Screw numerical scores. We don't need 'em.

Screw numerical scores. We don't need 'em.

If I was to say that I think Grand Theft Auto IV is a great game, many of you would probably agree.

If I was to then say that I think Grand Theft Auto IV is deserving of the score "8.5", nothing more, nothing less, many of you would probably disagree. Strongly. Loudly. And with torches and pointy sticks. The same among you that agreed with me that GTA IV is a great game would deride me for saying it deserved an 8.5, despite the fact that, by official GS standards, a game scored with either an 8.0 or an 8.5 is "Great". I would point that out, and the entire thread would suddenly be filled with confusion, and anger, and lots of people having a hard time finding their bearings.

And that, ladies (doubtful) and gentlemen (again, doubtful) brings us to the question at hand: Why do numerical scores exist?

_________________________________________________________________

I understand that yes, sometimes, you just want to find out if a game is worth playing or not without wallowing through an ass load of rehashed examinations of whether or not a game runs at 29.7 or 30 frames per second, but really, must a quick summary of a review be numerical?

Couldn't reviews just use neat little boxes of words in the upper right hand corner of the page to tell you the bottom line? I mean, you know, just a nice little bar of text superimposed over a painstakingly well drawn pair of fanboy imagined night elf breasts, or something like that? Just a little blurb saying "buy this game, it's badass" or "stay away, it's produced by Dave Jaffe", I mean really, how hard could it be?

I mean damn, most websites already have some sort of hyper-interactive, multi-layered, bright colored, moving slideshow, menu interface, how ****ing hard could it be to put a summary box up there somewhere?

And why in the hell wouldn't people be happy with that? What, are words like "excellent" or "astonishing" or "incredible" or "Tim Schafer title" not enough to tell us that a game is worth playing? Do we really need 10s and 9s and 8.8s and 97.764%, to tell us about a game's quality?

_________________________________________________________________

The way I see it, numbers bring us nothing but trouble.

A game scores a 9.8, and another game on another platform scores a 9.9 (and by the way, 9.9 is 99%. How the **** can a game be 99% perfect? :| ), and suddenly its all fire and brimstone and ownage, and every fanboy this side of the atmosphere is going bat **** crazy and urinating all over the forums.

And 10s REALLY create a lot of trouble, particularly on sites like IGN that have that extra decimal **** going on. The question then becomes, "well, this game is obviously better than GTA IV or OoT or Soul Calibur, but we've already blown our load in the 10 department, so I guess we're ****ed. Can we go to 11?"

It's what I like to call the 10 corner. As soon as you've backed into it, you have actually backed onto it and are very, very, effed as a critic.

And then, when another critic, maybe an even MORE honest one, gives the game an 8.5, everyone accuses him of just wanting the attention, like he just strapped on a pair of stilletos and went prancing about mass, tugging ties, and dropping numbers.

And then people start saying "oh man, this guy is WAY OFF the critical average. Totally screwed the pooch there."

Really? What happened to honest opinions?

____________________________________________________________

If we dropped the number **** and just started saying what we liked and disliked about particular games, the aformentioned crap would stop, and the world would be much better off. Or at least this section of the world. You know, System Wars. :roll:

If anything, this place would become more interesting. Fanboys everywhere would have to start popping open dictionaries to find words with which to qualify their opinions, and who knows, maybe on their way to the library they would see a female or two, and realise that the pr0nzors they've been watching is actually not CGI.

This thread wins so very, very hard.

I agree, numerical values hurt Gamespot's review quality (especially recently, where the written part does not need to reflect the given value).

On other sites though, such as IGN the numerical score is perfectly acceptable seeing as it basically is that bottom line box you were talking about, since they explain their scores based on objective features given throughout the review. I do agree it hurts reviewers though and creates a lot of issue when one has a possibly more developed and honest opinion but manages to score a game lower.

Also, I think this would take a lot of fun out of System Wars.
Saturos3091

But sites like IGN still face the problem of the "10 corner" even if they do objectively base all of their scores. Eventually, someone is going to have to say "this 10 is better than this other 10", and where does that leave them as critics?

And as for it taking the fun out of SW, you know I really doubt it. I think the debate would become even more intense, as fanboys would be forced to qualify their opinions with logical statements instead of just pointing to numbers.

I agree.....I made a similar thread to this in here a couple months ago.

Numerical scoring is dumb, bottom-line.

Well the advantage of a numerical score is that it can help put a review into context rather than leaving it open to interpretation. For example if I were to write a review for GTA 4 it would likely come off as very negative. Not because I didn't enjoy the game, but because there are so many annoying little issues. The framerate sucks, the pop-in is annoying, the AI pathfinding is a joke, I don't like the music, I haven't been particularly compelled by the story or characters, the friend system sucks, the aiming isn't spectacular, the cover system is annoying, and the driving physics, while improved, are still terrible. However overall I have still immensely enjoyed GTA4.

The problem isn't so much numerical scores, but rather that the numerical scales are too specific. What we need is to move to a 5-star system, which breaks down as:

1/5- Bad. Avoid at all costs
2/5- Flawed. For fans of the series/genre only
3/5- Good (because an average game, by nature, is still good). A solid experience, but held back by some significant issues.
4/5- Great. A superb game with only a handful of minor issues.
5/5- Superb. A game that could not be meaningfully improved.

By moving to a 5-star system we eliminate virtually all judgement calls from deciding the score, there's no worrying whether a game is worthy of an 8.5 or a 9. You can easily c.lassify a game, and because the scores are well defined you don't end up with a skewed rating system (ie how anything with a score under 7/10 is generally considered "bad").

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]I agree, numerical values hurt Gamespot's review quality (especially recently, where the written part does not need to reflect the given value).

On other sites though, such as IGN the numerical score is perfectly acceptable seeing as it basically is that bottom line box you were talking about, since they explain their scores based on objective features given throughout the review. I do agree it hurts reviewers though and creates a lot of issue when one has a possibly more developed and honest opinion but manages to score a game lower.

Also, I think this would take a lot of fun out of System Wars.
jethrovegas

But sites like IGN still face the problem of the "10 corner" even if they do objectively base all of their scores. Eventually, someone is going to have to say "this 10 is better than this other 10", and where does that leave them as critics?

And as for it taking the fun out of SW, you know I really doubt it. I think the debate would become even more intense, as fanboys would be forced to qualify their opinions with logical statements instead of just pointing to numbers.

Jethro, great post.

Anyway, we really need to find a better way than just numbers. Numbers really aren't a reflection of a game's quality in the 7.0 - 10.0 range. I mean if a game is scoring 1's and 2's across the board, steer clear, but I find that many games only score low numerically because of a reviewer's tastes.

Just because someone didn't like LO or Folklore doesn't mean you won't just because it's not an 80 or 90 game.

I would rather a well written review (which is hard to find on GS and most other places nowadays) instead of a score of any kind but for most mainstream sites this is not possible. If anything I'd rather see an A - F scoring system maybe with + and - scores. That way even if a game warrants an A+ it still isn't 'prime' or 'perfect'. Every game has a flaw and it's silly to thing that good can outweigh bad enough to earn a game a perfect score.


Tiefster

Yeah, I suppose that at the end of the day, most sites/publications want something to put up at the top of the review, be it a number, a letter, or a few stars.

I think letter scores, and 5 star systems, like PBSnipes suggested, are probably better than numbers, but man it would be great for a reviewer to just clarify his opinion of the game via words and words alone.

I'd like to see a A-F grading systemgoodlay

However, the score reflects the quality of the game itself within its genre and standards.

I would agree, 8.5 tops.

But yeah scores are mostly unnecessary, its more important to have a solid list of pros and cons

I agree. I even have a problem with letter scores simply because people will assign number on them to try to aggregate scores from multiple sites.

I'm all for the PASS / RENT / BUY rating system. Gives a very general impression that will encourage someone to actually read the review instead of looking only at the score.

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]Jethro, great post.

Anyway, we really need to find a better way than just numbers. Numbers really aren't a reflection of a game's quality in the 7.0 - 10.0 range. I mean if a game is scoring 1's and 2's across the board, steer clear, but I find that many games only score low numerically because of a reviewer's tastes.

Just because someone didn't like LO or Folklore doesn't mean you won't just because it's not an 80 or 90 game.

I would rather a well written review (which is hard to find on GS and most other places nowadays) instead of a score of any kind but for most mainstream sites this is not possible. If anything I'd rather see an A - F scoring system maybe with + and - scores. That way even if a game warrants an A+ it still isn't 'prime' or 'perfect'. Every game has a flaw and it's silly to thing that good can outweigh bad enough to earn a game a perfect score.


jethrovegas

Yeah, I suppose that at the end of the day, most sites/publications want something to put up at the top of the review, be it a number, a letter, or a few stars.

I think letter scores, and 5 star systems, like PBSnipes suggested, are probably better than numbers, but man it would be great for a reviewer to just clarify his opinion of the game via words and words alone.

People will always judge things on a numerical scale. You even see it with star scales...people look at 4/5 stars and say that is an 80.

I like the new trend of moving towards GRADE scores. the best games get an A+ and people can assume what they want from that. Maybe that is a 10...or maybe that is a 9 or 9.5. Either way, we all know A+ is great. It also avoids the problem of a game that is just okay. How do you score that in numbers? Many critics think a 5/10 is okay, while people here look at a 5 game as being complete crap and of zero merit. That is a mistake. Maybe that game will now score a C and people will be a little more willing to take a look at it and give it a chance.

With scores, people bring too much of their own crap and personal feelings into it. I think with a letter grade, it is open to a little more personal interpretation and people may be more accepting of it AND more likely to pick up games they wouldn't have in the past.

I'd like to see a A-F grading system, or a 1-5 system.goodlay

It is what 1up does

The numerical and alphabetical scores have always confused me. If every person has a different standard, and sees the same number or letter differently, then why use them at all ? Why not use a system that is clear for everbody ?

I personally think they should go with smilies in the future...

Awesome aka Superb - :o
Sweet aka Great - :D
Nice aka Good - :)

Meh... aka Average - :|

Lame aka Bad - :(
Sucks aka Mediocre - :cry:
LOL aka Abysmal - :lol:

Simple and clear for everyone. :)

The numerical and alphabetical scores have always confused me. If every person has a different standard, and sees the same number or letter differently, then why use them at all ? Why not use a system that is clear for everbody ?

I personally think they should go with smilies in the future...

Awesome aka Superb - :o
Sweet aka Great - :D
Nice aka Good - :)

Meh... aka Average - :|

Lame aka Bad - :(
Sucks aka Mediocre - :cry:
LOL aka Abysmal - :lol:

Simple and clear for everyone. :)

NWA_31

I think Gamepro did that for the longest time...and they gave like 90% of games a :o or :D

It was pretty pathetic and continues to be pathetic. I think the biggest problem is attitudes like you have displayed. An Average game is considered "meh" instead of good. A "mediocre" game you say sucks. THIS is the biggest problem and the heart of everything that is wrong with the system. People are acting like idiots and a game either sucks or is awesome. People are mentally incapable of thinking in a sliding scale. Everything in the middle gets lost.

Well the advantage of a numerical score is that it can help put a review into context rather than leaving it open to interpretation. For example if I were to write a review for GTA 4 it would likely come off as very negative. Not because I didn't enjoy the game, but because there are so many annoying little issues. The framerate sucks, the pop-in is annoying, the AI pathfinding is a joke, I don't like the music, I haven't been particularly compelled by the story or characters, the friend system sucks, the aiming isn't spectacular, the cover system is annoying, and the driving physics, while improved, are still terrible. However overall I have still immensely enjoyed GTA4.

The problem isn't so much numerical scores, but rather that the numerical scales are too specific. What we need is to move to a 5-star system, which breaks down as:

1/5- Bad. Avoid at all costs
2/5- Flawed. For fans of the series/genre only
3/5- Good (because an average game, by nature, is still good). A solid experience, but held back by some significant issues.
4/5- Great. A superb game with only a handful of minor issues.
5/5- Superb. A game that could not be meaningfully improved.

By moving to a 5-star system we eliminate virtually all judgement calls from deciding the score, there's no worrying whether a game is worthy of an 8.5 or a 9. You can easily c.lassify a game, and because the scores are well defined you don't end up with a skewed rating system (ie how anything with a score under 7/10 is generally considered "bad").

PBSnipes

I'd have to disagree with you sir. I think that a review, much like the game itself, should be completely open to interpretation. Afterall, a review is simply 1 person's opinion, and they can vary from person to person. The TC is right, all numerical scores really do is start meaningless arguments among gamers. I once stopped to think, would people on sites or just reading magazines have given a game they choose not to purchase a try if all the reviews on them didn't have scores attached to them? Think about it, what if that person went and tried the game and found he liked it? It happens alot, people alienating themselves from games because it got a 'low score', but it could be something that they would totally enjoy.

I'd like to see a A-F grading system, or a 1-5 system.goodlay

I agree with this, simplifying the rating would win. I mean when you start bringing in decimals into a subjective rating it's just full of fail. I would even go as far as saying 1-3 system like Good, Fair, Bad, or even more, how about just Good or Bad.

[QUOTE="goodlay"]I'd like to see a A-F grading system, or a 1-5 system.DaBrainz

I agree with this, simplifying the rating would win. I mean when you start bringing in decimals into a subjective rating it's just full of fail. I would even go as far as saying 1-3 system like Good, Fair, Bad, or even more, how about just Good or Bad.

I think Gamepro did that for the longest time...and they gave like 90% of games a :o or :D

It was pretty pathetic and continues to be pathetic. I think the biggest problem is attitudes like you have displayed. An Average game is considered "meh" instead of good. A "mediocre" game you say sucks. THIS is the biggest problem and the heart of everything that is wrong with the system. People are acting like idiots and a game either sucks or is awesome. People are mentally incapable of thinking in a sliding scale. Everything in the middle gets lost.

ZIMdoom

Well, if they did it with smilies AND numbers, it kind of misses the point.

And, no offense, but are you sure the problem is not your attitude ? Let me explain: people tend to see things differently than what the reviewer originally meant, the recent GTA IV reviews is a perfect example. That is why I propose a system with smilies and a title next to it, to inform the users exactly what that smiley is supposed to signify. So if it says "Great", that means exactly what is says: "Great". Not Good, not Bad, but "Great". The "Average" IS the middle, so why should they be considered "good" ?

The numerical and alphabetical scores have always confused me. If every person has a different standard, and sees the same number or letter differently, then why use them at all ? Why not use a system that is clear for everbody ?

I personally think they should go with smilies in the future...

Awesome aka Superb - :o
Sweet aka Great - :D
Nice aka Good - :)

Meh... aka Average - :|

Lame aka Bad - :(
Sucks aka Mediocre - :cry:
LOL aka Abysmal - :lol:

Simple and clear for everyone. :)

NWA_31

i remember you suggesting that feature before. it was genius!

Scores are very useful, you could check out a game that you normally wouldn't have bothered with if it scored high and be careful with thosed that bombed. I personally go with what I like but I will check out a high scorer. If there is no score, there are games you wouldn't even bother reading the review for but the score could get you to check it out and a sentence that sums it up wont do that. If you go to the review section you see the scores and they might get your attention nothing else would.

Here in SW we need scores, no one is going to agree around here. A game is released on one systems and the fanboys of the other systems will say it's garbage but a score ends the argument. Now, you just need to post the score and that's it. Some will still try to argue that is overated or underated etc... but at the end the score is final. Yeah, it's silly that a small differece is pointed out like 9.8 and 9.9 but that's part of SW and those who don't like it could always leave.

You also pointed out as to why we need scores. If you say GTA 4 is an 8.5 others will argue, but instead of going back and forth, we just post the 10 and call it a day. If someone said Galaxy is a good game everyone would agree but good is a 7.0 around here but these games are superb and there is a difference betwen good, great and superb etc... So the score ends all kind of arguments, which game is good or not, which gmae is better or not and who has the better line up. You don't have to agree with the score (or that this game is better than that game or what not) but around here the score is final and there is no reason to argue against it.

Scores are very useful, you could check out a game that you normally wouldn't have bothered with if it scored high and be careful with thosed that bombed. I personally go with what I like but I will check out a high scorer. If there is no score, there are games you wouldn't even bother reading the review for but the score could get you to check it out and a sentence that sums it up wont do that. If you go to the review section you see the scores and they might get your attention nothing else would.

Here in SW we need scores, no one is going to agree around here. A game is released on one systems and the fanboys of the other systems will say it's garbage but a score ends the argument. Now, you just need to post the score and that's it. Some will still try to argue that is overated or underated etc... but at the end the score is final. Yeah, it's silly that a small differece is pointed out like 9.8 and 9.9 but that's part of SW and those who don't like it could always leave.

You also pointed out as to why we need scores. If you say GTA 4 is an 8.5 others will argue, but instead of going back and forth, we just post the 10 and call it a day. If someone said Galaxy is a good game everyone would agree but good is a 7.0 around here but these games are superb and there is a difference betwen good, great and superb etc... So the score ends all kind of arguments, which game is good or not, which gmae is better or not and who has the better line up. You don't have to agree with the score (or that this game is better than that game or what not) but around here the score is final and there is no reason to argue against it.

pins_basic

the way GS reviews games, yeah, the score is pretty worthless, but only becausae the reviews its self is even more worthless.

IGN has it right.

A game scores a 9.8, and another game on another platform scores a 9.9 (and by the way, 9.9 is 99%. How the **** can a game be 99% perfect? :| ), and suddenly its all fire and brimstone and ownage, and every fanboy this side of the atmosphere is going bat **** crazy and urinating all over the forums.jethrovegas

Are you seriously going to criticise a game just to avoid calling it perfect?

i wanted to see a cow... /cry

you NOW you can't not have numbers, despite how flawed the system is.you could consider 10 as infinite. theoretically it's unreachable... like prefection. but of course a RATING classifies a game. gives it a position. it'd be chaos without ratings.

we need a smiley system

8) AAAA game

:D AAA game

:P AA game

:) A game

:| "meh" game

:? bad game

:o really bad game

:x really really game

:evil: worst game ever

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"] A game scores a 9.8, and another game on another platform scores a 9.9 (and by the way, 9.9 is 99%. How the **** can a game be 99% perfect? :| ), and suddenly its all fire and brimstone and ownage, and every fanboy this side of the atmosphere is going bat **** crazy and urinating all over the forums.BuryMe

Are you seriously going to criticise a game just to avoid calling it perfect?

Let me just say that, with all the games I have ever played, I have not played even one that I would consider 99% perfect. Ever.

And that includes games like System Shock 2, Fallout 1 and 2, Majora's Mask, Starcraft, Ocarina of Time, Zelda: LttP, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Bros 3, Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, Half-Life 2 and its episodes, Portal, Perfect Dark, Metal Gear Solid, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Dead Rising, and many others; all of which are games that I love and consider to be truly excellent titles. Even these games are, in my mind, flawed enough to be considered beneath 99% perfect.

Now, if you've played games that you think are 99% perfect, then great, more power to you; I, for one, have simply never played such a game.

if you dont like them dont use them. dont write a freakin novel about itair_wolf_cubed

Oh, you're so right, fleshing out an opinion using rational thought is really lame.

From now on I will explain my positions in 10 words or less. Hey, perhaps I could even use numbers to get my point across, since, apparently, words are stupid, and people are afraid to read.

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]if you dont like them dont use them. dont write a freakin novel about itjethrovegas

Oh, you're so right, fleshing out an opinion using rational thought is really lame.

From now on I will explain my positions in 10 words or less. Hey, perhaps I could even use numbers to get my point across, since, apparently, words are stupid, and people are afraid to read.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]if you dont like them dont use them. dont write a freakin novel about itair_wolf_cubed

Oh, you're so right, fleshing out an opinion using rational thought is really lame.

From now on I will explain my positions in 10 words or less. Hey, perhaps I could even use numbers to get my point across, since, apparently, words are stupid, and people are afraid to read.

So, what then? You wanted to tell me that I need an editor?

Well, thanks holmes, but this wasn't written so that I could explain why I don't use numbers, but rather to explain why no reasonable critic should.

good thread that makes alot of points...but it's gonna fall on deaf ears.

The SW has been using the numerical score system for a loooong time.

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]if you dont like them dont use them. dont write a freakin novel about itjethrovegas

Oh, you're so right, fleshing out an opinion using rational thought is really lame.

From now on I will explain my positions in 10 words or less. Hey, perhaps I could even use numbers to get my point across, since, apparently, words are stupid, and people are afraid to read.

So, what then? You wanted to tell me that I need an editor?

Well, thanks holmes, but this wasn't written so thatI could explain why I don't use numbers, but rather to explain why no reasonable critic should.