...and take the rest of the numbers with it.

After reading the Edge verdict on Killzone 2, I felt that there was something wrong with the score; not that it was given a 7 rather than a 9 or 10, but rather that a score had to be given at all.

It left me wondering why so many publications and websites still use five, ten, or one-hundred point scales; how can an in-depth, up to twenty paragraph review be adequately reflected in a single number? How does a reviewer decide where the boundaries lie, which factors take precedence - for example, at what point does an enjoyable experience of a game outweigh notable technical shortcomings? How often has hype and expectation weighed upon the writers mind?

I don't doubt this is a subject that has been discussed many times before; certainly I have heard such views expressed before. However, I think it is becoming increasingly difficult with each generation; 'Triple-A' titles become increasingly complex every year, reviews having to cover multiple elements such as single- and multi-player, technique and artistry, presentation and intentions.

Take for example The Longest Journey, a series I adore for its story, dialogue and characters. I would heartily recommend it for anybody interested in these areas of design. However, I am well aware that at the same time the actual 'game' is something of a mess. It is a dichotomy that is nigh-impossible to reconcile; whether you mark it high or low, it would do a disservice to the review, and to the reader.

But beyond simply being obsolete, I feel that these ratings are unintentionally or indirectly damaging to the industry as a whole. The Killzone '7', once loosed upon the internet, was seized upon as flame-bait; any attempt at genuine debate drowned by angry cries of bias and 'attention seeking'. How can we expect developers to take note of valid points when obscured by inane rants and spiteful bile? How can consumers be confident with reviews that receive such negativity?

Expecting rationality on the internet is most likely futile at the best of times, but I can't help but feel that if Killzone (and, before it, MGS4) had gone reviewed but unmarked, then maybe a smaller, quieter but still impassioned debate may have followed. Even with a more straight-forward good-or-bad game, surely a concise summary paragraph could be of infinitely more benefit. A score tells us so little about a game, yet proves an easy target; maybe it is time to ditch them once and for all.

=Seigneur-Hellequin

...

(Adapted from a letter submitted to Edge magazine)