Kotaku: Reviewing the Reviewers: Or How To Break A Broken System

Kotaku writes: "Just what you've been waiting for: A site that lets your critique the critics, review the reviewers, shit all over the shit all overers.

Website Criticosm allows you to give reviewers a review score of their own. They then use a reviewer's average score to weight the importance of their score for a game when calculating the average score a game received."

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Foxgod3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

Who is gonna review the reviewers of the reviewers?
If a reviewer gives an opinion about a reviewer, it better be a reviewer with backbone.

This stuff seems to be based on public opinion, sadly public opinion is even dumber then Anonymous blogging.

Mo0eY3664d ago

You are right, Foxgod. Kotaku is smothered in bias for the Xbox 360. Why cater to the public with a review of other reviewers when you hold your own personal vendetta?

No thanks.

Tony P3664d ago

So basically this is the official site to whinge when a game scores more or less than you think it should.

Awesome. /s

sikbeta3664d ago

Tooltaku Reviewing the reviewers, sorry but this guys has anything better do?

This is insanely Stupid, who'll take THE TIME to do some [email protected] like that

Gen0ne3664d ago

Is this fact? Or your take? I've always felt they were pretty good at staying non-biased. Or am I missing something? Examples please, to help support your claim.

xabmol3664d ago

Someone hasn't been watching the Bonus Round...

Foxgod3664d ago

Before you know it, people will start claiming that PSM is favoring the 360.
Hey, maybe people favor the 360 cause it good, ever thought of that?

Instead of blatantly acting like its a bad thing to favor the 360.

xabmol3664d ago

Michael McWhertor, Senior Editor of, is a blatant FANBOY.

So obvious, they all call 'em out on it!

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3664d ago
BeaArthur3664d ago

Meta scores are usually a good gauge of how good or bad a game is. If you do your do diligence in researching a game you should be fine.

Oner3664d ago

Exactly. It is just 1 component to utilize ~ not to be used as the decisive factor because it always comes down to YOUR OWN experience with the title.

And for the record it is probably better to use N4G's Meta Rating's as they don't leave out particular sites or "weight" some less/more than others.

Unicron3664d ago

I'll stick with valuing my own opinion over some random "journalist" thank ya.

Rockox3664d ago

Right there with you.

Gen0ne3664d ago

An interesting idea though. Just not enough for me to partake in.

One second thought, reading some of the reviews of the reviewers could prove hilarious. I dunno, this could be comedy gold.

Unicron3664d ago

I've said this before, but I really like Kotaku's system. I may not always agree with their opinions, but I really feel listing the pros/cons and how much of the game was actually played is a great way to do things. It makes people... gasp... read!

Bubbles for ya both.

Rockox3664d ago

I don't often concern myself with reading reviews, so Unicron when you mentioned Kotaku's reviewing system, I had no idea what you meant. So I looked at a recent review and whattaya numerical or alphabetical rating. It was glorious. If I wanted to know what the reviewer thought about the game, I actually had to read the review front to back. I wish more sites would adopt a similar system.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3664d ago
huga_muga3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

Only gamers use their own review "opinion".

people should need to stop supporting review scores.

BeaArthur3664d ago

Plenty of people who aren't fanboys use reviews. If a game has no demo reading the reviews is the only way to try and determine how good it is without throwing $60 at something that might suck. I'm all for forumlating your own opinion but I'm also not interested in wasting my money.

cereal_killa3664d ago

There's nothing wrong with people looking at reviews but what bothers me is people using some peoples opinions as the word of the Gaming Gods I see fanboys on here all the time saying "wait till Game Trailers or IGN or Game Informers reviews to come out before I play this game". I cant stand Kotaku but they do the best reviews NO score, No stars, No letters nothing but there opinion on if they like it or not and that should be the way all reviews are. Fanboys would have nothing to gloat about and would probably cry because they can't make fun of the other consoles games. Hell I wish all together they stop with scores on reviews and keep sales of games and consoles private to only developers, publishers, manufacturers and share holders.

Unicron3664d ago

Huga is right. Reviews are good to inform, but review SCORES are utterly useless and 100% arbitrary.

Montrealien3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

so, this is how it works.

you read many reviews, you start getting familiar with certain people that write reviews, some share your tastes, some don`t. However, in the end, the only opinion that truly matters is your own. But that does not mean that you can`t get the opinion from other people you trust to see if you may like a game or not? Of course not. However the most important thing is that you don`t judge a game simply based on what others think.

BeaArthur3664d ago

Unicron...technically the numerical score/letter grade is just a representation of the written opinion. I like the numerical score because it provides me with a quantitative evaluation of the game. I agree, the written portion is far more informative than any score could ever be; but if they just have the written review with no score then it makes it hard to determine whether they think the game is average or above average. A written review with no score could leave you wondering whether they thought it deserved a 7.5 (relatively average) or an 8.5 (a pretty solid/good game).

I don't know if people are actually understanding what I am trying to say though. I am not saying that professional (and yes I will use the term loosely) reviewers are the only evaluation of a game you should have. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that if there is no demo and I am trying to decide whether to pick this game up at it's release then the only information I really have to go on (other than random gameplay clips and preliminary evaluations of an unfinished product) are the reviews. With that being said I have had plenty of situations where the reviews said it was great and I hated it and plenty of occasions where the reviewers thought it was terrible and I loved it. The point I am making is that I think review are a good preliminary evaluation tool. They are by no means the word of law.

Unicron3664d ago (Edited 3664d ago )

I agree bea, they ARE a good evaluation tool. The problem is people are turning them into law, and that scares me, as many people are missing out on some GREAT titles. But to your other points -

My problem with the score is that they are quantifying opinion. Someone has yet to tell me the actual difference between a title scoring a 9.3 and a 9.4 for example. I have people trying to tell me that a game is 0.1 better than another? Yet they are in different genres, with different gameplay focuses? There is no mathematical way to really arrive at these scores, they are essentially just made up. IF they just had the written part, why would you need the score? A well written review SHOULD include the very point of them saying "I feel this game is average/above average/great/amazing/timeless /for fans only," no?

You also have to look at how twisted and deranged scoring scales have become. A 7.5 is now a flop? A game getting a 9.6 should have gotten a 10? The review scale means not what it used to. Consistently high reviews on high profile franchises also makes me wonder... is the game THAT good, or is it the pull of the marketing team/promises to the publisher? But I digress...

BeaArthur3664d ago

Unicron...What scares me is all the hate that seems to come from these reviews. To me the real issue is the reader's getting so worked up over an opinion. You will never be able to satisfy everyone with whatever review/score it gets and therefore you will always have those people that cry foul. So often I see people claiming they are now going to boycott a site that they have been a loyal reader of because they don't agree with one review.

Very True, there is no way to decipher a 9.3 from a 9.4. In that respect you are absolutely correct but giving a numeric score on a well written review is kind of ironic. If these reviews were all written well then we wouldn't even be having this conversation about the state of game reviews. True, a good review shouldn't need to add a numerical score but since the credibility of reviews is being evaluated we almost have to have a numeric score so that the review makes sense. At the same time though if we didn't have numeric scores I think that would actually be worse because then we would have the same reviews actually saying whether the game is good or not. The number is subjective. Although it is commonly agreed upon that a 7 is an average at best game having someone actually say this game is average would create an even bigger firestorm than just giving it the 7. But I see your point though. If the review just said average the reader could make up their own mind as to what that meant instead of seeing a number and saying "that's not average that is bad".

I think the term flop gets used too infrequently. To me a flop is a game that had a ton of hype and failed miserably. Some would say MAG is a flop but I would say it is a good to average shooter based on who you ask. By my definition I don't know if I've ever seen a true flop. I would agree that big name franchises probably get preferential treatment but at the same time I would say that they also pump out better games more consistently. I'm not ignorant to the fact that some publishers probably grease the hands but that is why we have meta scores. If I see a bunch of 8 and then a 9.5 I know that the game is more of an 8. Like wise if I see a bunch of 8.5 and then a 6 I know the game is probably more of an 8.5.

Rockox3664d ago

The sad part is that even after a review without a number/letter/star system is released, I bet people would STILL go to the reviewer and say "So, if you HAD to give the game a rating, what would you give it? From your review, it sounds like it'd be, oh I don't know, an 8.7. Amirite? Amirite?" Some people just can't stand for things to not be rated as such.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3664d ago
Socomer 19793664d ago

Its a chance to hurt reviewers just as much as reviewers hurt developers.

The next time these crumb bums go up for a promotion this will be thier metacritic. I suggest we use it & curb these guys with our power.

Happy days are a comin!

BeaArthur3664d ago

So you would give a reviewer a bad review to what end? If you give them a bad review to "curb these guys with our power" than you are only making the problem worse. I mean what do we all really want? We want an unbiased evaluation of a game within the guidelines of a well formulated criteria. If you start trying to "curb" the reviewers then they will start reviewing games in order to please the people who are reviewing them which is exactly what we don't want them to do.

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.