Review scores and the convoluted system that entangles them is nothing new. It’s a system of overwhelming bias for the mainstream and an overall stain on gaming. Well, at least from my perspective. Scores should be removed because they have no backing. What truly defines an eight or a B+? Even more so, what is the unique difference between a few points on the scale? Well the answer is none, there is no difference. It’s just a number for each and every person to draw their own conclusion. “Reviewing” others opinions on a game’s score reveals this truth. Gamers will praise a nine, but will also complain about a nine as if that score alone causes the game to vanish from existence. It’s not necessarily the systems fault though; it’s the perception of the system that destroys credibility.
Mainstream gaming has created a false sense of professionalism and truthfulness. On one hand, when reviewers adhere to the public opinion they are viewed as professional and trustworthy. Yet, step out of line and downgrade a game that is supposed to be great and everything goes out the window. An easy way to regain loyalty is to agree with the general consensus and then you’re back on track. Gamers enjoy talking about how journalism is reflected in the industry and how it has, more or less, gone down the drain. Well I say to you, my fellow gamer, that it hasn’t gone down the drain. Actually, it’s being forced, shoved and molded into what it is today. We have created the seven to ten scale, the high score hype, the censorship and the bias. Journalism is merely a mirror image of what gamers want. For the most part it’s a collective opinion for you to agree with. Disagreeing is highly discouraged and censored.
Personally, I’m not afraid to speak my mind on scores. Want to know what I truly think about Uncharted 3? The game is a four at best. Skyrim? No more than a six and that’s being generous. Although, why does it matter what I think in reflection to a score? Well, it doesn’t matter. My information is about as useless as anyone else claiming the score should be applied much higher or lower, reviewers and journalists included. It baffles me that important information regarding key components is disregarded in favor of arguing. There is a definitive line between debating the topic and arguing the point and I think we know which one is the more dominant force. Granted, if I ever wrote a review with such scores, my points and opinions would go unnoticed. The review itself would quickly be drowned in a sea of random numbers, references to sites with better scores and general personal attacks. Yet, this seems to be the point of reference that we currently enjoy and embrace.
Yes, that’s my truthful and honest opinion transferred into a numerical form. I could easily describe my reasoning in a clear, detailed and concise manner, but it would do little justice. I would be pointed in the direction of sites with “better” scores, have someone quote Metacritic and be told how one person’s opinion matters over mine. Something I see quite frequently and far to often. Valid reasoning and logic does not seem to mix well with various gaming communities. Now, I don’t mean that in a harsh way, I can only imply that by what I see. Being irate, illogical and outlandish is acceptable with the backing of the gaming community. It’s just one of those norms that goes without question, not only in regards to reviews, but in almost every aspect.
Review scores, and sites alike, are almost identical to the Call of Duty franchise. Even though we complain about how unbalanced, broken and unfair it can be, we keep coming back. Nobody wants honest journalism because, at some point or another, that would create a conflict of interests. That idea alone will keep an unchanged and outdated system relevant.
We desperately need a new method to the madness. Assigning a random value to a game just doesn’t cut it. Truthfully, I have no better alternative in mind. That’s why I would opt for a mandatory scoreless review, allowing readers to actually discern points within the review itself. That would do away with half of the flame bait articles alone. Low scoring reviews, written with no score, would probably go unnoticed and unmentioned. Of course, nonsensical articles for hits will always be present, but who can blame them? Poorly written, pointless articles for the sake of arguing will always have the upper hand on well written, informative information. Say what you will, but gaming sites are only catering to their intended audiences, you.
As always, thanks for reading. Feel free to leave a comment.
"Atari taps into its horror roots with Haunted House, a roguelite revival of the first-ever survival horror game that made its debut on the Atari 2600 in 1982. Now reimagined as a stealth-horror adventure from Orbit Studio, the minds behind Retro Machina, "Haunted House" is ready to creep onto PC and consoles on October 12, 2023." - Atari.
The best Cyberpunk 2077 builds for the 2.0 update make the most of the reworked Perks system for some devastating and fun playstyles.
Helldivers 2 pre-orders are live on PlayStation Store and Steam, and here are the contents of the different editions and pre-order bonuses.
I agree, do away with scores. I prefer reading the pros and cons so I can make up my own mind.
Take a look at your average FPS, all of which seem to score between 8.0 and 9.5 out of 10, when you delve into the reviews for these games you start to see some very disappointing comments, such as, the story is too short, too clichéd, disappointing ending, glaring faults with multiplayer and so on. Yet they still get a high score. I remember when a 7 was considered a good score.
Many sites have very clear definitions for their scores. Why throw away scores? Sometimes the score helps set the tone for the content.
The real problem is publishers. They've made a massive deal out of scores, when it's obvious that they don't necessarily have to do with whether or not a game succeeds. Look at Duke Nukem Forever; they got low scores, but sold like a million copies because they ran plenty of ads.
Publishers created a hostile reviewing environment, where they blacklist you if you give them a "low" score for their crappy game ( http://www.destructoid.com/... ) or get you fired from your position, if they sunk enough money into your site's ad space ( http://kotaku.com/328244/ga... ).
And frankly, it's probably too late. Game journalists seem to have completely lost sight of the difference between objectivity and simply drooling over everything in adoration. Not to mention, gamers all think that anything below a 9 is "hits wanting bias crap!!" (Not to say it sometimes isn't, considering those people give them those hits, effectively working to get hits) and I fear no amount of retraining will ever fix that. It has become the culture that all games deserve a 9+....exactly what the publishers are trying to maintain. "Be a good little reviewer and give us a 9+, and we'll give you exclusive content and interviews. Anything less than a 9 and I'll have your head!"
But hey, one of my favorite reviewers DOESN'T give scores. Ben yahtzee is my favorite reviewer because he's ten times as insightful as most other reviewers (whom don't so much "review" as read off the publisher's info sheet). And I end up agreeing with him about 99.9% of the time. My other favorite review, though, DOES give scores. Jim Sterling. Say what you will about him, but he is also very insightful in his reviews, and not afraid to exercise the bottom half of the score spectrum. His scores mean more than just (bad - 8), (good - 9), (great - 10), because Destructoid has a good, well defined score system.
I don't think there would be an issue if there was just some actual consistancy within reviewing sites, but there just seems to be no objectivity what so ever.
Maybe instead of giving whatever score feel a game deserves at the time, even when you have your period, you could objectively grade the technical and creative aspects of the game against similar games in the genre. It's one of the simplest ideas that journalists and fanboys alike just can't seem to grasp.
I don't care how harsh you are, just be consistantly harsh with every game review within the site. Is that really so hard?
You can't give ODST a nine and Killzone 2 a seven and expect educated people to still think you're a credible reviewing site.
As a relatively new writer on the gaming scene, I have wondered a few times if there is a fair or accurate way to rate/score a game. There isn't really a good way to go about doing that.
I have written a few game reviews for the Playstation forums as an MVP. There I'm known as Papawarlock. I also have written 3 for Playstation Edge (playstationedge.com) Writing in general is an evolutionary process. The more experience I get writing, hopefully the better I will become at it.
I use numbers because that's generally how people relate to this particular process. Most go only for the scores and ignore what's written. Obviously if you don't score it the way they feel it should be scored, they'll flame you. Or some people will say "Well 'Site X' gave it a 6, so I'm not touching it". Obviously 'Site X' is their preferred source for gaming news, articles and reviews.
I'd prefer to read the full information in a review rather than rely solely on the numbers. Nier received generally mixed reviews from "professional" sites, but actual players rated it pretty well. Cross Edge is another example. I enjoyed both games quite a bit, but when I wrote reviews of my own for both, I tried to point out aspects that I felt could potentially turn off gamers or frustrate others. Due to the reviews I wrote, I managed to get at least half dozen posters on the Playstation Forums to try the game out after I wrote the review, plus a few others over time as they asked about the game.
Numbers can serve a point. But the biggest aspect is the actual written content of the review. I feel that is more important than the score and easily the most overlooked, and underused feature to game review writing.
As it's been pointed out, some places consider 6 short paragraphs to be a viable review, slap some numbers up and voila. Instant review. 6 paragraphs don't begin to cover a game.
Great blog.
http://community.us.playsta...
Nier was one of the very first reviews I wrote as an MVP. The set up there is a bit odd in my opinion as evidenced by the opening section, but that's how the site prefers it done. There was a lot to the gameplay in Nier so I broke it down into sections.
http://community.us.playsta...
God of War III
http://community.us.playsta...
Final Fantasy IX after the PSN release. I played it on my PSP. Still the best FF in the series.
http://playstationedge.com/...
Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One. This was my first 'paid' review. The site's owner gave me a format he wanted me to write in. A different style of writing than I was used to.
http://playstationedge.com/...
Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
http://playstationedge.com/...
Skyrim. My only regret with the Skyrim review was I had only 20 hours of gameplay in and at that point I had come across no errors or glitches. Even after obtaining the Platinum, I never came across the bulk of the issues that people had and still have with the game.
If I could rewrite it today, I'd change a few things and add some of the known problems. What Skyrim did right, it did so great. Unfortunately there was no consistency with the problems in the game. Several people I know online, have had many game breaking issues with it. I was lucky. Nothing I encountered prevented me from completing everything.
I liked your review. Thank you for sharing.