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

[Ellmeister]

I'd give this thread a 6.5/10 or 2 stars out of 5.

[MoogleViper]

I'd give this thread a 6.5/10 or 2 stars out of 5.

 

I agree, it's definitely worth 73%.

[Aimless]

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.

I'm not disputing that, my point is that the summation — which would be under a fixed length, say 140 characters — would take on the role of the score. There would be no numbers, if you scrolled through a review database what you'd see is a quickly digestible summary of what each game is.

 

As I said it's not about undermining the review text, that's where the depth and reasoning takes place, the summation would simply be a quick point of reference that gave concise, qualitative information on its own. Numbers don't offer that, they just make people compare apples with oranges, arguing over scores as though they're a sum of a maths problem rather than an abstract scale of measurement.

 

Here's an example of what I mean, based on Eurogamer's reviews of two ostensibly similar games:

• Crysis 2 — 8/10
  
• Killzone 3 — 8/10

 

And here's the sort of thing I'm suggesting:

• Crysis 2 — "An atypically open FPS, both in terms of levels and player approach, that wows with its visuals yet underwhelms with an oblique narrative."
  
• Killzone 3 — "A feature-rich shooter that improves the fundamentals of its predecessor yet is marred by disjointed pacing born of a desire for diversity."

Obviously the person writing the review would be able to offer a better summation — I just skimmed through them to offer examples — but which of the above methods is more useful in isolation? That's what I think is important, because if a score doesn't tell you about a game on its own then why does it exist?

[Cube]

These days, having scores with reviews gets you some important links in turn helps with SEO.

[Ronnie]

Reviews that score games out of 100 really make me laugh

[MadDog]

Reviews that score games out of 100 really make me laugh

 

May I ask why you think scoring out of 100 is shit?

[Magnus]

May I ask why you think scoring out of 100 is shit?

Because while there's a difference in quality between a 7 and an 8 (in theory, anyway), there's no discernible difference between a 74 and a 75. Pretending that there is and that scoring out of 100 is more exact is pretty laughable.

[Ronnie]

May I ask why you think scoring out of 100 is shit?

 

Magnus explained it well.

 

Scoring a game, something so subjective, out of 100 is indeed laughable. Should it be given 74 or 75, how about 74.5. Oh please. I'm a big fan of EDGE's /10 scores.

[Jonnas]

I don't care about scores. I usually read reviews on games I'm interested, and if the review doesn't please me (like most IGN reviews), I discredit the score.

 

It's a shame that so many people use Metacritic as a basis without actually reading reviews, though. What if most reviews on that particular game were lousy reviews? What if you're checking the score on an RPG, but most reviews were done by people who almost don't play them? What if it's the next game in a series you have yet to try, and most reviewers rate it as a sequel, instead of as a starting point?

 

As for a good scoring system, I personally prefer scoring out of 20 (or, alternatively, using a /10 scale, but scoring in increments of 0.5)

[heroicjanitor]

Yeah the score is unimportant without context, which makes metacritic a bit inaccurate since some reviewers rate higher than others anyway. Who cares about the score if they remove points for things that you yourself don't consider important. For example I saw a few reviews that lowered the score of Uncharted 2 by half a point because Elena's eyes looked a bit glassy. Seriously? The rest of the game looks stunning and points are still removed based on graphics...

[Tales]

Because while there's a difference in quality between a 7 and an 8 (in theory, anyway), there's no discernible difference between a 74 and a 75. Pretending that there is and that scoring out of 100 is more exact is pretty laughable.

 

The scores are rarely, if ever, meant to be compared against each other. And usually a number like 74 is an average of several different numbers just for the reader's laziness. If it isn't an average and just a number they pulled out their ass, then I agree it's laughable but otherwise I think it's just fine.

 

I don't mind the average being seven, that just tells me the site should have gone with a five-star system or a dice instead and I would live perfectly happy. Second, a ten point scale system is kinda of a five-star system still(6-10), but on top of that it also tells you about the reaaaaally bad games

 

And here's the sort of thing I'm suggesting:

 

Crysis 2 — "An atypically open FPS, both in terms of levels and player approach, that wows with its visuals yet underwhelms with an oblique narrative."

Killzone 3 — "A feature-rich shooter that improves the fundamentals of its predecessor yet is marred by disjointed pacing born of a desire for diversity."

 

I need dictionary for half those words so no thanks.

[Sheikah]

I need dictionary for half those words so no thanks.

lol, genius. I agree; with (a little pretentious) conclusions like those the reviewer probably wouldn't be in business long. Review scores are fine, they're tried and tested and clearly going nowhere.

 

Why do people have a problem with 60-70% being average? When you think about it another way, 70% could be considered as "30% being utter shite". Not that I agree with that, since 100% (10/10) doesn't necessarily mean nothing is wrong with it.

 

I just think that people have got "average" confused with "median", as in thinking the median rank (5/10) is the average. Sorry, but if I got 50% back on an exam I'd consider that semi-failure, not really average. Many games these days are at least playable so I could see many scoring over 5/10, bringing up the average. Even higher if reviewers only use the scores of more worthwhile games (ie non shovelware/movie tie ins) in their average.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Sheikah

[The Bard]

Neither of those summaries strike me as even remotely "pretentious," I think that word is bandied about so frequently that people forget what it actually fucking means. Those summaries make perfect sense to me.

 

The fact that "a reviewer like that wouldn't be in business long" is more emblematic of the fact that the majority of people that read videogame reviews are borderline illiterate.

[Sheikah]

Yeah but you're like him, and not Mr Joe public. It'd be no good in a review if half the audience don't understand it, hence to them it would seem pretentious. :p

[The Bard]

Yeah but you're like him, and not Mr Joe public. It'd be no good in a review if half the audience don't understand it, hence to them it would seem pretentious. :p

 

Man, come on, be reasonable; the words in those two sentences are something you'd expect to come up in a SAT exam. I'm fairly sure, you being (I assume) fairly smart, can understand everything said in there without any difficulty. On top of that even if you haven't encountered the words before, it doesn't stop you from being able to contextualise them and infer what they mean.

 

Also, we're not confusing the distinction between average and median; what we're saying is that often times, when reviews in the body of the text portray a game as being mediocre, even tedious, and then plaster a 75% at the end, it gives cause for bafflement. This is, as I've said before, an abstraction, since a score that would numerically signify mediocrity (ie. averageness) should veer towards the center of the scale. The fact that it doesn't for some publications, and does for others completely throws off any attempt to come to an aggregate.

 

It'd be no good in a review if half the audience don't understand it, hence to them it would seem pretentious. :p

 

Pretentious, ie. Pretending to something. You're not pretending when the language reflects what you mean, sincerely, and that you're more articulate than your audience should be a given when you're a writer.

Edited April 26, 2011 by The Bard
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

 

Man, come on, be reasonable; the words in those two sentences are something you'd expect to come up in a SAT exam. I'm fairly sure, you being (I assume) fairly smart, can understand everything said in there without any difficulty. On top of that even if you haven't encountered the words before, it doesn't stop you from being able to contextualise them and infer what they mean.

 

Oh yeah, for sure I understood all of that. But it's the fact that I know a lot of people (including Tales, who to be fair doesn't have English as a first language) wouldn't understand every word. It was more a comment about him unrealistcally producing a summary that wouldn't appear in a magazine/site for the general population.

 

And no, the general population really aren't that bright. Why do you think News of the World and the Sun still sell? :p

 

Also, we're not confusing the distinction between average and median; what we're saying is that often times, when reviews in the body of the text portray a game as being mediocre, even tedious, and then plaster a 75% at the end, it gives cause for bafflement.

 

People are confusing average and mean. Stating an average should be 5/10 because it is the 'middle' number is incorrect. The average should be the average score of X number of games, used as a benchmark.

 

Let's face it, most games don't score below 5, While many games do in fact score 9 and sometimes 10. Therefore it's completely logical to understand that 7 could be returned as an average figure.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Sheikah

[EEVILMURRAY]

Killzone 3 — "A feature-rich shooter that improves the fundamentals of its predecessor yet is marred by disjointed pacing born of a desire for diversity."

You're describing a game, not a full bodied wine.

[Sheikah]

lol, a huge smile just formed on my lips. That guy also looks eerily like John Locke.

 

[The Bard]

People are confusing average and mean. Stating an average should be 5/10 because it is the 'middle' number is incorrect. The average should be the average score of X number of games, used as a benchmark.

 

Let's face it, most games don't score below 5, While many games do in fact score 9 and sometimes 10. Therefore it's completely logical to understand that 7 could be returned as an average figure.

 

No. I could see where you'd be right, if say, getting 96% would be a quantitive signification of the fact that you got 96% of whatever quantity of criteria "correct," but with game reviews, there is no such thing, since reviews are subjective, and therefore have to conform to a rubric that is imprecise and more intuitive than anything else. Maybe I should explain this in the vein of university marking schemes for Sciences VS Humanities, where in the sciences, the average grade would be located at the top end of the scale, because the students are expected to get a certain grade - which has a precise degree of quantifiability and a ceiling score ie. getting all the questions right. What I'm saying is that game reviews are more like arts essays, where there is no ceiling score, and any given batch of essays are firstly compared to the scoring rubric (which is altered through time depending on how well the students tend to perform) and secondly with each other, in order to regulate average scores - keeping them around 50%. They can do that, because there is no quantifiability. Same with games.

 

So, we have to ask ourselves, why do the majority of games score over 7? It makes no sense to me.

 

On top of that; most people who read reviews aren't looking to be told anything interesting, or any cool ideas and ways of looking at the game, which really begs the question, why the fuck do they read reviews in the first place. And the answer really lies in the fact that a lot of people use reviews either as a sort of proxy for their ridiculous console war mentality, or a series of bullet points regarding what the game does. The sort of thing you can get off a press release. These people would really be better off going to forum discussion, or asking their friends, since they're ruining what should be a thriving discussion about gaming.

Edited April 26, 2011 by The Bard

[Ronnie]

Let's face it, most games don't score below 5, While many games do in fact score 9 and sometimes 10. Therefore it's completely logical to understand that 7 could be returned as an average figure.

 

All that proves is because of this flawed system that's been in use for years, the system is now f-ed up. Yes 7 is considered average, because mathematically based on every review out there, it probably is; but the point of the article is that it shouldn't be, and reviewers should start treating 5 as average in an attempt to shift te global average back to 5.

[Sheikah]

I can see what you mean actually about why the scores are 9/10 or 10/10 to begin with, to be used in averaging. I can only think that the movie industry constantly putting 9/10 or 5 stars in their adverts has caused us to think anything below 8 is meh.

 

I will say though, having 7 as an average leaves less gradations for the higher tier games, which I actually think is a good thing. 5/5 is probably a better system in fairness.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Sheikah

[EEVILMURRAY]

On top of that; most people who read reviews aren't looking to be told anything interesting, or any cool ideas and ways of looking at the game, which really begs the question, why the fuck do they read reviews in the first place. And the answer really lies in the fact that a lot of people use reviews either as a sort of proxy for their ridiculous console war mentality, or a series of bullet points regarding what the game does. The sort of thing you can get off a press release.

Well fuck on a pogo stick, I'm in the minority!

 

I read reviews because I'm interested in what is being said. On several occasions I know for a fact I won't buy the game but there's no harm in seeing what they think. I'm not going to check out a press release because it's not going to be a secret that it's going to be biased as fuck.

[drahkon]

Zero Punctuation is the way to go.

[The Bard]

I can see what you mean actually about why the scores are 9/10 or 10/10 to begin with, to be used as averages. I can only think that the movie industry constantly putting 9/10 or 5 stars in their adverts has caused us to think anything below 8 is meh.

 

I will say though, having 7 as an average leaves less gradations for the higher tier games, which I actually think is a good thing. 5/5 is probably a better system in fairness.

 

Yeah totally. I mean, its not a big deal in itself, except each website and publication has its own internal average and median. The fact that metacritic tries to somehow reconcile these differences shows that they understand little about the process. Then again, Metacritic is useful as a compendium of every notable opinion on a given game/movie etc.

 

And you raised another point; I think the whole breadth of the scale should be used, rather than the vast majority of games being limited to 7-10.

Edited April 26, 2011 by The Bard

[Sheikah]

Zero Punctuation is the way to go.

 

Yeah, he's like the other extreme of what's already in place. Instead of 7 as average, his is probably 2, lol. Love his reviews though.

 

 

 

And you raised another point; I think the whole breadth of the scale should be used, rather than the vast majority of games being limited to 7-10.

 

I remember back in the day every review site and his dog seemed to use a /100% system. Then they all realised that the difference between an 82% and 83% was pretty much impossible to define, so at lot of the time now it's /10. But then I also wonder what the difference between 3/10 and 4/10 is. Out of 5 just seems more blatant, ie 3 is average, 4 is good, 5 is great. Perhaps for the really great titles you would also give it 'editor's choice' or something, so you could specify a really great title.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Sheikah