Are expectations typically too high, or is the seriously broken 10-point scale to blame? Logically and mathematically, it makes no sense to say a 7 score “sucks.”
On a normal scale, 1-10 means something. On an IGN scale, it's typically 7-10. I prefer the 0-100 scale myself, as I think it seems to detract from that.
It's because IGN handed out 9s and 10s to pretty much any game with hype that didn't suck. IGN are the 'fluffers' of the gaming industry.
"any game with hype that didn't suck" ummm.. well shouldn't it get a good score then if it DIDN'T suck?
Every single mainstream "professional" gaming review site does this, not just IGN.
It's been like that ever since I can remember, back to the early 90s. Review scores generally range between 7 and 9. If a publication really hates a game they'll give it 3 or 4, to make a statement. We've all been conditioned to look at it this way. In reality anything above a 5 should be considered above average but it is not. It's ridiculous that it's this way. So, 1-5 should be bad to average 6-10 should be good to perfection. The only publication I know of that does it this way is Edge. It causes a lot of arguments from people that are used to the 3 point scale. I like the way that, in response to people's criticism due to misunderstanding, they now put an explanation of how their review scoring works in every issue, it says something like: "Our scoring system explained. 1=1 2=2 3=3 4=4 5=5 6=6 7=7 8=8 9=9 10=10" Can't argue with that.
I've been gaming for 22 years now, and I swear on my life that I have never heard of review scores for games until about 2007, which coincides with when I joined N4G. (Surprise, surprise) I don't know if reviews have always held such weight as they have from 2007 up until now. But from "MY PERSPECTIVE" I only remember a certain "CAMP" harping Metacritics and review scores. I also remember multiplatform releases of the same games getting score lower a specific console due to 7 pixels, and shades of grass. And after 2008, when Rachet and Clank got scored down for "Too much Variety", it suddenly became clear to me that most game reviews were either bought off, or written with extreme biases. I will never forget the whole debate between Forza and Grand Turismo. 2 driving games, where you spend the vast majority of the time "DRIVING". Forza was declared the critical success because of things like, Paint, Engine Sounds, etc. GT in the meanwhile, was judged on 2D trees, and 2D bystanders, and for using cars models from the PS2. The reason that happened it because none of those DRIVING GAMES were judged based on what really mattered, THE DRIVING. And the reasons were quite simple, Forza would lose. The excuse went along those lines: So what if you have Rain/Snow/Dirt/ in GT? So what if you have more cars to drive either? Have you not seen the main Menu in GT5? it renders the game unplayable. And don't even get me started on them 2D trees. Forza has paint mode, enough said. And the second reason why those games couldn't be compared fairly, which also exposes the most blatant flaw in this industry, is because 99% of the journalists who reviewed either GT5 of Forza could barely complete a lap while keeping the car on off the grass! That's right, they people reviewing A DRIVING SIMULATOR can't do a competitive lap without all assists on, etc. Yet those same guys proceeded to tell the world, which game DRIVES the best.... If you skip this wall of text, here's the short break down. The industry is run by incompetent people. The person who's telling you how good or bad a game is, in fact, probably really suck at playing Games in general. Go watch any preview or sneak peak of those reviewers player early versions of games, and see how much they suck at it. From shooters, to racers, to platformers, etc. They suck at their jobs, and that renders their opinions USELESS....
@TheWackyMan "Every single mainstream "professional" gaming review site does this, not just IGN." Not true. A lot opt not to use a 1/10 scale, such as joystiq or gamesradar: http://www.gamesradar.com/a... Not that I necessarily trust their reviews anyway, since there's a reason "professional" reviews are often referred to as "paid reviews". Personally, I prefer reading the scores and reviews on meta-critic. There you'll see what the average paid review is, but you'll also see how it compares to what Gamers are saying.
I find most rating systems to be broken. I propose a much simpler 1-5 scale 5 - You must play this game, even if you don't own the platform it's on you still need to find a way to play it. 4 - Good game, play it if you can. 3 - OK game, but wait for the price to drop. 2 - Don't bother unless you're really bored and found it in the bargain bin. 1 - Not even under threat of torture, because playing this game is a former of torture. Not many games will get a 5 on my scale.
You were onto something until your very last comment. I've been saying for a long time now that a 1-5 scale is better. I've been saying for a long time that a 5 doesn't necessarily mean perfect. A score is a score, and it should be used if and when it applies. IGN started the trend that 1's and 10's should never be used, because no game is so bad that it deserves a 1 and no game is perfect so that it deserves a 10. A lot of review scales are bad because they don't know how to define their ratings and why they give such ratings out. 1-10 is a bad rating scale to use these days, b/c they apply 1-5 ratings with slight differences (effectively doubling up on the same rating) and it makes games look worse than they are. Case in point, Lightning Returns: FFXIII. Kagari of Neogaf gave the game a 5/10 and when I pressed for more info, they revealed their scale, and it showed that 5/10 was actually an average game. If we were to go by 1-5 scale, the game would actually sit at 3/5 and sure enough, check Amazon, it's rating is 3.5/5. In the old days of IGN, 1-10 scale was actually GOOD because they averaged up scores based on each section of the game (gameplay/graphics/controls/so und, etc) and that scale actually guaranteed that it was fairly judged based on what's in the box. These days though, they are trying to move it closer to movie reviewing b/c they are often reviewing the subjective portion of the game (story). IGN reviews are worthless because you don't come away from the review knowing what game you're buying, only if the story is worth experiencing or not.
You may have misunderstood my last comment, I'm not saying a 5 is a perfect game, just one that you need to experience. I deliberately avoided using the word perfect because such a game doesn't exist. As a programmer for about 30 years I know there is no such thing as perfect, bug free software much more complex than hello world.
in a sense a 1-5 scale is used in most places however it is just labeled differently. game sites basically use a 1-10 scale but not actually use 1-5. only use 6,7,8,9,10
I treat the 1-10 scale as a 1-5 with .5's. After all, MOST OF those fractions reduce to more simple terms.
0-10 and 0-100 Are the same... A 7.5 = 75.
Yeah it's a bit convoluted to use decimals or 100 point system. I means what's the difference between a 76 and a 77? Or 7.6 and 7.7? We don't need so many digits to score a game, even 10 points seems like too many.
So many games in the NES/SNES/N64/PS1 days that we all loved and had great times with that were most likely 5/10, 6/10, 7/10 type of games, but we had fun anyways.
Reviews hold no worth to me. I defer to my own opinions and predilections, rather than those of others. I'm a grown man. I know what I like.
Farce I cry! you will like what I tell you to like, that's the New World Order.. ;)
NWO 4 Life!
Grown men are intelligent enough to know that reviews consist of both opinion and acquired expertise. But of course, all gamers alive can be critics, and they all know more than any critic, anyway.
Usually I would agree but it does depend on the game. I mean a game like Superman 64 is objectively bad because of it's many problems and I thank the reviewers for making me aware!
The only times I really pay attention to game reviews is when a game I have zero interest in gets tons of great review scores, that's the reason I bought Demon's Souls, or if a game i'm excited about (Aliens Colonial Marines) gets totally panned by reviews My brain processes information extremely quick, I only need to see a handful of seconds of gameplay to know if the games is for me or not, sometimes just a simple bit of concept art can overload my brain with excitement, happened with Dead Space 1
Yeah remember looking at all the concept art on the website about a year before it came out :D
1-6 - Garbage 7 - Check out at your own risk 8 - Good 9 - Must buy 10 - Paid Review
Anything that gets a 10 is a reviewer who's "paid off?" Oh, that's not insulting at all. ... It's just so embarrassing to be a gamer these days.
It was a joke but kinda true how most people react. XD
The last of us and halo 2 fits right into this scale. I mostly just watch Twitch now on my X-1 to see how it looks and plays. I can ask questions about the controls, a much better way to see a game in action.
thats what most site use, but imo not anyone elses is the worst.
People simply want to know whether or not a game is worth buying. It seems that at some point, it was arbitrarily decided that a 9 or more out of 10 review score = worth buying. Remember 9/10 is supposed to be for games that are amazing. Consider how rare it is for a film to get 4.5 stars out of 5. Consider how many good films get 4 stars or less. Consider how many 9/10 games came out last gen that were actually crap.
Always astonishes me the extent to which some people will immediately dismiss a game that doesn't get a sky-high review score. These products of thousands of man hours, creativity and ideas, brushed off so lightly because a reviewer thinks it isn't perfect. I think it is in large part a problem caused by the $60 retail model though, that price point dooms the majority of games to obscurity.
Can't always go by reviews either, i've played games with higher than average ratings like Halo and Dead Island, yet i don't think highly of them at all. Just because a reviewer likes a certain game doesn't mean to say all players will just because of his review, i've played some games with scores of around 8 thinking they deserved slightly higher in the past a few times.
I like to see what other people think about a game I am going to buy, but I don't rely on them and make choices based on a review. I like to watch gameplay videos and base it off of that. I've bought a few games just based off watching some of my favorite LPer's play a game I hadn't seen or heard of before and they turn out to be pretty good games.
I find I put quite a lot of weight on Steam user reviews, that's a good system. Generally if a game has got my attention, and held my attention for long enough that I scrolled down to the user reviews, then if they are all positive or the positive ones resonate with my tastes then I will buy it. Consoles should allow user reviews, but I guess it'd be quite a nightmare in terms of moderation. Still, Valve and Amazon manage it...
I have checked some Steam reviews before, I guess it's something you could probably trust a lot more than these "professional" reviewers and even user reviews on metacritic. I find metacritic to be filled with very biased fanboys on all sides than can really mess with the scores. I don't think people are just going to go on Steam and start talking **** about a game on a service that isn't trying to compete with consoles. I don't like some Amazon reviews either because many people can just post a review about a game on a console they hate. Again, not all reviews are like that. I know you can rate a game on consoles which is a good thing really. The people who actually own the console are the only ones to rate it, unless people want to go out of their way to go on the website and rate it, which would an all new kind of sad. I would like to see reviews on consoles, but you would actually have to buy the game to be able to review it, that way you don't get unbiased reviews and ratings from people who haven't even played it.
Its the reviewers fault for giving out so many 9's and 10's. A 10/10 means perfection and last time I checked nothing's perfect.
10/10 isn't supposed to mean perfect, it means it's a amazing game and people should definitely play it. No game will ever be bug free or have some flaws here an there, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a 10.
7 isn't a 'bad' score by any means. But money is tight for a lot of gamers, and I can't blame them for only buying 8's, 9's and 10 scoring games. Last gen I wasted money on mediocre games, some of which scored 7 or lower. This gen, I would only consider purchasing a 7 scoring game if it was 'bargain based' or an Indie/Low cost title. But then again, I have played some 7 scoring games, and personally thought the game deserved higher. Comes down to individual taste.
I feel most of these 8, 9, and 10's are pretty much the same games as something else or like the previous game in the franchise. Take CoD for instance, it gets a lot of 7, 8, and 9's, yet it pretty much is a big map back each year. I used to play a lot of CoD during last gen and would buy it each year like a sucker. Each year they say that the engine is new, or show of some new tech (fish AI...), etc. I get into the game and it's just the same stuff from the previous CoD, and the previous one to that. I just read a review about Valiant Hearts by OXM, they gave it a 6/10 and said it was repetitive, yet gave CoD: Ghosts an 8/10. How can you say that one game which has unique puzzles and an interesting storyline be repetitive, yet CoD, the same game year after year not be repetitive O.o
Valiant Hearts is awesome, surprisingly deep in its subject matter. Lol, but I'm afraid I'm shamelessly looking forward to COD AW this year. I know...I know ;)
I prefer what films use, the 5 star system. Its alot simpler, and it differentiates alot between the individual scores, such as a 3/5 is a playable game with a few problems (in my opinion), as opposed to a 6/10 which is the exact same fraction, yet seems like trash when used for todays reviews. If games want to be treated as art and respectable like films, then why not adopt the same reviewing system. Game reviews are one of the many aspects why gaming is never taken seriously, and will probably never will until its changed.
I only have the time to play about 10 games in a year and I want to play the best possible games. I usually buy a game if it looks fun to me, however, if I'm not sure, I'll check Metacritic, it never failed me. Of course I'll prefer a game with a score of 9.5 over 7, it's simple logic to me.
Of all the recent games I've bought all the games that got rated generally a 7 I have enjoyed the most & some of the best games that I've played in Years!
The scoring system is flawed, a lot of reviewers use the scoring system simply to troll the readers and to generate interest. Any hit is a hit after all, it doesn't matter how poor the actual review is. But it's a two way street, how many times do you see people have knee jerk reactions to a simple score?. TLOU gets a 10 and no one bats an eye, but when it gets a 9 everybody loses their minds. Maybe games should be reviewed by multiple reviewers and the scores should be based on the average. It takes away personal bias and offers more than one opinion, like metacritic but without the trolls.
The best reviewer is someone with the same tastes as you. people really should look at who is writing the review before judging their OPINION. TLOU should be a 9 because they could have done better and they have! 10s are for things that quite literally have no flaws and are perfect! maybe you can throw a 9.9 or what not but still to just throw around 10s like its no ones business is irresponsible. and on another note, a non sports fan would never appreciate a sports game like a fan would and his/her opinion would be based on a non sports fans opinion. Reviewing needs to be done right.
I don't go by ratings at all. The only thing that puts me off a game is glitches that ruin the game, other than that i couldn't give a damn if a score gets 1 or a 10, i will still try it. It's just a shame that people think that game reviews matter. They don't, they are just one persons opinion.
it should matter if lots of people to you its a load of crap. whats that survival zonbie game that was supposedly buggy and a complete rip off. its best to avoid that. also i believe that big sites game reviews are not really one persons opinion. they are more like guesses on what the general public will think of a game and not what they personally feel. in which my opinion is a wrong way to do things. i remember shane satterfield or whatever his name was used to try and rate the game on how he expects the game to sell which is stupid.
i think the scales should work like this: 1 full of shit, buggy as hell, complete rip off 2 one of the worst games ever. 3 bad game 4 just below average, has some potential but doesnt really reach anything 5 should be a very very average game. not great, not bad at all. just something very generic. 6 should be a game thats worth checking out or atleast rent. 7 is a good game. something that will sell well and people will enjoy this. 8 is a great game, will definitely have lots of fun playing this. 9 amazing goty contender. 10 get this game now!!!!!! well, not exactly like that. but 5's should be used a lot more, i know 1-4 will ahrdly ever be used but that is because most games get cancelled if it is like that. however due to more indie games being developed, there maybe more of these 1-4 games available. finally, i like to say that sites like metacritic ruins everything due to most of these sites not using the same standards. ign 1-10 is diferent to gamespot 1-10.
It's too late. Gamers are already brainwashed.
If be a liar if I said I didn't read/watch reviews but they don't factor into a purchase anymore. I know if I want a game and usually read reviews after I play it to compare my thoughts and theirs. If I really love a game I like to know others loved it also. Half he games I buy score on the lower ends.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.