Overrated: The Truth About Videogame Reviews and The Power That They Wield

[Pookiablo]

Hey guys,

 

I wrote this article earlier today and so far it seems to have been well received. I'm fed up of the dreadful review system that videogame news websites have in place and I'd really like to see either a standardised system put into place, or even see review scores disappear entirely.

 

You can see all my thoughts on the link below. I just wanted to see what you guys thought as I'm trying to gauge as many opinions as possible on the matter (I'm even emailing it to the big websites).

 

Share, discuss, etc.

 

(And hello to everyone, yes I am still alive but just constantly busy nowadays!)

 

http://bnbgaming.com/2011/04/24/overrated-the-truth-about-videogame-reviews-and-the-power-that-they-wield/

[Goafer]

I don't really like review scores. The way a person translates a score can be completely different from how someone else does. They're only supposed to be a quick guide for people who don't want to read the whole article, but people see them as gospel.

 

To be honest, I don't even read reviews anymore. I just look for gameplay footage and decide that way.

 

I certainly don't trust reviews anyway. They're far to open to bias and politics between the company writing them and the developers and at the end of the day, they're just the opinion of the person writing it. They're not some fact sheet on how good the game is.

[mcj metroid]

I think its important to figure out WHY videogames use percentages in the first place. Movies usually go for the "5 star" approach and everyone is happy.Even Siskel and Ebert(Famous movie critics on American Television) used to use a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down " reviewing system based on simply whether you should See or not see the movie.

 

Videogames are more expensive and quite simply customers want to know HOW good a game is, not only that its good. This leads to reviewing scores mostly being out of 100 and in some cases a somrthing/10 like N-europe.

 

Now I can't STAND videogame reviews most of the time. I find most of them to be far too easy on some games and buy into the hype machine. I always find myself mentally giving games a much lower score than normal people. I won't go into what games I would have given lower.

 

I would solve this problem by having a bigger focus on a " If you like X then try Y" kind of reviewing system instead of an arbitrary score and A "better than X, but worse than Y" system. Otherwise it only ever causes arguments and needless comparisons. If you hate RPG's then no matter how high a final fantasy game gets, you won't like it regardless, so a score is meaningless. More thought could be put into this...

 

A rough example:

 

 

The conduit 2

better than: Far cry vengence

worse than: Goldeneye

If you like: Conduit Than try: Conduit 2

 

This is a rather simplistic version, but doesn't that tell you a LOT more than a random score?

 

The consolation I find is Edge magazine and GamesTM base 5 as the average score and I'm happy for this, but even they make mistakes.

Edited April 24, 2011 by mcj metroid

[The Peeps]

A rough example:

 

 

The conduit 2

better than: Far cry vengence

worse than: Goldeneye

If you like: Conduit Than try: Conduit 2

 

Cineworld do that in their magazine/booklet/w.e. I think it's a good system.

[Beast]

Cineworld do that in their magazine/booklet/w.e. I think it's a good system.

 

I've been toying with the idea of using that score system on my reviews but I'm still unsure. I don't really read game reviews either and I don't necessarily look at review scores all that much unless it's Rotten Tomatoes overall score.

 

Thinking about it, I like the score Rotten Tomatoes uses (rotten or fresh) as it just basically says 'good or bad'. It's simple and it's what some people want to know anyway.

[EddieColeslaw]

Cineworld do that in their magazine/booklet/w.e. I think it's a good system.

 

Don't gamesTM do that? Or maybe they don't anymore, it's been a while since I read a copy.

[mcj metroid]

I've been toying with the idea of using that score system on my reviews but I'm still unsure. .

 

I admit the system I gave an example for isn't perfect, but it not only tell you how GOOD the game is..

but it almost reviews other games at the same time you can get a general idea of how good the game is when its being compared to comparable titles ( phew...)

 

Only problem is.. What happens when its a game that doesn't fit into any one genre easily.

What would metroid prime be compared to for instance?

 

If we are sticking with scores though, at the very least 5 should be average

 

Don't gamesTM do that? Or maybe they don't anymore, it's been a while since I read a copy.

 

Yep they used to anyway, It's where I got the idea. I'm sure it could be expanded further though.

[Beast]

Don't gamesTM do that? Or maybe they don't anymore, it's been a while since I read a copy.

 

I know GamesMaster do that as well as have pros and cons and a percentage score.

[Magnus]

I check GJAIF too, so this discussion old news to me. Basically, seven being the average is ridiculous, but then so is the vast majority of gaming journalism.

 

The conduit 2

better than: Far cry vengence

worse than: Goldeneye

If you like: Conduit Than try: Conduit 2

 

This is a rather simplistic version, but doesn't that tell you a LOT more than a random score?

I haven't played any of those games. This tells me nothing.

 

 

I quite like the idea of a score at the end of a review (hey, it works for movies). People just need to stop using seven as the average score and scoring out of a hundred (man, I hate that so much). I quite like the 10/10 scale. Some sites use the five-star system common in movie reviews, but nine times out of ten they use half stars as well, and then it just looks pretentious.

[EddieColeslaw]

I haven't played any of those games. This tells me nothing.

 

Good point...I guess that method alone isn't robust enough.

 

Rotten/fresh or thumbs-up/-down as mentioned by mcj metroid sounds good for video games, actually. Like "I would play again/buy" or "I would not play it ever again". Is there any magazine/site that uses that system?

 

I think scores are ultimately meaningless, and that reviews should be written to show WHAT a game is like, not how GOOD it is. Because the "good"ness is completely subjective and up to whoever the reviewer is.

[Magnus]

I quite liked the ratings-less system Kotaku used then abandoned for several months before eventually switching back despite getting angry every time someone complained about the new review system (man, that's a mouthful), where they listen and wrote about all of the pros and cons of a game. It made for some disjointed reviews at times, but at least you could get an idea of whether or not you'd like a game within thirty seconds.

[Pit-Jr]

Me too. The ''What I Loved, What i Hated'' format was great. Branding a game with a subjective number is the most pointless practice ever.

[The Bard]

I think you and Pachter both might be mistaking correlation for causality, THQ were already in a bit of a slump. Sure, the critical reception of the game probably had an impact on shares, but then, perhaps THQ shouldn't have been riding on a company that had no real record of success previously. Frontlines was a similarly mediocre FPS.

 

Moving on to review scores; the idea of "standardisation" is ridiculous. Each publication subscribes to its own abstraction, EDGE and Games TM for example asserting that 5 is their average, and others evading the question entirely because of the absurdity of having 7 as their average. Nevertheless, its just a number, and doesn't mean anything unless you're aware of the interpretational criteria surrounding it, and the only way you can do that is to have a grasp of the publication itself.

 

Secondly, metacritic fails on this, because it assumes that the numerical values are standardised, when they absolutely are not. A score isn't a mathematical aggregate of the entertainment value of a game, and so homogenising scores that each have their own surrounding connotations is an absurdity the adherence to which is probably the most bizarre thing going on in the videogame industry. And unfortunately, I think its the videogame industry exclusively that pays such heed and weight to this meaningless bullshit, to its own detraction. PR handler's bonuses are dished out respective to the metacritic score of a game, implying that they should, or did have some influence. Shit is illin, son.

[Sheikah]

Metascore isn't all that bad. The reason is that most reviewers use a similar scoring system, ie. 9-10 is reserved for the highest quality games, while anything 6/10 or below is usually considered poor. The reason why many stick to a similar scale (with few deviating) is if anything due to the innate consumer perception of /10 scores dictated by film reviewers and advertisements. Score perception is a reason why trying to change ratings will fail, as the public now often derive their own opinions from scores, not what you tell them.

 

As for Metacritic scoring, a game commonly rated 100% across many reviews, yet given a low 50% by one or two disgruntled reviewers, yields a metascore much closer to 100% than 50%. It's a fair attempt to save people the time of getting the opinion of multiple people, to reduce the chance that they found a 'freak' reviewer who has dissimilar interests. It really would be better to stick to a reviewer / site who shares your genre interests, but for the lazier there's Metacritic.

[Aimless]

Review scores are obfuscatory. They trick people into thinking mathematically when they're merely abstract representations of opinion. Their only other purpose is to give internet know-it-alls something to moan about, letting people who've never played a game declare that it's clearly a 9 and not a lowly 8.

 

As a legacy scores are flawed. Websites and publications will go through many reviewers, all with slightly different tastes, and even the strictest editor won't be able to keep scoring entirely consistent; inconsistency is an inevitability the moment you have more than one perspective. Likewise policies can change or editorial teams might switch things up, hence the arguing over Edge 10s not being worth as much any more, etc.

 

Review scores also fail in their basic premise, that of gradation. Say I have two games to choose from: one's a shooter that scored an 8, the other a racing game that went away with a 9. Which do I choose? Do I go for the higher scoring game? I certainly like racing, but then on balance I love shooting more, so will I get more enjoyment from the racer or does the score merely reflect its quality in regards to other titles in its genre? I have this number but it doesn't tell me anything without the review text, so... why does it exist? Who does it serve?

 

In addition, Metacritic is a load of arse. Or rather the power it wields is patently ridiculous: no developer's salary should be based on their arbitrary weighting algorithms, and websites like Giantbomb shouldn't be kept out of the loop when it comes to review copies simply because one of their highest scores — 4/5 — is translated to 80 and might dilute the day-one score average. Its influence affects consumers by virtue of publisher embargos, too: these days you'll be hard pressed to find a review for an anticipated title before release, much less a negative one, so I hope you're happy with that pre-order posted to you a couple of days ago.

 

Do you know what tells me more than a score ever can? A single sentence of summation. You can certainly have a couple of hundred words to back it up, going into greater detail and explaining your reasoning, but you don't need that word count to define your opinion. It isn't about negating the review text by boiling it down to a single line, merely playing into how people read reviews which is often score first, reasoning later; why would you read several hundred words describing a 2/10 that the publication's own scale suggests you not bother with?

 

Conclusion: Review scores are a false ideal that do more harm than good; a short, qualitative summation is both more useful and digestible.

[Sheikah]

The alternative conclusion is that they convey a sense of "shit, avoid", "meh", or "hot stuff" instantly with simple digits as opposed to wall of text.

 

There's no point to using scores to judge content so precisely in the manner you suggested (e.g. between 7/10 and 8/10). They're not meant to be the be all and end all, just a guide.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Sheikah

[The Bard]

Me and you had a massive argument over this ages ago Shiekah, that was fun

[Aimless]

The alternative conclusion is that they convey a sense of "shit, avoid", "meh", or "hot stuff" instantly with simple digits as opposed to wall of text.

 

There's no point to using scores to judge content so precisely in the manner you suggested (e.g. between 7/10 and 8/10). They're not meant to be the be all and end all, just a guide.

If we aren't supposed to differentiate between a 7 or 8 "so precisely" then what use is the granularity? It is, as I said from the start, obfuscatory.

 

Also, last time I checked a typical sentence is not a "wall of text". However, I suspect most games could be summarised in a single word if it pleases you.

 

Conclusion: You have a predilection for arguing.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Taking these comments from this article:

"It’s incredible to think that reviews were able to have such an impact on the company"

 

I don't understand how you're so amazed by this, people have already mentioned movies and their reviews. What about cars as well? If they get a bad review, people won't buy them. If people won't buy the product the company suffers and their stocks will fall. For some reason this astonishes you?

 

Review scores also fail in their basic premise, that of gradation. Say I have two games to choose from: one's a shooter that scored an 8, the other a racing game that went away with a 9. Which do I choose? Do I go for the higher scoring game? I certainly like racing, but then on balance I love shooting more, so will I get more enjoyment from the racer or does the score merely reflect its quality in regards to other titles in its genre? I have this number but it doesn't tell me anything without the review text, so... why does it exist? Who does it serve?

Read the review and make your mind up. Don't just go for the climax, have the foreplay.

 

I quite like the 10/10 scale. Some sites use the five-star system common in movie reviews, but nine times out of ten they use half stars as well, and then it just looks pretentious.

That's just them trying to use an out-of-ten system and being pussies about it.

[Sheikah]

If we aren't supposed to differentiate between a 7 or 8 "so precisely" then what use is the granularity? It is, as I said from the start, obfuscatory.

 

Also, last time I checked a typical sentence is not a "wall of text". However, I suspect most games could be summarised in a single word if it pleases you.

 

Conclusion: You have a predilection for arguing.

 

As clearly do you. I've yet to see a review that doesn't also use a sentence to summarise as well as scores. So if you have such a problem with scores you can choose to read the sentence instead.

[Cube]

Do you know what tells me more than a score ever can? A single sentence of summation.

 

Isn't that pretty much standard? On top of the final sentence (usually separate to the full review), the final paragraph of a lot of reviews is also a summary.

[Coolness Bears]

Cineworld do that in their magazine/booklet/w.e. I think it's a good system.

 

Yes but their's is rubbish in my opinion. :p

 

I don't listen/read to reviews. I watch gameplay footage and decide whether I like it.

[Happenstance]

Yeah I tend to make my decisions on if im going to buy a game now based on Giant Bomb's Quick Look videos and podcasts where its a proper discussion about a game, I think you get more information out of using those two ways. Seeing the gameplay for yourself while people chat about it and then interesting discussions on the games in the podcasts.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think scores are ultimately meaningless, and that reviews should be written to show WHAT a game is like, not how GOOD it is. Because the "good"ness is completely subjective and up to whoever the reviewer is.

 

Everything that needs to be said about this, really.

[Ville]

I think metacritic and gamerankings are great. Give me a quick overall look on how reviewers have felt about a game, i.e. how polished / innovative / etc they think it is. As the review links are all collected together, I can then go and check the different reviews in more detail and see what people thought of a particular game. I do want quality from my games, so that's why a grading system is handy: gives a pretty good idea if a game is at least decent or not. And should I be interested in some game that doesn't have that good of a score, I'll just check the reviews and gameplay footage for a more complete picture.

 

In a nutshell: I get interested in a game, I go check out the reviews and footage. I mean who checks just the numbers? Not me.