GP Editor, Marcus Estrada discusses his take on review scores and why the current system used by many websites is inherently flawed. What exactly would it take to change it?
Personally I review on an Alphabet system, much simpler.
They need to stop letting people/fanboys pretend to be journalist and just make demos mandatory. Most of the time, a demo will answer all of YOUR questions about the game.
Not if the demo is super old.
Lol I never thought of myself as a journalist by any means :P When I give my opinion on a movie or a game I give them a letter grade, simple as that!
I'd like to see more sites use 4/5 star scales. It's simpler, and critics are more likely to use the full range. How do you come up with a random score like 8.8? Eight tenths of a point doesn't mean much to me; just give it an 8 or a 9.
10 - Perfect 9 - Extremely Great 8 - Great 7 - Really Good 6 - Good 5 - Average 4 - Bad 3 - Really Bad 2 - Complete Crap 1 - Unplayable 5 is what an average game, which most people seem to forget, And what knifefight said is right, read the review as a whole. The Pros, Cons and score is not ment to be the whole thing. Anything above a 5 is good, I think reviewers are to forgiving and just give high scores to not be "bias" A game with a 5 or 6 can be good fun, it might not be some end all revolution of a game. But it can still be fun and enjoyable.
I agree with you, but I tend not to step back and look at the scale as a whole sometimes. I believe a 5, passing to me, means the game does what it is supposed to do, it works. Anything above is icing on the cake. A good example is Socom 4, currently has a 67 Meta, but it is a GOOD solid game. Usually I'll have a problem with a low review score if it is unwarranted, or just nit picking. The main problem with review scores comes when a mediocre game gets a 90 average, and a decent to great game struggles to get above an 80 average. Clearly showing that some reviewers do NOT follow the scale. Which in the end makes the whole scale pointless, maybe another system would be better.
Truthfully I think that if a site does not consistently follow the scale THEY chose to use, then I won't listen to their opinion. As Son_Lee said, EDGE gets torn apart by people because a game might get a lower score, however they never say it is a bad game.
That's an F....a big fat F. And Personally, I haven't seen any METACRITIC 90'ish scoring games that didn't deserve their great scores...not 1. Can you show me one?
@Persistantthug, lol, I actually went to some nice schools. But I suppose I didn't think that all the way through. However in some of my college classes our grades were split, starting at different points. In some a 50 would be a D, in others a 90 would be a B, making only 95 and above an A. Either way, a 5 out of 10 to mean means the game works. Anything below is borderline unplayable or just horrid. Here's a funny one for you, World of Goo, holding a 98 Meta, 2nd highest rated game EVER. Must be amazing, but the user score is 6.9. 4 critic reviews. Proving that the review system isn't perfect. Or else everyone would pick this game up, cause it is better than every game out this year and last so far.
7 = average Game reviewers already set the precedent that anything below 7 is garbage. So now they need to add even more numbers between 7 to 10 to give an objective score even though they don't use more than half the scale.
I don't think so. On metacritic, 75-90 Generally positive reviews while 50-74 is mixed. I personally call 5.9 and under "average" (or worse if it's below a 4-ish). Edge's average is a 5 as well.
@LordMe Holy crap, you just posted RPG Land's exact review scale.... http://rpgland.com/criteria...
I promise, I do not work for them! I run my own small site! XP I promise I have never seen that page before! lol. Nice find and bubbles for you!
True, but I like great games, not good games...
I would make it simple, no score. Simply: Buy, Rent, or Don't Waste Your Time.
Too arbitrary for my tastes. I mean, who are you to hereby proclaim that a game is or is not worth -my- time? In my opinion, I'd simply ditch all ways to rate a game and, instead, write whatever I thought of it. Let the readers themselves make the choice, with no silly score nor declaration of just -how- much worth a game has.
The problem with reviews is that, especially in this gen, anything below an 8 seems unplayable. This is way beyond the laws of logic. Edge Magazine gets slammed a lot, but they actually USE the WHOLE review spectrum. A 5 is average. In my opinion, anything above a 7 is worth playing. Anything above a 6 is worth checking out if you're into the genre. An 8 or above are must-plays, and 9s and above are must-owns. Really not that hard of a concept to grasp. It's a shame more reviewers don't use the whole grading scale and people nowadays don't know how to grasp it.
This generation fanboys have implemented their own scale of judgement: If a game on their system of reach around choice does not score a 10/10 or 11/10, then they scream conspiracy and mass murder and claim the site is biased and bought off. Getting a 8-9.5 is considered to them Blasphemy. To them the average score for a game on their system of choice must be 10/10
It is kinda annoying that reviewers dont make full use of a scoring range, but when they do, the lower score tends to get bashed, anyway... Scores are taken far too seriously anyway, to the point where they seem to have more importance than the actual review. A score can be a good way of describing quality at a glance, but there are various aspects making a game good and bad, so the reviewer is essentially balancing these things out with the score, where as the importance of these things varies to others. If a game gets a 95%, despite having big gameplay flaws, but has 'mind-blowing' graphics, that score is meaningless to someone who cares more about gameplay than graphics.
That people are dumb and think anything under a 9 is a waste of money, and the fact that the more money a game costs to make, the higher the review score it gets in pretty much every situation, regardless of how good the game actually is?
It's all opinion. Some people prefer red apples. I, myself like green apples. I could eat the best red apple that ever existed and it still wouldn't be as satisfying as eating the green apple I know and love. Bad analogy, but what I'm saying is reviewers have opinions and bias and tastes which are supposedly cast aside when reviewing a game. Let me tell you, they aren't. An good reviewer looks past these opinions that he/she has and tells the reader if this game is for the reader or not. This is how all reviews must be. The reviews must tell people what colour of apple the game is, otherwise people will be mislead by their dislike of the specific genre or gameplay mechanics. The reason one person enjoys a game could be the same reason another person hates it. Therefore, reviews should have pros, cons and recommendations and a final score about how good quality the game is. By quality, I mean "Does the game work?" because that's also important. People don't want to play a broke game, but again, if it's their type of game, they might just enjoy it anyway. I'll give an example: Fallout 3 Pros: +Deep character customisation +Freedom to explore the world +Involving story Cons: -Dull landscapes -Glitchy as heck Recommendations: You can look past all it's flaws and find a deep Action RPG experience if you can bear with the glitches. This is a must buy for people who like post-apocalyptic settings. Quality: 3/10 Something like that, anyway.
Personally I would rate it with a Pro (+) and Con (-) system. That why I get through what I do/don't like about it without influencing readers with a number.
No need for numbers. Just get your point across. If I had the option writing reviews here, I would just break games down into these: Bad: Just not worth your money. Stay away. Okay: Nothing offensive, but not worth your time unless something really strikes your fancy about it Good: Either a game that's made well and plays well but won't blow you away, or a poorly-made game with some significant redeeming qualities (i.e. Alpha Protocol, Nier) Awesome: An outstanding example of the genre Epic: play this. now.
Reviews have become ridiculous lately.PC titles are getting lower ratings bcoz of low graphics whereas xbox games get a free pass on graphics bcoz reviewer knows xbox has reached its limit despite being inferior to pc version.Reviewers are not following a standard scale.Sometimes bad graphics cuts off 10% points,sometimes they cut 20% for the same reason.Most reviewers tend to dislike new gameplay mechanics as they have become accustomed to a certain type of gameplay mechanics and thus bash games with innovative ideas. The scores of different genres should be unified.Nowadays,80 for a shooter implies a mediocre shooter whereas its means below par for an rpg.Bugs are annoyances but marks cut for them should be relative to the scale of the game.A stuck in a stone bug in Oblivion is nothing compared to the huge scope it offers whereas linear pathed games should be punished for bugs bcoz there is only one road to go and its just pure laziness if you can't clean that path.
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.