have no interest in buying) and my opinion is almost always the same as theirs and the discrepancys are only ever slight. so I'd have the most important part of a rewview is that it's well written and entertaining for me because (except from that particular review) I don't use them to help me decide on my next purchase. However if a review is entertaining I'll still read it (Zero Punctiation anyone?)but I won't help me decide o nmy next purchase.
Seeing as this is GS I should probably comment on thei reviews.I generally only read their reviews of games I've played and I have to say I find the writting rather boring (though reasonably informitive) and I've also got to say I almost NEVER agree with their opinion and often I'm reading their reviews simply so I can complain about them. :D
It's a little pathetic but I've got to find some way to wast etime don't I?
I've sort of lost my point here so let me sumarise:
Score not important
Review's writting important
GS's opinion is rarely agreed with by me
and I can't think of anything else.
What we should focus upon is the content or what the game is ABOUT. For instance: I won't buy VF5, if I had a PS3, because a) it's not online and b) my friends would be lost at to how to play.Reviews on most sites should be better labelled as 'critiques,' because that's what they're trying to be. I /like/ hearing opinions on things, and more than just information that anyone can spit out.I think Gspot could do a better job if they simply highlight the key important aspects of the game. No, I'm not talking about some pro's cons. I'm talking about some key facts that are objective. Something like: 4 players, 10 players online, no splitscreen... stuff like that.Revelade
I like hearing what someone else feels and thinks about how effective different aspects of a game's design is, and why they feel that way, because it gives me some insight that is a bit deeper than what some simple stats can convey.
Anyways, on to the main questions in this thread, my mainissue is that people take the score as having more weight than it really should carry. This isespecially because at the end of the day, putting a number on a game in the way that we expect just seems like such a meaningless, asinine institution IMHO,that it only seems to serve the purpose (for the most part) of either reinforcing a predetermined notion about a game, or acting as fodder for some argument one way or another, instead of acting as a recommendation for anything.
Given the stark number of variables that can come into play for rating a game 'accurately' (Platform, Genre, Time game was released, in some cases variables like 'Fun,' 'Value,' etc.), it just doesn't seem like there's any way to really rate a game in a way that is accurate, fair, and meaningful for a period of time that's much longer than a few months around the game's release...because hypothetically, the standards by which those numbers should be assigned would change, meaning that older numbers aren't accurate anymore based on newer standards...
...and don't get me started on making detailed numbered scores for individual aspects of a game, because for the most part I don't quite see the value in those as well.
I read reviews for one primary purpose - to get impressions and opinions from someone who has played and completed the game, and whom I can assume has the ability to both form opinions and back those opinions up with either direct information on the game, or examples of incidents within the game to make those opinions stand. The numbers have grown to become less meaningful to me, especially given how rapidly things can change regarding standards we carry about different platforms, genres, and aspects of game's designs.
So, in short, no, I don't think games should be given very specific scores, and to some degrees, I don't think scores should be part of the equation at all.
Well, you guys have hit on most of the points i wanted to make, I'm glad to have read all those.
I do agree that a 10 should never be used, even though its in the scale. Main reason being that reviews and scores are subjective. A 10 would imply that a game is so great that everyone will love it and want to play it. I think its safe to say that game does not exist. Maybe in the past when choices were less and games were more of a fad a game like Pac-man would have deserved a 10. Everyone loved it, played, and talked about it. However, with more to choose from and gamers' tastes being so different, that one perfect game will probably never come to be.
As far as scores, I think the main problem is that people either don't pay attention to the guidelines or have become snobs. I can't stand hearing people say "I will never buy a game that gets lower than a 7" or 8, or 6, or whatever. On this site, as per the staff of Gamespot, a 5 is an average game. Not great, not bad. Average. I would think that anyone who likes platformers, for example, should be interested in reading a review of a platformer that gets a 5. That game may not be stellar, but it's not crap and will probably give you a similar experience to other platformers. In that case, an average platformer may be a worthy purchase for fans of the genre.
So, yes, I think high scores are given too often because if a score of 8 is great, how many truly "better-than-great" games are out there? A lot of games now are solid, good games, in my opinion. So I would expect to see many more 6s' and 7's than 8's and 9's.
Lastly, I believe scores should be less specific. If a score is there to guide you, then why should you be told that x game got an 8.5 and y game got a 9.0? Really, what is the difference? this is where I like movies and their stars system and X-Play who rated games 1 - 5. Because as a guide, I think its better to say that a game got a 3 and should be further investigated, then to be told a game isn't worth the extra half-point. After all, a reviewer is there to tell you about a game and let you form your own opinion, right?
I think one of the reasons for so much weight being placed on game reviews (and not movies and books) is because of the high cost of buying a game. For $8.50, I can afford to be wrong. For $65 (after tax)? Not so much.
Games are super-expensive when compared to other forms of entertainment.
Shame-usBlackley
I 120% agree
[QUOTE="Revelade"]I read reviews for one primary purpose - to get impressions and opinions from someone who has played and completed the game, and whom I can assume has the ability to both form opinions and back those opinions up with either direct information on the game, or examples of incidents within the game to make those opinions stand. The numbers have grown to become less meaningful to me, especially given how rapidly things can change regarding standards we carry about different platforms, genres, and aspects of game's design.
Skylock00
Agreed. At the end of the day the reviewer is a seasoned gamer who is giving his impressions on the game. I would be as interested in his comment as I would be of an experienced gamer who doesn't write reviews for a living. Games are a significant investment and no one wants to make a bad choice, so opinions matter. But at the end of the day, the experience you get from a game is what counts the most.
But I wouldn't like to see the scoring factor being taken away from games, atleast not completely. To take the example of the Gamespot system, I would like to see the categorical scores in Graphics, Audio etc, because these factors are comparable. But the overall score... well that gets a little dicey because it also counts for the experience you get out of the game.
I can say that we should do away with it. But then a lot of people look for confirmity before investing. Anything exists because there is a market for it. It's as simple as that.
But for most, and especially for serious/seasoned gamers, maybe that overall score should be looked at a stand alone experience of one person from the game. It cannot be used for a comparitive analysis. I can compare the graphics of GOW and DMC3, but whether a person (reviewer or not) enjoyed playing DMC3 is independent of his experience from GOW.
Yes, that large arbitrary score is ridiculous. Street Fighter 3 and Silent Hill 2 are about 7.4-7.5, if I recall correctly off my head. But they do so in COMPLETELY different ways. One is fighting game that's mainly about 1v1 play. It carries a deep and proven fighting system. Singleplayer? A joke? On the other hand, SH2 is an immersive singleplayer, plot-driven experience. 7.4/7.5 does not state anything about these differences.
So why have them in the first place?
The way I take reviews is that I don't care about what you think; I care about what the game is about. It's like the news reporter stating 3 people died in a fire, then saying, it made her sad and that she thinks its bad... blah, blah. Take that stuff out. This isn't a blog. Our dependence on these blogs has limited our ability to think for ourselves.
The game is a RPG. We have reviewer 1 here who loves RPGs. Game becomes a 8-9ish to him. However, we have me in the other corner. I HATE RPGs. Gets a 1. It doesn't make sense because there are no guidelines. I could give Halo a 1 and I wouldn't be wrong, because the game didn't "earn" a 1, I simply threw my thought at it.
So that's why people who get pissed at gamespot, ign or whoever annoy me. It's the REVIEWER'S SCORE. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT WITH IT (of course they won't swing it around because they are tied to the company that pays them).
As such, to be a reviewer, you should simply play the game thoroughly and list facts and do it in a style that is understandable and clear. Take yourself out of the picture and leave it all about the game. Doesn't sound as fun? Well, neither does the news. But again, reviews shouldn't be blogs.
The result is that using scores would not work. People would see, and correctly point out, "OH BUT THAT'S WHAT HE THINKS, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYONE.", instead of, "THE GAME IS A 9.5." So how would you buy games then? You look at the games you played and then you pick out features you liked. Perhaps it was the attribute system in Tony Hawk. Maybe it was the dual wielding in Halo. You begin to realize what you like more clearly, then, "hey it looks good" or "more guns weeee."
People are being told what to do, versus thinking for themselves and deciding upon it. I guess that's my philosophy. I don't see good or bad. I only see effects and results. If you desire a certain result, do the action that is required for it. Don't write, "the graphics are bad", instead write, "the game uses less pixels than a majority of xbox titles."
But describing can only go so far.
It's really playing it that does it. You won't know until you do it.
My biggest problem with reviewers is that they rush through the game, so that they are able to write a review before the game is launched. This can be a reason for inaccuracies in a review.
An example is Metroid Prime 3. IGN and Gametrailers complained about a fetch quest that totally kills the pacing in the game. But when I read the IGN forums, there where guys that were confused, because they didn't bump into a fetch quest. What happened is that the items required for the fetch quest can be found during normal gameplay, and the reviewers in there mad rush to finish the game, completely missed this opportunity. There is also the problem of difficulty. The reviewers almost always play on the easiest settings. For instance IGN said that MP3 is a tad easier that the first two, but they only played it on the easier setting.
Madly rushing through the game to reach a dead line is not catering to me, because I always take my time. It seems that most of the reviews are written by and for speedrunners. That's why some European reviews are better, because sometimes a reviewer has played the game for months, before it is released in Europe.
A 9 means this game is worth checking if notshould be bought by everyone but not all games which had 9s and 10s deserve to be made!
In general, games which got a certain score aren't as games that got a higher score. And I don't thinkhigh scorespromote fanboysim.I might be a fangirl for some game franchises but few of them are hyped. * only three mgsRE and ff!*. Scores are simple indicators for whether this gameis worth your money or not but some people don't care about money and for that you have reviews! The review covers the product from all sides. It tells you about the lifespan, story, graphics, gameplay and everything people usually look for or care about in games. Why aren't reviews for movies as important as games? I mean come on... You're paying 60 bucks here unlike going to he movies, you only have to pay 6 bucks and by looking at what games offer, to me it's a shame to compare them with movie esepcially videogames today!
Yes, that large arbitrary score is ridiculous. Street Fighter 3 and Silent Hill 2 are about 7.4-7.5, if I recall correctly off my head. But they do so in COMPLETELY different ways. One is fighting game that's mainly about 1v1 play. It carries a deep and proven fighting system. Singleplayer? A joke? On the other hand, SH2 is an immersive singleplayer, plot-driven experience. 7.4/7.5 does not state anything about these differences.
So why have them in the first place?
The way I take reviews is that I don't care about what you think; I care about what the game is about. It's like the news reporter stating 3 people died in a fire, then saying, it made her sad and that she thinks its bad... blah, blah. Take that stuff out. This isn't a blog. Our dependence on these blogs has limited our ability to think for ourselves.
The game is a RPG. We have reviewer 1 here who loves RPGs. Game becomes a 8-9ish to him. However, we have me in the other corner. I HATE RPGs. Gets a 1. It doesn't make sense because there are no guidelines. I could give Halo a 1 and I wouldn't be wrong, because the game didn't "earn" a 1, I simply threw my thought at it.
So that's why people who get pissed at gamespot, ign or whoever annoy me. It's the REVIEWER'S SCORE. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT WITH IT (of course they won't swing it around because they are tied to the company that pays them).
Revelade
The last two paragraphs contradict themselves as I've seen this happen alot in both places. Don't wanna mention names but the case of someone reviewing a game and even saying * in the review yes* that he doesn't like that type of games happen alot. I don't wanna attack anyone here but I think it shouldn't happen :(
Also, reviewers should complete the games before they review them because a game ending affects on the score a game gets * tell whether a sequel is on the way or this could be the last game in the series* Also it could either leave a bad or good impression even if the entire game was good/bad.
The reason I quoted your post: :P! I'm not sure about SF 3 score but SH2 score is something I was talking about in my blog. I didn't include SH2 as an example but what I said therealso implieson it. If a game was meant to be plot-driven and got that score, thenhat about games that were both plot-drive and had superb gameplay? It's natural when people have high expectations of games which focus on story more than anything but when the game-play fails to deliver and even ruin * SH2 case* the experince for you then it doesn't deserve a high score as other plot-driven games with superb gameplay. I have many examples for this and some were the game is meant to be about a story and presentation when the story isn't that good.
Depends on the game. If I know it's a game that will be good or if it's something I like no matter what, than I can care less for numbers.
But for games I'm interested in but remotely know about, OR have doubts about it, reviews help. I've decided to get some games based solely on reviews. Not always worked out, but for the most part, the reviews were right on with my own opinion about the game after playing it.
Also, back in the day I cared about what reviews said and use to lash out on blogs and forums, but now I don't care anymore and grew out of that fanboy stage. Now that I think about it, I was such an idiot to take the reviews so seriously. At the end, it really is just a game and if I like it and someone else doesn't, who really cares, right?
So I onlylook toreviews for games I don't know about but feel interested in it, so I can decide if it's worth giving a try. Those days of arguing about a review are long gone now.
I have no problems with reviews and scores myself. If someone doesn't like scores then they can just ignore them I'm glad that they are there for other people who may like them to use. I'm able to differentiate how scores relate to games of different genres and different platforms so I don't have any problems there. Scores are just another feature of critiquing a game.Archangel3371
Same goes for me, in general. I never pay much attention to the score. If it's 7+, it's good enough to buy, provided I like the genre. Thankfully, the local site I work for does not use decimals, so it's easier for me.
For the most part the average game is probably boring, cause its average, you have played a bunch of games like it and many that are much better so whats the point... ...I cannot be bothered with average, I don't even want fair, I want great.dvader654
I'll go back to my argument that reviews are too subjective to be given as fact. I'll use Zelda since it's a game I know we both enjoy.
I thought Twilight Princess was amazing, and having enjoyed your thread when the game released leads to me to believe you feel the same. However, that amazement came, in part,because we like Zelda. So a newer, shinier one was pretty much all it took for us to really enjoy a new quest.
However, to someone who's not a big Zelda fan, I'm sure the game was just your average Zelda game. Maybe if they like it, they would've said it was a good Zelda game. So again, by definition, a good Zelda game should be given a score of 7. Would you not have bought Twilight Princess if that was the score it received?
I also wanted to really, really agree with the poster above who said reviews should be all about the facts, not a blog.
Meh. Reviews. Scores. Review text means a lot more to me than scores.
I was reading IGN's review of The Simpsons yesterday because GameSpot didn't have one up yet, and I came across this delicious tidbit in the Closing Comments.
The Simpsons Game is exactly what it had to be, but nothing more. Had it offered online cooperative play, or local co-op play that was actually as much fun as the single-player game (if not more so) then the score would definitely be higher, but as it stands The Simpsons is a enjoyable, though very short, single-player game that both hardcore and casual Simpsons fans will love. Heck, if you like to laugh then this game is at least worth a rental.
Score? I don't care if the score would be higher or lower if they did something different. I really don't care whether you gave it a 7.7 or 7.8 or 7.9. I've already read the review and have a good idea of whether or not I might like it. Maybe the game would be better, but don't tell me the score would be higher. I don't let scores alone decide my purchasing decisions.
It isn't so much that I 'wouldn't' buy a game that recieves a score below a certain point on the scale, it is much more that as informed gamers I don't think most of us ever end up interested in the kind of bargin bin crap that usually scores below a 7 out of 10.
As informed gamers I don't think most of us ever end up interested in the kind of bargin bin crap that usually scores below a 7 out of 10.rragnaar
I do. :) I've gotten some enjoyment out of games that scored less than a 7. They're not great, but they're... goodish.
[QUOTE="rragnaar"]As informed gamers I don't think most of us ever end up interested in the kind of bargin bin crap that usually scores below a 7 out of 10.LordAndrew
I do. :) I've gotten some enjoyment out of games that scored less than a 7. They're not great, but they're... goodish.
Totally, I just mean that it is pretty rare to ever get hyped about a game and then see it completely bomb like Lair.
How timely is this? Kotaku has an article up about this very topic. The article is by Mark Wilson, and agree or disagree, it is a pretty good read. Go check it out. It even has potty words!rragnaarMark's stances are pretty solid on all three points, though I think point 3 can be up for debate depending on who you are talking to.
Case in point, I know that Fathoms is of the mentality that factors like game length and 'value' (since the perception of value varies from person to person) shouldn't factor into the review of a game, since the mentality is to review and view the game as a work by a creator outside of the realm of being a consumer product. This is a contrast to something like GS, where the score tries to factor in these variables to act as a consumer recommendation to the game, with the thought being that given how much money it costs to get a game, the consumer should know whether it is worth spending that much for the game in question.
I think there is room for both types of reviewer/critic out there, but people should be aware of these differences in approaches when the review is made, as to avoid the confusion between the scoring/critiques made from one source to another.
Otherwise, I think stance II that Mark wrote is very, very much one I agree with, especially regarding being overly, and needlessly specific, with numbers, not only for an overall score, but for individual catagory scores (which is part of my issue with IGN, not only is each individual catagory they evaluate graded on a more or less arbitrary 100 point scale...but the overall score itself is based on the same scale, and is completely independent of the scores, since it isn't an average or anything). How the heck is someone suppose to honestly, and accurately, score between a 7.5 or a 7.6 in sound as a reviewer...or differentiate betwen those as a reader? It just seems, as I said, asinine, as if they're turning the concept of critiquing a game into a precise science, when it's anything but a precise science.
Mark's stances are pretty solid on all three points, though I think point 3 can be up for debate depending on who you are talking to.
Case in point, I know that Fathoms is of the mentality that factors like game length and 'value' (since the perception of value varies from person to person) shouldn't factor into the review of a game, since the mentality is to review and view the game as a work by a creator outside of the realm of being a consumer product. This is a contrast to something like GS, where the score tries to factor in these variables to act as a consumer recommendation to the game, with the thought being that given how much money it costs to get a game, the consumer should know whether it is worth spending that much for the game in question.
I think there is room for both types of reviewer/critic out there, but people should be aware of these differences in approaches when the review is made, as to avoid the confusion between the scoring/critiques made from one source to another.
Otherwise, I think stance II that Mark wrote is very, very much one I agree with, especially regarding being overly, and needlessly specific, with numbers, not only for an overall score, but for individual catagory scores (which is part of my issue with IGN, not only is each individual catagory they evaluate graded on a more or less arbitrary 100 point scale...but the overall score itself is based on the same scale, and is completely independent of the scores, since it isn't an average or anything). How the heck is someone suppose to honestly, and accurately, score between a 7.5 or a 7.6 in sound as a reviewer...or differentiate betwen those as a reader? It just seems, as I said, asinine, as if they're turning the concept of critiquing a game into a precise science, when it's anything but a precise science.
Skylock00
Yeah, I think you have to consider the price of a game and its length with most reviews, but then again, there are games like Rez, and fl0w, that don't really follow the traditional game format. So that is a sticky issue, and I don't know if I could make a definite statement about how I feel about that. Even then determining how much time a person will spend with a game is arbitrary, and how much value a person derives from a game is entirely up to them.
Some reviewers felt Warhawk was overpriced for an online only game, but I know plenty of people that have spent 60-100 hours playing the game.
I definitely feel that game scores can be too specific. Take Shadow of the Collossus, MGS3, and Zelda: TP. They scored 8.7, 8.7, and 8.8 from this website. Can you really say that that .1 difference makes Zelda an easier game to recommend? I doubt it. I suspect that these forums could argue to the death deciding which game out of those 3 is really the best. For me it is easier to say that they are all incredible and leave it at that.
Actually, I think IGN uses .5 increments for each category rather than .1.
However, that's far too specific. Where do these numbers come from? Especially the final score, which isn't based on any of those numbers, but somehow even more specific. It's just completely arbitrary.
The new GameSpot rating system is an improvement, but there's still a long way to go.
Upon further investigation, it seems that's the case indeed, my mistake. I could've sworn reading a game review that had something like a 7.8 in a catagory...but I could've simply misread it.Actually, I think IGN uses .5 increments for each category rather than .1.
However, that's far too specific. Where do these numbers come from? Especially the final score, which isn't based on any of those numbers, but somehow even more specific. It's just completely arbitrary.
LordAndrew
Still, my sentiments reflect yours regarding that level of detail in scoring.
[QUOTE="LordAndrew"]Upon further investigation, it seems that's the case indeed, my mistake. I could've sworn reading a game review that had something like a 7.8 in a catagory...but I could've simply misread it.Actually, I think IGN uses .5 increments for each category rather than .1.
However, that's far too specific. Where do these numbers come from? Especially the final score, which isn't based on any of those numbers, but somehow even more specific. It's just completely arbitrary.
Skylock00
Still, my sentiments reflect yours regarding that level of detail in scoring.
Either way, I'd love to hear a reviewer justify why the sound in a game is a 8.5 versus a 8.0.
As a side note, it is funny that, for me anyway, the psychological difference between an 8.5 and an 8.0 is nowhere near as big as the difference between a 8.0 and a 7.5. It is that whole $399 sounds much cheaper than $400 thing.
That article reinforced a point I made earlier, that we need to move away from this wannabe precise number rating system to something more general like 4 stars or thumbs up and down, I don't know. But anything that steers away from a review being scientifically accurate is a good thing.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment