Do Review scores need to go the way of the dinosaur?

So The Order flopped, Ryse flopped, Kirby flopped. A bunch of games have flopped throughout time but that hasn't barred my enjoyment of the medium. I've played Viking Battle for Asgard, Alone In the Dark Inferno, The Crew, Army of Two, Silent hill Home Coming and many others. Now some may say those are bad games or may have never checked them out because of their scores.

The Metacritic Obsession Is hurting games

Is it true? Is our obsession with scores hurting our ability to actually value games or actually thoughtfully digest them for ourselves? How can we think critically and judge a game for ourselves if we're allowing someone to do it for us and reward said game a number that in the end is absolutely arbitrary to the overall entertainment value of it.

I would say with a good amount of certainty that people haven't played games because of a negative review score and will never check it out because of that score. Is it time for gaming journalists to revamp reviews and maybe get rid of an overall number and maybe work on a different kind of system? Maybe ultimately the number has to be removed and just have reviews still be the most objective thing out there for us to determine whether or not a game is worth your time instead of stigmatizing games with a number that is instantly deemed "bad" or "great"

Granted there are people out there who will play what they want to play of course we all deem a $60 value differently.

What do you guys say? Is it time for reviewers to just tell us the facts and let us decide for ourselves, instead of a number swaying us?

Damn. I'm playing Viking right now.

But yeah, it's fun for system wars, but the main meat is the stuff that's actually written.

Why is it that this complaining and questioning of reviewes only happen when games get bad scores, namely exclusives?

Why don't i see people questionaning critically acclaimed games on Metacritic? Nobody bats an eye when TLOU, GTA 5, Bayonetta 2, Super Smash Bros, Dark Souls 2, and many others got 90+ on Metcritic.

Oh wait, i actually do know.

Nope fine the way it is... I usually read the ending summary and the bullet points for the review.

I think the problem is people see the score and instantly value the game in their heads. Leading to a major problem, they don't figure it out for themselves. If they see a 7 or below and really wanted it some instantly deem it "bargain bin" status. Not to say people shouldn't spend their own hard earned money wisely as Games are EXPENSIVE and so many come out now on a weekly basis it's easy to do but I think people really need to sit and think and value a game for themselves than let a number do it.

Probably should've wait a week before posting this.

It just looks like more damage control.

yes they need to drop number scores

scores are mainly just used for the meta game of "haha my system/game is better" I dont mind reviews themselves since after all its just another persons opinion you can take from.

I'm asking a general question.

Also people don't bat an eye at generally good scores because why in the ever living **** would people need to question a games score when it's getting praise? Seriously? That's the dumbest thing i've read all day.

Also I named a bunch of games not just exclusives. Alas this isn't about the order but about the link I shared. Scores bar creativity and we've seen a burst of it in the indie scene but as seen the AAA scene isn't adapting because they want that high number.

Yeah but the article would've been "old news" by then. You know i'm not really damage controlling right?

Its really up to the consumer. Some people treat metacritic like gospel. Others never even visit the place.

Why would you not criticize high scores, too? Look at something like GTA IV or Perfect Dark Zero or the original Assassin's Creed or BioShock etc. - games that got really high scores but when you examine them under any sort of scrutiny they fall apart. If you want review scores to go away then you need to make the discussion about the ENTIRE scale because as of now it looks like you are just complaining about games you enjoyed getting low scores... which is fine, but doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument as to why scores need to go away.

@Animal-Mother: quit damage controlling for the cows Animal-Bovine...

I see it two ways... You either have the intelligence to READ the review and discern your own feeling about impressions of the game....

Or you look at a number and make the rest up in your mind...

The numbers don't "hurt" or degrade a review, but uneducated gamers who didn't read the review and still comment do....

I think the scores should be split into categories

Gameplay/Fun + Graphics/Audio + Length/Features + Innovation/Improvement - Problems (Technical/Presentation)

I think the 1-10 scale should be got rid of, in fact the scale should have no end so when better games come out the scale can get larger rather than confined. I always find it funny when people compare some older games to newer ones, the older games if released today would have the piss taken out of them if reviewed the same as a new game.

Hell we don't even have a 1-10 scale anymore it's a 5-10 scale, 5 is considered bad/unplayable and anything below that is just levels of badness which is stupid.

I agree with this.

Part of the problem with metacritic is that it uses a bunch of shit sites as well as decent ones. MC would do far better picking 20 or so (arbitrary number :P ) sites and sticking with them, rather than letting click bait have, at times, a major impact on scores or letting sites which clearly have taken a wad of fecking cash to hand out a great score or have simply been created by a PR dept.

@TheEroica: But the numbers hurt games

“The problem is how parts of the games industry and audience treat Metacritic,” Eurogamer editor Oli Welsh told MCV.

“The idea that a game isn’t worth buying, or that its developers have failed and don’t deserve bonuses if it scores under 80 or even 85 on Metacritic, is going to result in samey, bland games that are made according to what works in Metacritic’s system. It’s harming innovation in mainstream gaming.”

@Animal-Mother: I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about the general sentiment. This questioning of reviewes and scores has been picking up with the Order 1886, and now after the embargo lift.

Pubs who attach bonuses to MC are stupid. It should be with sales.

Now, to your point in particular, why shouldn't we question high review scores? If the issue is that someone might pass on a game due to low MC averages, how is it different from buying a game without question due to overall criticall acclaim?

Smart consumers and gamers will buy games they consider of interest after doing some degree of research of the title, including videos, impressions from other gamers, etc. Also, the price of the game matters alot.

My poitn was, if a particular game receiving high metacritic averages isn't an issue and never seems to be questioned, why should we do it for poorly reviewed games?

A score is just a filter. One that, without an industry wide standart can be very, very problematic. However, when the scale shows a clear indication that some games reach higher scores, than the issue is almost certain to falter with the game, not the grading system.

Not every game is perfectly scored, and MC is an aggregation site, so, the game scores it received, the more weight it's verdict has.

A good game will score well 95% of the game if it received a good amount of reviews. A bad game will score badly 95% of the game if it receives a good amount of reviews.

Its also the audience you're catering to though.

If you look at alot of games on Steam (yes yes I know pulling the hermit card) that have scored poorly, even sometimes abysmally, on metacritic but thanks to patches and updates are now actually a decent game the community will often spread good vibes by word of mouth and also by the delivery method which allows games which have been out for a while to have a slow burn while problems are fixed. On the console market most of your sales are happening in the first days and weeks of release. Thats the real issue. If you have a crap launch more often than not you're sunk. You won't get the self space or prominence to come back.

@blue_hazy_basic: Very true I shouldve said the numbers MAY hurt games

There's nothing wrong with review scores or a website the collectively averages out the rating for you.

The only problem with it, is the way people use it. Theirs nothing stopping them from reading some of those reviews. People just don't want to.

Kyle bosman did a video on this just a few weeks ago. You go from one arbitrary score system to another.

Unless your just not going to rate it in anyway. I like rating systems it gives you a nice perspective on what they generally thought of it.

The fact that some websites don't use the full scale or that people or companies use metacritic in the wrong way is their own fault

The first bolded is really the underlying problem. You can get rid of review scores/Metacritic but something else will come along to fill the vacuum.

The second bolded in that quote is also kind of dumb. What the heck is "Metacritic's system"? Metacritic is a review aggregator, not an actual publication. The "samey, bland games" that are being made now aren't getting high scores lol.

Also, that's hilarious coming from Eurogamer since they essentially just replaced numbers for an even more restricted system.

no i dont think they should go away. It still works for a lot of people. SW posts would plummet without review scores lol

but in the end its just an opinion that is out there. Not all gamers take review scores as fact...ive played plenty of games that isnt a 9 that i enjoyed and there are games that scored a 9 that i was disappointed in.

I almost missed on Yakuza because of review scores, and that will happen never again.

But if The Order sells good lots of fanboys will be sooo butthurt.

At the end if review scores are removed the writers will lose their clicks since hardly anybody actually reads the reviews. Everyone clicks on the links to see the score and leave either an angry or happy comment based on it. Anything below 7 automatically sucks and it's worse than diarrhea no matter what's written in there so.

This.

Scores are illogical way of representing something that is subjective. Anyone who is obsessed with metacritic is a fucking cancer of the industry.

I dont think there's nothing wrong with them, but in the end I make my own decisions on games that I buy and play.

@Animal-Mother: @blue_hazy_basic: on the point of what hazy said, yeah exactly... The conglomerate review sites don't help, but I also place a ton of blame on the industry itself for having the power to judge it's own intellectual property but chooses to base it's worthy investment off of metacritic...

To me it's all about information... If we are putting scored in front of the written word, we have no business paying attention to reviews.

wtf is this shit

many gamers already know the BS of metacritic and the dumb algorithm they use, like seriously some ppl just make threads for the hell of it. Find any recent thread where xyz uses metacritic to support claims. Person gets laughed at on here and another "know it all" points out that the gaming community already knows the BS that is metacritic or post some Totalbiscuit videos.

How about for once you get your lem head out of your ass and respond to a conversation like you can on the podcast.

Or you'll see The Animal Man standing outside your window tonight,. Also LOL YOU WANNA BUY RYSE SO TAKE THAT. And surprisingly I wanna buy the order. So i'll put my foot in my mouth

Jeff Gertsmann always points to his Majora's Mask review as an argument against trying to be objective in reviews (Gamespot's old scoring system spit out an 8.3 despite him hating it.) I think it's an argument for it. A review score use to measure whether a game effectively did what it was setting out to do, while reading the review would tell you how much the person actually enjoyed the end product.

With a system like that, a reviewer could get on their little pedestal about big boobs in bayonetta (or what ever pet peeves they have), while the game would still get a high score for being a well made game.

Either way, I think it's pretty fucked up that some developers are getting paid based on reviews instead of sales.

@TheEroica I'm sorry but you're mistaken a very big majority of todays "gamer"s just look at the score or listen to hearsay and that determines their opinion. So the numbers do hurt the game. Killzone SF got a 7 people shit talk that game all day and the multiplayer is some of the best on gen 8 consoles.

Rate games on:

1) Over All Fun Factor 1-10

2) Replayability 1-10

3) Length of game by number of hours

4) Simplicity/Learning Curve 1-10

5) Graphics 1-10

6) Sound 1-10

7) MultiPlayer Local and On-Line

Instead of just giving an over all rating with one number covering the whole package give us 7 numbers

Same here but most people don't have that same mindset.

As a gamer I prefer things like GiantBomb's quick looks to reviews. The quick looks almost remove opinion from the equation. There are games like #iDarb that I would have never played if it weren't for GiantBomb's quick looks

The problem though is that the industry uses review scores as a way to measure the performance of a studios game. When a studio has critical success, the employees see bonuses. When a game tanks, well I'm sure you get the picture. Bob the Business man doesn't play video games so the only way he will know if his studio has made a good game is by rounding up review scores. This practice is present in almost every occupation these days.

The review scale is fine, what bother me is the bellcurve that has to exist to make sure people don't think everything is a 8+ COD score.

Scores have always been worthless

@mems_1224:

Well yea, when you get kinect games mixed into our shit like it put mobile gaming to sleep and nobody suppose to notice except me and you.

I don't think things like length, learning curve or multiplayer should be judged. Not all games need those things to be good. Because of length for example, Persona games would automatically score higher than any other game? But then there is no multiplayer so what does that do to the score?

I did like the old Gamepro rating system which is what the rest of your post reminded me of.

@slaves: lol... I think we're saying the same thing but placing the blame on opposite parties. To someone like you or I who read reviews we look at the score as a general bullet point... The lowest determining factor on the totem pole. To the uninvested gamer, the absolute value in the game is etched in the score alone, because their unwillingness to read the review is less grabby than a big simple number.

I'm saying that I don't blame the number itself, as it doesn't encompass the entirety of the review... Its one small piece of a much larger picture. I blame the gamer unwilling to look past the end of their nose beyond a score.

But with that said... I do agree with you that seeing an aggregate score projected atop a game like a judges gavel does send a rather ignorant message.

No, review scores serve a purpose. imagine if the only thing you had to go buy when buying a games is commercials? that would be terrible. people pre-order games now, reviews can save you from wasting your money, even if you ignore the negatives and still want it, it can help you to wait and find out more. They can also help you find a game you weren't interested in and didn't see much on. So well they aren't the "law" they serve a good purpose. even if they can be different from your opinion or somewhat biased. a high score can be brought, but when a game scores really low, its a good indicator to wait and be more careful with your money

Its a good way for gamers to decide whether to pay for a game and maybe wait another for a sale. I wouldn't pay full price for a low scoring games. The only thing I see is MC counts many fanboy sites which are very bias towards their platform.

If that's not a damage control but a serious question then yes scores should go away. Anything 8+ means that the game is really good anyway (word "recommended" is used for them on Eurogamer now).

Some games take risks and bring something new to the table. Due to first attempt those are often rough around the edges while the game that plays it safe, scores higher and becomes more well known, even though it is same old thing.

But first game journalists will have to up their standards and start to review each feature of the game separately (story, music, sound effects, game's length, graphics, replay value, price model and most importantly gameplay. Everything is important).

It's sad to see some games are praised more because how much those are like movies and poor gameplay is given a pass. On other hand games with depth are criticed for the lack of story/characters and "balance issues" (hence 8/10 on websites like IGN instead of 10/10). There are a lot of things other than scores that should be changed in gaming and game journalism. Hopefully Order 1886 will be a message to other devs.

Ah I got you. Yes we are saying the same thing.

While I respect your opinion, I have to disagree wildly. Killzone SF got a 7 and Destiny got a 6. I would play Destiny over Killzones multiplayer anyday. Also COD Advanced Warfare, Titanfall and Battlefield had better multiplayer. Hell I liked Killzone Mercenaries multiplayer better than SF.

This just illustrates the problem of opinion even more.

@slaves: I prefer the slaves, @Animal-Mother: and @getyeryayasout: brand of buying every single game and not worrying about reviews anyway... :P

@GoldenElementXL: Thats understandable. I didn't like what I played of Destiny and while I do like COD and Battlefield I like KZ more. I like Mercenaries as well, Platinumed it

This.

TBH, this thread reeks of damage control.

@GoldenElementXL said:

@EG101 said:

Rate games on:

1) Over All Fun Factor 1-10

2) Replayability 1-10

3) Length of game by number of hours

4) Simplicity/Learning Curve 1-10

5) Graphics 1-10

6) Sound 1-10

7) MultiPlayer Local and On-Line

Instead of just giving an over all rating with one number covering the whole package give us 7 numbers

I don't think things like length, learning curve or multiplayer should be judged. Not all games need those things to be good. Because of length for example, Persona games would automatically score higher than any other game? But then there is no multiplayer so what does that do to the score?

I did like the old Gamepro rating system which is what the rest of your post reminded me of.

I like the 7 point system because it will push devs to take care of more aspects of the game. Using your example Persona's length rating should offset the lack of multiplayer or poor replayablity. Most people know what they like so if they don't care about multiplayer in their RPG's then it won't matter anyway. In a FPS multiplayer maybe more important than length.

@GoldenElementXL: @slaves: @Animal-Mother: @Heil68: @finalstar2001: and anyone else on system wars that may have Destiny that I don't know about... Lets get a raid night going. I shelved Destiny after I hit lvl28 with a couple legendary weapons and armor and called it a day. Let's set a night and beat the raids. @heretrix: too...