Let's Have A Discussion About Reviews and Scores

I invited Alex and Jeff to come and join the discussion, hopefully they will. I want to hear what they have to say. I would have sent invites to all the editors, but I didn't want to SPAM them.rragnaar

Hmm...why not specifically Aaron? LOL

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I invited Alex and Jeff to come and join the discussion, hopefully they will. I want to hear what they have to say. I would have sent invites to all the editors, but I didn't want to SPAM them.HiResDes

Hmm...why not specifically Aaron? LOL

Same here. As i guy that has disagreed with a few popular games (FEAR is crap :P) I fully expected for others to counter my opinions, I welcome it and stand buy how I feel, he should too.

dvader654

I'm going to keep this short and sweet and let it pertain solely to Gamespot as of late.

I don't really have a problem with the scores the games are given (For instance, Blue Dragon, Folklore, Halo 3, Bioshock and other things I don't tend to agree with, but only by a little, there's the fudge factor and such, I understand that much).

The issue is that a high number of reviews on this website as of late contradict what they say in the review deck and score before the body of the text even begins. What I'm saying is that there is a lack of journalistic integrity here as of late and to put it in a simple analogy a round peg doesn't fit in a square hole.

I do believe as Gamespot states "We review games based on a recommendation for purchase". While there are some gems to people that are 5.3s (I.E. Fighting Force for me), there are some that are utter crap, and for the most part, reviews warn you of that. Now granted, it's always nice to have an outlier, I wish I did before I wasted 62.49 on GRAW.

The point is if you have a quantitative value (even if partially subjectively assigned), you can at least get a good footing on whether this game is good or not. Oh, so it has fantastic graphics and sound, but the game plays like butt and still scores an 8, you gotta check the review (namely the old gamespot method where each criterion was specifically analyzed).

I guess I'm heading in circles now, but I do believe at both reviews and scores are good things to have, provided they work with each other and aren't contradictory and confusing.

I, Honestly, factor in reviews majorly.

There is a Gamespot affiliated site:

www.metacritic.com

That compiles and AVERAGES CRITIC reviews, and gives you the general consesus on the game.

Helps make my decisions a lot.

I'll throw in that the current GameSpot review system and systems without weighted values makes the score seem to me more subjective. Rather than keeping the categories there to make sure the game is scored based on its merits rather than the individual reviewer's enjoyment, now it's just an arbitrary number assigned to his feelings on a game.yodariquo

Having specific catagories with their own scores doesn't make the scores themselves any less arbitrary and subjective, IMHO.

[QUOTE="yodariquo"]I'll throw in that the current GameSpot review system and systems without weighted values makes the score seem to me more subjective. Rather than keeping the categories there to make sure the game is scored based on its merits rather than the individual reviewer's enjoyment, now it's just an arbitrary number assigned to his feelings on a game.Skylock00

Having specific catagories with their own scores doesn't make the scores themselves any less arbitrary and subjective, IMHO.

While true, at least you get a quantitative value of where the reviewer was coming from, rather than some overall score that is given where you have to determine exactly how much comes from what aspect.

I don't like it when reviewers say things like, "Game so-and-so brings a worthy sequel to the plate." First off? Does it really? And what constitutes a worthy sequel?

The way I see reviews should be done is this:

Game A is a RPG.

Right there, you'll have people who are interested join in. Meanwhile, the others who are turned off by this genre immediately leave the room. Notice how there is not arbitrary good or bad here. It's simply a genre, or like a flavor of ice cream.

Reviews should be facts. Whether or not you should get it, is in your hands. You get the facts, pick the pieces out of them, then make your own consensus.

It's like a PC or Labtop. Neither are "good" or "bad." Perhaps one uses less space than the other. Or one is cheaper than another. That's really up to the consumer to decide which criteria is significant.

However, one thing that I would like to see is the genres clearly defined. We have fighters, racers and so on. But I have 3 categories of my own that all games use.

1. Testing of reflex

2. Testing of logic

3. Testing of investment

Reflex deals with speed and timing. Aiming and firing at the guy in CS before he does the same to you. Firing in short controlled bursts than holding the trigger. Or even drifting at the right time in Gran Turismo. Or stepping on the right arrow at the right time in DDR. It's all about precision and twitch-skills. Any time you are racing time, it's reflex.

Logical games aren't focused on precision, but on knowing what to do. Perhaps it's solving the water temple in Zelda. Maybe it's finding the best move in chess. When you are using strategy, it's logical.

Investment games are as they sound; the more time you put into them, the more your in-game avatar, NOT YOU, improve. As such this is clearly the realm of RPGs; more battling nets you higher levels, better items and more gold.

Of course many games can take more than 1 of these criteria. Tony Hawk for instance tests your reflexes in button combinations and timing, however, it has an attribute system. I would say many games today are heavily focused on reflexes, some deal with investment, while only a few are about logic.

I'm not going to say my system is the solution, but it's designed to explain about games, rather than what my biased opinion is about games. If I say WoW is an investment game, am I being slanted for or against the game in anyway? No, you get to know what the game is about, without any of my personal feelings.

And some other key topics about reviews. Games should be pointed out in several playing areas:

- the singleplayer experience (plot, AI)

- offline multiplayer (how easy new players can join)

- online multiplayer (dealing with seasoned players)

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="yodariquo"]I'll throw in that the current GameSpot review system and systems without weighted values makes the score seem to me more subjective. Rather than keeping the categories there to make sure the game is scored based on its merits rather than the individual reviewer's enjoyment, now it's just an arbitrary number assigned to his feelings on a game.SemiMaster

Having specific catagories with their own scores doesn't make the scores themselves any less arbitrary and subjective, IMHO.

While true, at least you get a quantitative value of where the reviewer was coming from, rather than some overall score that is given where you have to determine exactly how much comes from what aspect.

Well, just to quickly address a few things I've seen in this thread...

- Should games be given scores at all?

Yes, most definitely. While some writers like to prattle on about a world without scores, that's a very narrow view. With the millions of people that visit this site in any given month, we encounter a lot of different types of player. Some people have all the time in the world to research a game and devour every single piece of content we produce. Others don't. Some people need that shortcut, and a score provides that quick check for some people that should either let them know that they probably don't need to know much more about a game or that they need to read more before making a purchasing decision. And make no mistake, that is the reason why our reviews exist: to assist people who are considering a game purchase.

- Does giving a game a score promote fanboyism?

Anything anyone does ever promotes the sad mentality that the Internet is fostering. The other day I read a full thread on another site of people arguing about Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD with the exact same idiotic fervor that some people use here to "discuss" video games: by turning message boards into Debate Club Amateur Hour. Think about how insane that is for a minute...

"DUDE MY WAY OF WATCHING MOVIES IS SO MUCHMORE AWESOME AND MARKET SHARE AND ATTACH RATE AND OTHER BUSINESS TERMS THAT NO ONE SHOULD ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT!!!!"

"NO WAY U SUCK MY WAY OF WATCHING MOVIES WILL WIN!!!! ALSO I OWN A MAC SO I ALSO HATE YOU BECAUSE I HATE WINDOZE! DID YOU NOTICEI SPELLED IT WINDOZE ISN'T THAT FUNNY BECAUSE IT MAKES ME SLEEP IT IS SO DUMB! ALSO: MICRO$OFT! SEE WHAT I DID THERE??????"

...it used to be limited to local pockets of people complaining about how the Amiga is better than the PC, but our connected world now allows someone to spew nonsense that the entire globe can read about topics such as "WHY I THINK FIREFOX IS RADICAL AND THEREFORE YOU ARE SUCK." Seriously? We're going to waste time arguing about which freely available web browser is better? The relatively anonymity of the Internet is making the world uglier every day, and it's a real bummer. Also, pointing out that "you can format a disk on an Amiga and still use the OS" was never a very good argument for why it's better than the PC. But all that is probably a little off-topic for this discussion.

- 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?

See above. We write reviews to assist people looking to purchase them. If you want to use them to try to validate your own opinions, go for it, but you're using them wrong. We're not here to make people feel better about games they pre-ordered because they saw a sweet trailer. We're here to cut through the TV ads and trailers and all the other stuff out there designed to get you to buy games blindly, and help you spend your money wisely.

"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."

Maybe on your own double-secret personal review scale. On ours, it means that the game couldn't be improved upon in any meaningful way, given current standards for that game's platform. As part of the review change, we relabeled 10.0 as "Prime" instead of "Perfect." The meaning of the score hasn't really changed, but too many people couldn't handle the concept of perfect meaning "perfect... given current standards for that game's platform and blah blah blah blah blah." It was sort of silly and overly confusing that way, I agree. We will give a 10 again someday, by the way. I occasionally see people saying "GameSpot said they'd never give another 10." That's insane and we've never, ever said that.

But this touches on a larger point. Reviews are only a guide. They are not gospel. If you aren't filtering our reviews through your own personal likes and dislikes, you're eventually going to end up missing out on a game you'd like or buying one you hate. We assign reviews to qualified reviewers who are interested in that style of game and, ideally, enter the review feeling cautiously optimistic about it. So when people say "I only play games that GameSpot gives a 9.0 or higher to," I'm a little bummed out. I mean, thanks for believing in us and all, but really, you're probably missing out on a ton of games that you'd love. If we give a game a 7.0 and it's a type of game that you usually love, you should probably read the review for more information. And while we certainly think extremely highly of a game that gets a 10, even that can't be a guarantee that it'll be one of your favorite games. Except for Tony Hawk 3, of course, which is one of your favorite games.

To use the Review of the Moment as an example, when we give Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5, we're not saying it's "average" or something. This isn't school, and a 7.5 doesn't translate to a C+. We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text.

And, really, that's the part that makes the whole "disagree with review -> let's riot" mentality so silly. In most cases, we're actually recommending the games that we supposedly "hate" and "were paid to score poorly" or whatever.

Well, just to quickly address a few things I've seen in this thread...

- Should games be given scores at all?

Yes, most definitely. While some writers like to prattle on about a world without scores, that's a very narrow view. With the millions of people that visit this site in any given month, we encounter a lot of different types of player. Some people have all the time in the world to research a game and devour every single piece of content we produce. Others don't. Some people need that shortcut, and a score provides that quick check for some people that should either let them know that they probably don't need to know much more about a game or that they need to read more before making a purchasing decision. And make no mistake, that is the reason why our reviews exist: to assist people who are considering a game purchase.

- Does giving a game a score promote fanboyism?

Anything anyone does ever promotes the sad mentality that the Internet is fostering. The other day I read a full thread on another site of people arguing about Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD with the exact same idiotic fervor that some people use here to "discuss" video games: by turning message boards into Debate Club Amateur Hour. Think about how insane that is for a minute...

"DUDE MY WAY OF WATCHING MOVIES IS SO MUCHMORE AWESOME AND MARKET SHARE AND ATTACH RATE AND OTHER BUSINESS TERMS THAT NO ONE SHOULD ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT!!!!"

"NO WAY U SUCK MY WAY OF WATCHING MOVIES WILL WIN!!!! ALSO I OWN A MAC SO I ALSO HATE YOU BECAUSE I HATE WINDOZE! DID YOU NOTICEI SPELLED IT WINDOZE ISN'T THAT FUNNY BECAUSE IT MAKES ME SLEEP IT IS SO DUMB! ALSO: MICRO$OFT! SEE WHAT I DID THERE??????"

...it used to be limited to local pockets of people complaining about how the Amiga is better than the PC, but our connected world now allows someone to spew nonsense that the entire globe can read about topics such as "WHY I THINK FIREFOX IS RADICAL AND THEREFORE YOU ARE SUCK." Seriously? We're going to waste time arguing about which freely available web browser is better? The relatively anonymity of the Internet is making the world uglier every day, and it's a real bummer. Also, pointing out that "you can format a disk on an Amiga and still use the OS" was never a very good argument for why it's better than the PC. But all that is probably a little off-topic for this discussion.

- 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?

See above. We write reviews to assist people looking to purchase them. If you want to use them to try to validate your own opinions, go for it, but you're using them wrong. We're not here to make people feel better about games they pre-ordered because they saw a sweet trailer. We're here to cut through the TV ads and trailers and all the other stuff out there designed to get you to buy games blindly, and help you spend your money wisely.

"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."

Maybe on your own double-secret personal review scale. On ours, it means that the game couldn't be improved upon in any meaningful way, given current standards for that game's platform. As part of the review change, we relabeled 10.0 as "Prime" instead of "Perfect." The meaning of the score hasn't really changed, but too many people couldn't handle the concept of perfect meaning "perfect... given current standards for that game's platform and blah blah blah blah blah." It was sort of silly and overly confusing that way, I agree. We will give a 10 again someday, by the way. I occasionally see people saying "GameSpot said they'd never give another 10." That's insane and we've never, ever said that.

But this touches on a larger point. Reviews are only a guide. They are not gospel. If you aren't filtering our reviews through your own personal likes and dislikes, you're eventually going to end up missing out on a game you'd like or buying one you hate. We assign reviews to qualified reviewers who are interested in that style of game and, ideally, enter the review feeling cautiously optimistic about it. So when people say "I only play games that GameSpot gives a 9.0 or higher to," I'm a little bummed out. I mean, thanks for believing in us and all, but really, you're probably missing out on a ton of games that you'd love. If we give a game a 7.0 and it's a type of game that you usually love, you should probably read the review for more information. And while we certainly think extremely highly of a game that gets a 10, even that can't be a guarantee that it'll be one of your favorite games. Except for Tony Hawk 3, of course, which is one of your favorite games.

To use the Review of the Moment as an example, when we give Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5, we're not saying it's "average" or something. This isn't school, and a 7.5 doesn't translate to a C+. We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text.

And, really, that's the part that makes the whole "disagree with review -> let's riot" mentality so silly. In most cases, we're actually recommending the games that we supposedly "hate" and "were paid to score poorly" or whatever.

Jeff

I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you could answer the question from I think the first page regarding playing games as a job versus playing games for fun? I have always wondered this, does a beta tester or game reviewer loss their momentum in wanting to play games for fun since they pretty much play games all day? It would seem to me that playing games would loss their fun factor if that's all you did all day. I mean don't get me wrong I think every gamer wishes for a job where they get paid to play games but it can't be as wonderful as it seems, or can it?

Where are all the other damn editors? :P
One reply just isn't enough!

I'll have to give this a 6.0.

[QUOTE="Jeff"]

But this touches on a larger point. Reviews are only a guide. They are not gospel. If you aren't filtering our reviews through your own personal likes and dislikes, you're eventually going to end up missing out on a game you'd like or buying one you hate. We assign reviews to qualified reviewers who are interested in that style of game and, ideally, enter the review feeling cautiously optimistic about it. So when people say "I only play games that GameSpot gives a 9.0 or higher to," I'm a little bummed out. I mean, thanks for believing in us and all, but really, you're probably missing out on a ton of games that you'd love. If we give a game a 7.0 and it's a type of game that you usually love, you should probably read the review for more information. And while we certainly think extremely highly of a game that gets a 10, even that can't be a guarantee that it'll be one of your favorite games. Except for Tony Hawk 3, of course, which is one of your favorite games.

dvader654

Thats very well said, everyone should read that. Thanks Jeff.

Indeed. It was a very excellent post overall. I buy games that get varying degrees of scores and Capcom Fighting Evolution is probably my favourite example to use. It got very mediocre scores but the review is spot on with it's faults. However I'm a long-time Capcom fighting game fan so I know what I can and cannot deal with in their games. I read the review, bought the game and loved it.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="yodariquo"]I'll throw in that the current GameSpot review system and systems without weighted values makes the score seem to me more subjective. Rather than keeping the categories there to make sure the game is scored based on its merits rather than the individual reviewer's enjoyment, now it's just an arbitrary number assigned to his feelings on a game.yodariquo

Having specific catagories with their own scores doesn't make the scores themselves any less arbitrary and subjective, IMHO.

While true, at least you get a quantitative value of where the reviewer was coming from, rather than some overall score that is given where you have to determine exactly how much comes from what aspect.

All I have to say is well said. You can't make reviews objective completely, just it makes it more... what's the word. I don't want to use objective like we have been, but I'd rather say a more stable baseline to see what the reviewer was thinking in quantitative terms.

It's as if saying "I like this". Do you LIKE this or just kinda like it, or not really? Rating things with numbers clearly delineates feelings, even if subjectively (hopefully with a most open mind though) assigned.

But this touches on a larger point. Reviews are only a guide. They are not gospel. If you aren't filtering our reviews through your own personal likes and dislikes, you're eventually going to end up missing out on a game you'd like or buying one you hate. We assign reviews to qualified reviewers who are interested in that style of game and, ideally, enter the review feeling cautiously optimistic about it. So when people say "I only play games that GameSpot gives a 9.0 or higher to," I'm a little bummed out. I mean, thanks for believing in us and all, but really, you're probably missing out on a ton of games that you'd love. If we give a game a 7.0 and it's a type of game that you usually love, you should probably read the review for more information. And while we certainly think extremely highly of a game that gets a 10, even that can't be a guarantee that it'll be one of your favorite games. Except for Tony Hawk 3, of course, which is one of your favorite games.

To use the Review of the Moment as an example, when we give Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5, we're not saying it's "average" or something. This isn't school, and a 7.5 doesn't translate to a C+. We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text.

And, really, that's the part that makes the whole "disagree with review -> let's riot" mentality so silly. In most cases, we're actually recommending the games that we supposedly "hate" and "were paid to score poorly" or whatever.

Jeff

Reviews are somehow important...withot them any programmer could sell crap damn easy if they make a nice cover.But there are of course rating that are pretty fanboy-based.

Favourite example : Zelda WW.It was called awesome got unbeliveable ratings far over 90% and suff like that.As Zelda TP came out everyone said it wasn´t really good and the new one got overfar over 90% again (GS is the only one I´ve seen giving it below 90!) because it´s the greatest game ever,blah,blah,blah...of course totally ignoring it´s more thenobvious weak points who had gotten any other game a rating around 80%.Sometimes Fanboyism is the boss...rumors even say in fear of Nintendo,because they won´t send you a early copy if you rate any of the games worse then super-mega-awesome.

At last Reviews are also a kind of positive publicity and kind of commercial wich shouldn´t be underestimated.

[QUOTE="Ash2X"]

Favourite example : Zelda WW.It was called awesome got unbeliveable ratings far over 90% and suff like that.As Zelda TP came out everyone said it wasn´t really good and the new one got overfar over 90% again (GS is the only one I´ve seen giving it below 90!) because it´s the greatest game ever,blah,blah,blah...of course totally ignoring it´s more thenobvious weak points who had gotten any other game a rating around 80%.Sometimes Fanboyism is the boss...rumors even say in fear of Nintendo,because they won´t send you a early copy if you rate any of the games worse then super-mega-awesome.

dvader654

*Speechless*

Tell him the same could be said about halo.

Sometimes a repeated content is thousand times better than new and priginal games.

I think people make way too much of reviews. How a video game appeals to a person is an incredibly subjective. Not surprsingly, reviews are going to be . . . . . subjective. They're intended as a guideline, a suggestion, an informed opinion on a game. That's it. They're not fact. They're not intended to be taken as gospel or as the objective truth.

Once a game scores lower than what many people predicted, the forums are filled with outrage. Why? Makes no sense to me. First of all, none of these outraged fans have even played the game. Second, it's just a review score. People on this site get so offended when a review doesn't agree with their own assessment or opinions. They start bashing the review or the reviewer, start coming up with ridiculous reasonsfor a questionable scoresuch as the reviewer being paid off orare biased against some company, etc. They go over the review with a microscope and try to find meaningless inconsistenices to bring into question the wholemerit of the review. It's as if you insulted their family. They need some game to score high to vindicate themselves or give them worth. Ridiculous.

I use the reviews at GS as a guideline or suggestion. If I don't know much about a game, it's nice to be able to read a review first instead of dropping 50-60$ on a lemon.The score is not some objective measurement - it's just their assessment of a game's value or worth. I don't believe that it is wise or ever intended that scores be used to compare games across genres, platforms, and time on this site. People make too much of the individual score and just look stupid when they try to claim one game is "better" than another because it scored 0.2 points higher here.

The problem isn't the reviews, it's the fanboys. For whatever reason, people get so attached to a certain system or developer or franchise that they feel like they're part of that team. Just like in sports. Getting a high score ona game here is like having your favorite team win the big game.

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="Ash2X"]

Favourite example : Zelda WW.It was called awesome got unbeliveable ratings far over 90% and suff like that.As Zelda TP came out everyone said it wasn´t really good and the new one got overfar over 90% again (GS is the only one I´ve seen giving it below 90!) because it´s the greatest game ever,blah,blah,blah...of course totally ignoring it´s more thenobvious weak points who had gotten any other game a rating around 80%.Sometimes Fanboyism is the boss...rumors even say in fear of Nintendo,because they won´t send you a early copy if you rate any of the games worse then super-mega-awesome.

gamingqueen

*Speechless*

Tell him the same could be said about halo.

Sometimes a repeated content is thousand times better than new and original games.

If done well mind you...

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="Ash2X"]

Favourite example : Zelda WW.It was called awesome got unbeliveable ratings far over 90% and suff like that.As Zelda TP came out everyone said it wasn´t really good and the new one got overfar over 90% again (GS is the only one I´ve seen giving it below 90!) because it´s the greatest game ever,blah,blah,blah...of course totally ignoring it´s more thenobvious weak points who had gotten any other game a rating around 80%.Sometimes Fanboyism is the boss...rumors even say in fear of Nintendo,because they won´t send you a early copy if you rate any of the games worse then super-mega-awesome.

gamingqueen

*Speechless*

Tell him the same could be said about halo.

Sometimes a repeated content is thousand times better than new and priginal games.

Actually the same goes for Halo 2...well I didn´t play Halo 1 the day it came out and after I played it I wondered what all the hype was about even if the game was ok.I didn´t like the 2nd that much.That Halo 3 repeats it´s first and 2nd is true,but in a much more balanced way,so I think Halo 3 is the firt really awesome part.It developed pretty much in the details,which was my biggest concern in the older parts.

In case of Zelda and Halo even the Magazines said before the last part was awesome till the new one came...and the the title before wasn´t that good.I picked Zelda because Zelda:WW was in a totally different direction then anyone wanted,most people didn´t like it and also many Fanboys didn´t even finish it as far as I´ve heard.So the high ratings over 90 and stuff like that had been pure Fanboyism,because as someone who´s not so much into the hype gets after a few minutes that it´s a nice but only half-hearted game made to give the Fans something until the Originally planned title comes out.And that TP was planned since the N64 times is more then obvious,because the Videos shown almost todays game and not the (pretty poor detailed and anything but smooth) N64-Zelda.

Well after all (and to get back to the point),Reviews are often punished by the hype around the games,but overall no rtotally bad game gets awesome reviews,so it´s a hint what you can buy and what you could skip.You can look at the positive and negative points (even ifsometimes pretty idiotic - favourite example:Blue Dragon) and it´s a little help in the Game-Jungle.Plus Community-Reviews you can also look at and easy egnough sorted out (ratings around 4.0 and 10.0 are haters or Fanboys) but there are pretty good ones after all.

To use the Review of the Moment as an example, when we give Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5, we're not saying it's "average" or something. This isn't school, and a 7.5 doesn't translate to a C+. We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text.

Jeff

This **ahem** "excuse, doesn't make much sense to me, but maybe I'm missing the point. Let's ignore the actual text review for a moment, because I honestly couldn't disagree more with some of the ill taken points that were made. Either way, by saying this are you not saying that the only way a game could score high 9-10, is if it appealed to everyone, and not whether or not a game was well done? Where does that leave games like Ico? I'm confused...

Sorry for the bump, but here is another question that I think is important.

What is the context for a score? ...is a game being scored against games in its genre, is it being scored relative to the games on its platform? Or is the score not meant to be seen as a rank out of all of the games in its genre, or its console, but merely as a score of how good the game is on a scale of 0-10?

The reason I ask is that some people seem to think that a game should be judged in relation to all of the other games out. (I've heard people suggest that Ratchet and Clank only deserves a good score when compared to other PS3 games, but if the same game was in the 360's library it wouldn't score as well) While I've heard other people say that Wii games shouldn't be unfairly graded down because the graphics aren't the same as what can be attained on another system, or on a PC.

Personally I like that Gamespot in particular doesn't have seperate reviewers for different platforms like IGN does, but it begs the question, how do you keep a review in context, and what context should it be kept in. On some level I think it is fair for a reviewer to think 'Well I really like Resistance, but it is no Halo.' Shooters should be viewed in the light of other shooters, but sometimes I find myself thinking that isn't fair for a Wii game to compared to a 'next-gen' game, but at the same time, these games are all competing for our wallets, so maybe it is a fair comparison.rragnaar

Of course to see how good a game is on a scale of ten! After all every game designer has a vision and when he/she designed that game on papers I'm sure he/she doesn't think of competing with others games in the same genre because they want them to be different and not remind you of other games...People start to compare between games of a similar genre or on the same platform if the game they're talking about was hard to describe. I agree with you on the wii and its games though I'm sure mario galaxy will break that rule.

Reviews seem to be a point of contention here lately, whether it is the Ratchet and Clank review, Bioshock, Zelda: TP. I have no intention of letting this discussion devolve into an argument about what scores certain games should have gotten. I don't intend for this to be a discussion about Gamespot's new review system either. I don't want any talk of biases. I want a frank and open discussion about game reviews, and here are my questions to you, my fellow gamers.( That includes you Gamespot staff, and you, the fine moderators of this community.:) )

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.rragnaar

Yes, games should definitely be given a score. Then, when people say the game sucks, you can reply that all the gaming websites in the world who reviewed the game said it was the ****. Therefore, the person is an idiot and you win that argument.