Opinion: The Video Game Review Scale Has Problems

Game Rant:

One editor talks about the current scale in which video games are rated, and how many reviewers opt to limit scores based on the norms of the industry.

Let me preface this entire piece with the fact that I don’t disagree with the scores that any of my peers within the gaming industry have assigned titles. That is, obviously, their opinion about any given piece of software that they’ve been tasked with reviewing, and to say they’re wrong for having it would be one of the stupider and just plain incorrect things that anyone could ever write. With that said, the system that others and myself score games on has been warped and limited through the expectations of the industry, leaving a majority of the scale untouched in the process.

[Khaotic]

I realized it had problems when MGSV got perfect scores from most reviewers only to complete the game and realize it was only 2/3 complete. I mean WTF. That was the most overrated reviewed game of all time for me.

[Kornholic]

MGSV got perfect scores because most reviewers don't usually have the time to complete the games they review. If I had played MGSV for 30 hours, I would've given it a 9 or 10 too.

[WellyUK]

It's biggest issue is more than it's 2/3 complete. It's a repetitive grind fest to unlock things and missions design is pathetic. It's the only game along with GTAV in the past few years that I believe was massively overrated. 7 or 8 but not 9 pr 10 for me.

[joab777]

Yep. Ive always wanted to start a new review site or channel b/c I have a great idea on how to do it.

Bit it's true that our current way of reviewing games is archaic. Fortunately, there are many ways today to view a game b4 you buy it.

[rainslacker]

Best way to make money is throw a good game a low score. Otherwise no one pays attention. Reviews are mostly useless outside the fan boy wars nowadays. The good ones rarely get any notice, and the fair one's get critiqued more on their fair score, than they do on the actual content of the review which states why it received the score it did.

[OB1Biker]

Scores just dont make any sense and cant be more subjective while giving a false factual idea.
Just give a short line to summarize the review since all it is down to actually is whether the reviewer like the game or not.
In addition many games nowadays are constantly evolving and a game on day 1 released maybe very different from the same game a year later while the review remains the same for people checking it out at that time.

[rainslacker]

Reviews should spell out what a game does right, and what it does wrong. It can then use that to determine if the game is something the readers would enjoy, and that could be based on any number of criteria from price vs content to it having a great story which makes up the flaws.

The score itself is the problem, because when people see a score, they don't seem to go read why it receives such a score to determine if the review is applicable to them, because if it's scoring low for something that doesn't bother you, or it's scored low because it does something you actually like(like a lot of niche JRPG's are getting nowadays), then the score actually damages the appeal to the reader instead of providing an informed, objective, and hopefully unbiased breakdown of what the reader should want from a review.

For instance, I could look at IGN's score for SFV, and be like, "Oh cool, it's probably pretty good". But without reading the review, I would have never known that it didn't have game modes that I actually prefer to have. OTOH, those sites giving it really low scores because of the lack of that content may not be applicable to people who only care about the online, and whose desire for SP content is minimal.

[OB1Biker]

Exactly. I couldn't say it any better. Also a lot of people forget a review is only a point of view and their tastes can be very different than the reviewer's.
I think another problem is that people who don't follow gaming news and have no clue so to speak being more casual players would nt care less about a core gamer approach the reviewer have nitpicking on details completely irrelevant to them. IMO it's precisely those people who have no clue and will just look up the 'score' that supposedly help them figure out if a game is 'good' or 'bad'. Therefore the people who most need short/summarised information are left with a subjective number that is very far from how they would appreciate a game.

[Lonnie18]

Yes there should be a standard scale used by everyone!

[rainslacker]

I don't think there should be a scale at all. A number rarely reflects the quality and content of a game. The content of the review is what's important to making a buying decision. The score is just for metacritic and fan boy's to argue over.

Didn't use to be that way, as scores were usually fair, and roughly the same across the board, but nowadays, too many people look at only the score and don't click beyond that. Sites would actually be better served by not putting on a score, because it actually makes people have to click to see what they say about the game...or maybe people won't do that anyways, I dunno, hard to tell based on review comment threads around here.

[Lonnie18]

No I disagree, there should be a scale that keeps honesty throughout the industry.

[MasterD919]

I don't know why anyone would depend on a review for a game nowadays. It's so easy to find an opinion, video clips and just about anything else you need to know about a game before you buy it online. I don't even trust the mainstream reviews anymore...Hell, COD is still getting high-praises from them, so credibility is out the window for most reviewers in my opinion.