What's going on with GameSpot's scoring...?

Why are all games receiving such similar scores?

Is it just me, or are all popular games lately getting 8.5s...?

Whatever happened to GameSpot's old system? It actually helped me decide which games were worthwhile and which ones weren't.

Now we just get 8.0, 8.5, 9.0...blah blah.

Anybody else upset about this?

Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?rragnaar

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?SteelAttack

:lol:... I like it.

They've been doing it this way for over a year now. It really isn't enough to get worked up about. The things you need to know are in the text of a review, not the score. Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?rragnaar

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]They've been doing it this way for over a year now. It really isn't enough to get worked up about. The things you need to know are in the text of a review, not the score. Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?Bloodbath_87

I guess I don't see it that way... any game in that whole 9.0-10 range is all on the same sort of level in terms of quality and differences in score all come down to opinion. One man's 9.7 is another's 9.0. I don't think scoring is a science. Adding a number to a bunch of text doesn't mean that the number has a concrete real world value... it is just a reviewer's gut reaction to a game summed up numerically. Personally I like Kotaku's reviews where they don't have a score and they just separate the review into stuff they loved and stuff they hated.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]They've been doing it this way for over a year now. It really isn't enough to get worked up about. The things you need to know are in the text of a review, not the score. Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?Bloodbath_87

I just love how people think that they can somehow rate games with 99% accuracy.

Alright, try this. Pick 50 games. Order and score them as accurately as you think you can (up to 5 decimals if need be!). Come back a week later, and see if you agree with more than half of your scores. (Hint: you won't).

Why are all games receiving such similar scores?

Is it just me, or are all popular games lately getting 8.5s...?

Whatever happened to GameSpot's old system? It actually helped me decide which games were worthwhile and which ones weren't.

Now we just get 8.0, 8.5, 9.0...blah blah.

Anybody else upset about this?

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]They've been doing it this way for over a year now. It really isn't enough to get worked up about. The things you need to know are in the text of a review, not the score. Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?Bloodbath_87

I hate the new scores too. They're just too generalised. It may be hard to tell the difference between an 8.7 and an 8.7, but it's even harder to tell the difference beween an 8.5 and 8.5.

I find my self going to other sources to find out about games now, I just can't agree with gamespot's reiews.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?SteelAttack

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?SteelAttack

It's bad enough that just about every video game worth playing gets between an 8 or a 9 anyways...it's even worse that review sites (especially gamespot) are afraid to say what game they really prefer based on what some geeks on the internet are going to say in the system wars forum.

See, I completely agree with that. It was just EASIER to determine how good a game is based on the scoring.

Isn't that what this site is about...? Providing the users with the best game information?

It makes me seem like they're just not doing their job anymore lol

Idk. Like, I dig most of the text reviews and i looove "The Good" and "The Bad" lists and the game emblems...

But I kind of feel let down by the scoring system. I guess maybe it just takes a bit to get used to? (although a year should have been enough lol)

It just seems really strange to me that games get 10.0s now.

That's just against everything I believe in =\

I thought only legendary, amazing, revolutionary games earned that. Not anymore.dapoochiman

The scoring system, from the opinion of the editors, was NEVER meant to be used purely as a means of directly comparing games on the basis of quality. It could be possible to view it this way for games of the same genre on the same platform...but other than that, making direct comparisons of the scores as a basis of determining which is 'better' is both inaccurate, and inappropriate in regards to how the scores were determined before, as well as how they are determined now.

Furthermore, pretty much most games that are rated above a 7 are games that the editors feel are good enough to recommend a purchase, it's just that ones that are closer to the 7 are going to be more circumstantial regarding the tastes of the users, and ones closer to the 10 are going to be more easy to recommend regardless...though taste would STILL come into play.

It seems like the gaming community is the only community that is really obsessive regarding the supposed importance of a detailed numbered scoring system. I don't see quite the same level of fanaticism from people who follow film or music reviews, as most of those reviews simply follow a crude rating system (ie. 1-5 stars), or they simply don't have any sort of numbered scoring system at all (like the reviews I write for a website). It still confuses me as to why is the number so important to a review in the first place?

I liked the old system better myself actually. Things are way too generalized the way they are, the old system was simply more accurate and informative.GodModeEnabled

To me, it was an inherently broken system, that only appeared to be more 'accurate.' because there were more numbers being thrown around.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I liked the old system better myself actually. Things are way too generalized the way they are, the old system was simply more accurate and informative.Skylock00

To me, it was an inherently broken system, that only appeared to be more 'accurate.' because there were more numbers being thrown around.

How was it broken though? They rated things like Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and then had a tilt feature to guide the score towards what they felt it was. Not only mentioning the scoring system the journalism was simply better too, you could feel the effort and work put into the reviews. Nowadays its all "eh not bad could be better 8.5" and the new review system is a reflection of the downgrade of this site.

Weighing in on certain aspects of a game does not make a broken review. Surely if you were to write a review you would talk about graphics, sound, production values, things like camera angles, replay value etc. The system simply segregated the different aspects and assigned a numerical score.GodModeEnabled

Here's an example of how it was broken - Let's take Music/Rhythm games. Now, which aspect would you say is more important to the overall quality of these games: graphics or sound? According to the old system, it didn't matter, since the system preemptively had graphics having more weight as a score than sound, despite the fact that the genre's own definitiions of what was important conflicted against the rating system.

This already demonstrates how self-defeating trying to over quantify and catagorize these aspects of a game, and make the final score the result of a series of calculations.

I'm not even commenting on the recent trends of reviews or the scores or whatever. That's irrelevent to the point. The point is that the old system had fundamental flaws regarding its design as time went along, and the editors, including guys like Greg, felt it wasn't appropriate as it was, and felt that a more simplified scoring system was ultimately better.

It was broken because the weighting of the categories was an absolute, when the editors themselves would say things to me regarding how it didn't quite work for all genres.Here's an example of how it was broken - Let's take Music/Rhythm games. Now, which aspect would you say is more important to the overall quality of these games: graphics or sound? According to the old system, it didn't matter, since the system preemptively had graphics having more weight as a score than sound, despite the fact that the genre's own definitiions of what was important conflicted against the rating system.This already demonstrates how self-defeating trying to over quantify and catagorize these aspects of a game, and make the final score the result of a series of calculations.I'm not even commenting on the recent trends of reviews or the scores or whatever. That's irrelevent to the point. The point is that the old system had fundamental flaws regarding its design as time went along, and the editors, including guys like Greg, felt it wasn't appropriate as it was, and felt that a more simplified scoring system was ultimately better.Skylock00

Then why not code the system to change how much weight the different categorys should hold... you could have several categorys weighing in at the same with what seems to me anyways some simple programming changes to the system. The new system just seems to lump more games together, theres at least a dozen games rated 8.5 this year and that all puts them in the same category regarding quality when I feel that isnt true.

A game like Manhunt being rated 8.8 told me taht the graphics are a bit behind the curve at the time, but the sound design and gameplay were tight. However because of some camera issues and graphical problems the game didnt quite reach the heights of AAA. See how much more user friendly and easier to use the old system can be, now Manhunt would be either an 8.5 or a 9.0 (god knows which) and I cant tell which is more accurate because all games of any quality seem to be scored in the same range.GodModeEnabled

I don't care one way or the other, honestly. I haven't read a Gamespot article since the reviewer Exodus a year or so ago.

I liked the old system better myself actually. Things are way too generalized the way they are, the old system was simply more accurate and informative.GodModeEnabled

Things are always too generalized here.

I don't care one way or the other, honestly. I haven't read a Gamespot article since the reviewer Exodus a year or so ago.Dutch_Mix

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?SteelAttack

Yeah especially if the game is an 8.8 :twisted:

You guys knew that was coming at some time or another, it had to be mentioned.

Personally, I'd rather there be no scoring system at all, but that's just me.Skylock00

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]Personally, I'd rather there be no scoring system at all, but that's just me.SteelAttack

Agreed... say what you want about Kotaku, but I think their reviewing styIe is very refreshing.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I liked the old system better myself actually. Things are way too generalized the way they are, the old system was simply more accurate and informative.Skylock00

To me, it was an inherently broken system, that only appeared to be more 'accurate.' because there were more numbers being thrown around.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I liked the old system better myself actually. Things are way too generalized the way they are, the old system was simply more accurate and informative.BuryMe

To me, it was an inherently broken system, that only appeared to be more 'accurate.' because there were more numbers being thrown around.

Agreed... say what you want about Kotaku, but I think their reviewing styIe is very refreshing.rragnaar

I see what you guys are saying, but ultimately, I think words are too ambiguous.

Especially in a climate of economic downturn, people are going to be even more particular about what they are willing to shell £40 out for (or whatever the US dollar equivalent may be). Without the score at the end, people can get confused about how much the reviewer likes or dislikes the game -- conveying this in writing can be very ambiguous, and mislead people to how much they like the game. Instead, giving an exact value, at least gives nearly a sound representation of what the reviewer thinks the value of the game is.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?SteelAttack

Everyone knows that 9.0+ are AAA games and 8.0-8.9 are AA games and the amount of A, AA, AAA games decides which system is better

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"][QUOTE="rragnaar"]Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets a 9.0 or an 8.9?smerlus

Everyone knows that 9.0+ are AAA games and 8.0-8.9 are AA games and the amount of A, AA, AAA games decides which system is better

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"] Sure. A 9.0 gets instantly hailed as OMGtehAAAgaemzlololol whilst the 8.9 game immediately gets labeled as LOLOLtehFlopzorzgaem. :P I propose a simpler classification: Category 1. Feces. Category 2. Meh. Category 3. OMG! Or was it the other way around?GodModeEnabled

Everyone knows that 9.0+ are AAA games and 8.0-8.9 are AA games and the amount of A, AA, AAA games decides which system is better

Yes. Apparently the difference is by one point. *adjusts spectacles*juradai

[QUOTE="juradai"]Yes. Apparently the difference is by one point. *adjusts spectacles*GodModeEnabled

It was broken because the weighting of the categories was an absolute, when the editors themselves would say things to me regarding how it didn't quite work for all genres.

Here's an example of how it was broken - Let's take Music/Rhythm games. Now, which aspect would you say is more important to the overall quality of these games: graphics or sound? According to the old system, it didn't matter, since the system preemptively had graphics having more weight as a score than sound, despite the fact that the genre's own definitiions of what was important conflicted against the rating system.

This already demonstrates how self-defeating trying to over quantify and catagorize these aspects of a game, and make the final score the result of a series of calculations.

I'm not even commenting on the recent trends of reviews or the scores or whatever. That's irrelevent to the point. The point is that the old system had fundamental flaws regarding its design as time went along, and the editors, including guys like Greg, felt it wasn't appropriate as it was, and felt that a more simplified scoring system was ultimately better.

Skylock00

I understand what you're trying to say but the way the old system worked is games in genres were competing. A game like RB 2 wouldn't be going up against Gears of War 2 in the graphics catagory, it would be going against RB 1, GH3, GH4... so you could easily give those games a 9.6 in graphics and say that RB 2's graphic are better than any other music game.

Look at the infamous Kane & Lynch review here and tell me that's this rating system works. He completely trashes the game probably on the level of Big Rigs and then scores the games a 6 which is the upper half of the rating scale. This would be like Ebert and Roper tearing apart Showgirls and then rating it 3 stars. Often times the number doesn't match the review so why even have a number if it seems like Gamespot does the whole Manatee thing and just randomly chooses a number?

And some of the emblems are totally useless. I think Oh Snap means everything from a story twist, to a nice exploding car, to a character that can fart on command...

[QUOTE="juradai"]Yes. Apparently the difference is by one point. *adjusts spectacles*GodModeEnabled

:lol:... yesterday was my day.:P In any case, I do disagree that scores mean much of anything. For example, I gave MGS4 a 10, I don't remember if you've rated it, but from our conversations, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you'd rate it something else. Which of us is right? If I say it is a 10 and you say it is an 8.5, how can anyone know which of us to agree with without some text to back up our crazy numbers? A game that 'feels' like an 8.5 to you might be a 7.0 to someone else, and outside of glitches, performance issues and general info about the game, such as the plot outline and how long a game takes to beat, I don't know that there is much a person can talk about in a review that isn't subjective. Just about every aspect of a game is subject to a reviewer's opinion. I don't think there is an objective way to measure how fun a game is, or how good the story is, and for me, I don't think there is a number that can accurately represent it.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="juradai"]Yes. Apparently the difference is by one point. *adjusts spectacles*rragnaar

:lol:... yesterday was my day.:P In any case, I do disagree that scores mean much of anything. For example, I gave MGS4 a 10, I don't remember if you've rated it, but from our conversations, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you'd rate it something else. Which of us is right? If I say it is a 10 and you say it is an 8.5, how can anyone know which of us to agree with without some text to back up our crazy numbers? A game that 'feels' like an 8.5 to you might be a 7.0 to someone else, and outside of glitches, performance issues and general info about the game, such as the plot outline and how long a game takes to beat, I don't know that there is much a person can talk about in a review that isn't subjective. Just about every aspect of a game is subject to a reviewer's opinion. I don't think there is an objective way to measure how fun a game is, or how good the story is, and for me, I don't think there is a number that can accurately represent it.

Yes this is true, but these days it seems like the main part of many reviewers text is spent on fully explicating a game's shortcoming and flaws, so much that is almost as if they have become too dependent on review scores to dictate how they personally feel about a game...A recent example would be Hilary's Prince of Persia review, sure its full of hyperbole but when it comes to actually backing up this hyperbole with detailed experiences the reviewer doesn't even really bother, he knows that as long as he tacks on that 9.0 or A- readers will know how he or she truly felt about the game. It isn't necessarily lazy, as much as it is a reaction to the gaming crowd or to the average gaming enthusiast.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="juradai"]Yes. Apparently the difference is by one point. *adjusts spectacles*rragnaar

:lol:... yesterday was my day.:P In any case, I do disagree that scores mean much of anything. For example, I gave MGS4 a 10, I don't remember if you've rated it, but from our conversations, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you'd rate it something else. Which of us is right? If I say it is a 10 and you say it is an 8.5, how can anyone know which of us to agree with without some text to back up our crazy numbers? A game that 'feels' like an 8.5 to you might be a 7.0 to someone else, and outside of glitches, performance issues and general info about the game, such as the plot outline and how long a game takes to beat, I don't know that there is much a person can talk about in a review that isn't subjective. Just about every aspect of a game is subject to a reviewer's opinion. I don't think there is an objective way to measure how fun a game is, or how good the story is, and for me, I don't think there is a number that can accurately represent it.