Eurogamer Drops Review Scores

[The Bard]

It's great; every site should just drop review scores. Review scores are the reserve of fanboys and hate mongers. Good riddance!

 

Wooooah, never expected to hear this from you man, especially recalling an epic spat we had over metacritic about 6 years ago. Couldn't agree more, games are nuanced cultural products, hence the text and lengthy discussion in the bulk of the review. You can't meaningfully reduce the experience of playing one down to a number, and have it serve as anything more than fodder for aspy spectrum bound goons to use as a way to meaninglessly heirarchise quality.

 

They're not the first to do this, although I think they might be the biggest outlet to have done. Hoping that EDGE and Games TM follow.

[Sheikah]

 

Wooooah, never expected to hear this from you man, especially recalling an epic spat we had over metacritic about 6 years ago. Couldn't agree more, games are nuanced cultural products, hence the text and lengthy discussion in the bulk of the review. You can't meaningfully reduce the experience of playing one down to a number, and have it serve as anything more than fodder for aspy spectrum bound goons to use as a way to meaninglessly heirarchise quality.

 

They're not the first to do this, although I think they might be the biggest outlet to have done. Hoping that EDGE and Games TM follow.

 

Ha, I remember that. :p

 

I remember those days, I was probably almost like 'those people'. Yeah...I definitely see the bigger picture now.

 

Interesting QnA session going on with Oli Welsh (editor of Eurogamer) right now:

 

Metacritic is a very useful tool for gamers. Why are you undermining it?

 

I agree that Metacritic ought to be a useful tool, but I don't think it's working. I don't think that's the site's fault. It's about the culture of the video games industry and audience. For one part, publishing executives put too great an importance on this number and engineer their entire games around it. They put huge pressure on developers and PRs to meet certain numbers for their games when those numbers aren't really in their control. The only way to guarantee them is to make bland, technically sound games that have loads of features, because those tend to do well in Metacritic's system. So that's what we get. It's killing invention in mainstream gaming. On top of that, developers unfairly have their livelihoods threatened by a bunch of reviewer's opionions collated into a number. Also, video game review scoring is inflated. Look at how high the numbers are compared to the film reviews on Metacritic. That's not a useful spread. We end up deciding that anything below 80 is disappointing somehow, or not worth chancing, and that can't be right.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-10-eurogamer-editor-ama

[Jimbob]

Pretty sick of seeing review scores, so i welcome this change. Certainly will stop the usual comments i see around. I don't even judge a game by a number, if i like it i play it regardless.

[Goafer]

This statement is completely false.

 

Well, it's not. At least for everyone I know. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone ask for an opinion or feedback on something and got given a number in response. To be clear, I'm talking about normal conversation, not an online review where you have no choice but to give a number.

 

I still fail to see how a number is the most efficient way of giving a quick guide to something. Say a racing game is 7/10. Above average and might be worth a look. But why is it above average? Is it because the graphics are fucking amazing, but the handling is sub par? In that case, a game that is scored above average actually holds little value to me. Now if they'd put 1 sentence about the good and one about the bad, I could have figured out if a game was for me in about the same time.

 

Do people even read reviews anymore? Surely with YouTube being as big as it is, it's much more informative to just watch the game being played a bit rather than read someone else's thoughts.

[Guy]

Yep, this is cool. I can't articulate my feelings on the subject as well as some of you guys, but this feels like a good step forward.

[Happenstance]

I do tend to get more of my gaming opinions from video content these days. That's one of the reasons I like Giant Bomb's Quick Look videos so much but I think dripping scores is a good move. The only reason I still look at them is lazyness and the content of the review is so much more important. If gamers spent more time reading instead of focusing on a single number then we'd have less nerds freaking out and sending death threats to reviewers.

[Tales]

So games will be differentiated by Recommended and Avoid? That's a very big leap. It's like going from 4 to 7. What about those between? Good, but heavily flawed games. Or niche games like Harvest Moon that only fans enjoy. If you give too many games Recommended it will eventually lose it's meaning and Eurogamer it's credibility. An Avoid can easily be misunderstood. Scrolling down and see Avoid would make me think a lot different than if I saw a 6. Could read the review but appaerantly it's too be avoided anyway so why bother. This said, I don't yet know where they will draw the line. Personally I prefer scores. I'll read the review if I want to know more.

[flameboy]

I don't understand the industries fascination with getting rid of review scores period. It's not something I've ever thought there was a big move for it with movies or tech products for example. Literary reviews is perhaps a different beast with it seemingly having become purely a critique.

 

It's a shame I trust Eurogamer and it's just one less review score to help inform a purchase. I'm of the mind that yes the review text can sell you on a game without the score however you can often read a review thinking a game sounds great and then it's only given a 6. So then you delve deeper into the words because of the number, perhaps realize that the minor flaws they wrote about may make the game only slightly above average. No ones writing is perfect and neither is every reader able to take the same meaning from a review, the two kind of help to reinforce each other.

 

I wonder what kind of knock on this will have for them as a media outlet? Joystiq didn't have scores for the longest time then added them then got rid (for like a week) Shacknews didn't have them, then added them. One (or possibly both) mentioned it was to help bring more traffic to the site via Metacritic. With that in mind you'd like to think that Eurogamer have run the numbers and don't get lost too much.

 

It's interesting they do note this when talking about Google;

 

When searching for reviews in Google, however, you will still see star ratings attached to Eurogamer reviews: five stars for Essential, four for Recommended, one for Avoid, three for everything else. Google is a very important source of traffic for us,

 

So wait really your going from a 10 point scale to a star scale if their worded scores can still be compartmentalized that easily?

 

Perhaps reviews really don't bring them a whole bunch of traffic....I mean Eurogamer does have an excellent number of feature writers and digital foundry and all their work is fascinating so perhaps that the focus. Outside of Ian though I'm yet to be convinced by some of their new video output...seems very click baity I was hoping for an extension of that journalism excellence in video form.

 

I also hope it doesn't mean they stop getting invited to preview events as publishers won't care because they aren't trying to get a good review score from them. It does however help to make them a little more impartial with regards to EGX and holding developer sessions and the like.

 

I love Eurogamer and really hope this works out and it's not just Oli Welsh stamping his authority now Tom is gone.

Edited February 10, 2015 by flameboy

[Sheikah]

So games will be differentiated by Recommended and Avoid? That's a very big leap. It's like going from 4 to 7. What about those between? Good, but heavily flawed games. Or niche games like Harvest Moon that only fans enjoy. If you give too many games Recommended it will eventually lose it's meaning and Eurogamer it's credibility. An Avoid can easily be misunderstood. Scrolling down and see Avoid would make me think a lot different than if I saw a 6. Could read the review but appaerantly it's too be avoided anyway so why bother. This said, I don't yet know where they will draw the line. Personally I prefer scores. I'll read the review if I want to know more.

There's also games they give no recommendation and no avoid. That would be the games they think are fairly unimpressive but not outright terrible.

 

They already said recommend lets them praise games they like that may be flawed in other ways, which I think is neat.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

I'm also in favour of review scores. I don't think decisions should be made on the idiots of the world, so how 'people use them' I don't really care. All I know is that I think they're very useful, I like seeing them. Really wish people wouldn't be so condescending because they have a different opinion in here... There's already an air of 'people who hate review scores are superior'....

 

Of course the review bulk is of importance , but I've ready so many poorly written reviews where the score is the only way I've gotten now they've felt about the game. That's why both is always best.

[Sheikah]

 

Of course the review bulk is of importance , but I've ready so many poorly written reviews where the score is the only way I've gotten now they've felt about the game. That's why both is always best.

How could a number they gave at the end of a review tell you more than the text explaining what was good about it/what its shortcomings were? Literally the only way that could be true is if it was in another language. And if a review was that shite, why would you even pay any attention to the score?

 

Then you've also got to remember that the current scoring method isn't even consistent. Some reviewers consider 7/10 to be meritable, others see it as a new kind of 'average'.

 

And again, to the guys who support review scores, here is what they are doing to games and developers:

 

I agree that Metacritic ought to be a useful tool, but I don't think it's working. I don't think that's the site's fault. It's about the culture of the video games industry and audience. For one part, publishing executives put too great an importance on this number and engineer their entire games around it. They put huge pressure on developers and PRs to meet certain numbers for their games when those numbers aren't really in their control. The only way to guarantee them is to make bland, technically sound games that have loads of features, because those tend to do well in Metacritic's system. So that's what we get. It's killing invention in mainstream gaming. On top of that, developers unfairly have their livelihoods threatened by a bunch of reviewer's opionions collated into a number. Also, video game review scoring is inflated. Look at how high the numbers are compared to the film reviews on Metacritic. That's not a useful spread. We end up deciding that anything below 80 is disappointing somehow, or not worth chancing, and that can't be right.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

How could a number they gave at the end of a review tell you more than the text explaining what was good about it/what its shortcomings were? Literally the only way that could be true is if it was in another language. And if a review was that shite, why would you even pay any attention to the score?

 

Then you've also got to remember that the current scoring method isn't even consistent. Some reviewers consider 7/10 to be meritable, others see it as a new kind of 'average'.

 

And again, to the guys who support review scores, here is what they are doing to games and developers:

 

The thing is, it happens a lot, to reviewers I respect, but sometimes the content simply isn't articulating their full opinions. It happens occasionally, but I also think they're good in general, just to get a quick sense of games and such. I really don't understand the problem with them, can't see it.

[Sheikah]

Can you give an example of a review where you could glean less from the text than the score? Struggling to see that being true.

[Zechs Merquise]

I'm also in favour of review scores. I don't think decisions should be made on the idiots of the world, so how 'people use them' I don't really care. All I know is that I think they're very useful, I like seeing them. Really wish people wouldn't be so condescending because they have a different opinion in here... There's already an air of 'people who hate review scores are superior'....

 

Of course the review bulk is of importance , but I've ready so many poorly written reviews where the score is the only way I've gotten now they've felt about the game. That's why both is always best.

 

It's because the gaming industry is childish, hence the removal of review scores - something that no other industry does. It's the only industry where fans actually complain and cry that scores are used to compare similar products and are seen as an indicator of quality.

 

Do film studios cry when newspapers and magazines rate films? Do you electronics firms moan that you can read detailed reviews and ratings of the latest TVs?

 

Of course not.

 

How can attributing a score to a product cause this much drama? Let alone there be an air that those who like seeing a score at the end of the review are somehow less mentally developed?

 

Only in the the game industry!

 

And again, to the guys who support review scores, here is what they are doing to games and developers:

 

And I don't follow the logic that because one individual, from inside the industry who I haven't even heard of doesn't like review scores - means that we should all accept that review scores are destroying the industry and making the lives of the hard working developers a nightmare. Firstly, picking one quote from one guy doesn't prove a point, it simply means one person supports your world view. At best this is cherry picking, at worst its a desperate attempt to justify your view point. Secondly, just because someone works in the 'industry' and says something doesn't mean they are correct or that they speak for the entire industry. But if you can't formulate a a cohesive argument, you first make a weak appeal to authority, then turn one quote into a sweeping generalisation in order to justify your point.

[peterl0]

Can you give an example of a review where you could glean less from the text than the score? Struggling to see that being true.

 

I would say that you could not find an example exactly as you have worded it but quite often you get a review where there is a list of good and bad points and the summary text doesn't quite convince you one way or another whether, on balance, the game is worth your time. The score can help with that.

 

Sometimes you also get reviews where the review is based on user expectations of a game being good and then only really lists criticisms. EDGE reviews of Gamecube games (at the time) suffered from this quite a bit.

 

However the current system at Eurogamer does still allow for this kind of clarity so I don't see it as too much of an issue. In fact, it clearly is a scoring system - just out of four.

 

As they themselves have converted it for Google, I don't see why Metacritic could not do the same - perhaps someone else could enlighten me.

 

Furthermore, they have taken the decision to show the award on headline of the review, meaning that you don't even have to open the article to see the 'score'. Bizarre.

[Sheikah]

@Zechs Merquise, I wouldn't say the gaming industry is immature. More like a large number of gamers and review readers are immature; I'm sure you know well the fallout of Gamergate and even the 8/10 Mario 3D World fiasco you were involved in.

 

As for the rest, I'll try answer it without jumping into the pit of loathing you seem to want to pull me into. Well, it's not just one guy who is saying those comments. Eurogamer is a group of multiple individuals, people who understand their industry and a great deal more about it than you. They're also easily one of the most reputable and professional of all the review sites, although obviously that is my opinion. You can bet that the switching to this format isn't down to the beliefs of one guy, and you can also bet the editor wouldn't be making those comments if everyone else around him disagreed.

 

You've then also got far more than just your standard Eurogamer making this switch.

 

Eurogamer Germany, Eurogamer Italy, Eurogamer France, Eurogamer Portugal, Eurogamer Spain, Eurogamer Czech, Eurogamer Denmark, Eurogamer Sweden, Eurogamer Poland and Eurogamer Benelux, which are all switching to the new system. Really, you could argue that they're switching because they're being told to, but at the same time such an extensive network demonstrates that they're a pretty big deal and not just something you can dismiss as 'one guy with no credz'. Then there's also Kotaku, another giant who have ditched the system.

 

 

Really though, if you want proof of what he's saying, here you go:

 

http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218

 

That's the outcome of research by Kotaku, to show you it's not just EG that are flying this banner. As you can read, Fallout New Vegas staff were being paid a bonus based on their metacritic success.

 

Big deal, right? A bonus is a good thing? Well, not really.

 

“Well, generally the whole Metacritic emphasis originated from publishers wanting to dodge royalties,” that person said. “So even if a game sold well, they could withhold payment based off review scores... The big thing about Metacritic is that it's always camouflaged as a drive for quality but the intent is nothing of the sort.”

 

And Kotaku's verdict:

 

This is not an anomaly: for years now, video game publishers have been using Metacritic as a tool to strike bonus deals with developers. And for years now, observers have been criticizing the practice. But it still happens. Over the past few months, I’ve talked to some 20 developers, publishers, and critics about Metacritic’s influences, and I’ve found that the system is broken in quite a few ways.

 

They go on:

 

“Armed with the knowledge that higher review scores meant more money for them, game producers were thus encouraged to identify the elements that reviewers seemed to most notice and most like–detailed graphics, scripted set piece battles, 'robust' online multiplayer, 'player choice,' and more, more of everything,” Burns wrote.

 

“Like a food company performing a taste test to find out that people basically like the saltiest, greasiest variation of anything and adjusting its product lineup accordingly, the big publishers struggled to stuff as much of those key elements as possible into every game they funded. Multiplayer modes were suddenly tacked on late in development. More missions and weapons were added to bulk up their offering–to be created by outsource partners. Level-based games suddenly turned into open-world games.

 

There's a lot more to why they're bad, and it's a really great read. Regardless, EG clearly have experience and knowledge of their industry and have clearly thoroughly researched it prior to making the switch. If you're going to find a problem with this, it's not going to be the credibility of the dudes involved.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Sheikah

[Jonnas]

It's because the gaming industry is childish, hence the removal of review scores - something that no other industry does. It's the only industry where fans actually complain and cry that scores are used to compare similar products and are seen as an indicator of quality.

 

Do film studios cry when newspapers and magazines rate films? Do you electronics firms moan that you can read detailed reviews and ratings of the latest TVs?

 

Of course not.

 

How can attributing a score to a product cause this much drama? Let alone there be an air that those who like seeing a score at the end of the review are somehow less mentally developed?

 

Only in the the game industry!

 

I wouldn't say that it's a childish view. In the game industry, blockbusters are more expensive (as compared to indie, or older games), big releases need to stand out any way they can. It happened that review scores actually do influence the public opinion of a game during its release.

 

This doesn't happen in the movie industry for a few reasons. The first is that most movies cost the same, whether you're buying a ticket or a disc, so marketing and movie trailers are more effective in selling the film. So, you get big summer flicks that do well in the cinema, but badly in ratings, but no one truly regrets paying a ticket to see. That doesn't happen with 40€ games, obviously, every time a game is bought, it's a pondered decision, unlike with movies (how many times have we gone to the cinema without even knowing what we were going to watch, first?).

 

Film scores are more relevant when deciding which films stand the test of time, mainly because sites like Imdb and Rotten Tomatoes treat their scores as deciding just that. Meanwhile, a game that got 9/10 back in the day is more likely to have aged badly (as of now, anyway), because the industry as a whole hasn't accepted a globally accepted technical standard yet. So, a review is often only a measurement of how good the game is in the context of its launch (and with the existence of patches and DLC, it will stay that way in the foreseeable future).

 

Finally, the fanboy discussion that this and this game got a score that's higher than the other? The oscars are coming up, remember the publicity that nonsense brings to the table (both positive and negative). Videogame awards and Literature Nobels don't bring up such discussions, so it's easy to argue that the film industry is "childish" due to the weight it puts on awards that can (or rather, must) be given to only one actor/film per year, and are given by people who haven't even watched all the nominated films.

 

And I don't follow the logic that because one individual, from inside the industry who I haven't even heard of doesn't like review scores - means that we should all accept that review scores are destroying the industry and making the lives of the hard working developers a nightmare. Firstly, picking one quote from one guy doesn't prove a point, it simply means one person supports your world view. At best this is cherry picking, at worst its a desperate attempt to justify your view point. Secondly, just because someone works in the 'industry' and says something doesn't mean they are correct or that they speak for the entire industry. But if you can't formulate a a cohesive argument, you first make a weak appeal to authority, then turn one quote into a sweeping generalisation in order to justify your point.

 

Remember when Sonic Boom was withheld from reviewers? Remember the Kane&Lynch fiasco, a few years back? The GamerGate followers that think it's okay to ignore some downright lousy things done by the movement because gaming press integrity is apparently that much of a serious subject?

 

Clearly it isn't just one member from one company that feels that review scores influence what the industry does, and how well a game performs.

[Shorty]

I like review scores because I don't actually want to read all about a game before I play it. I'm very anti-spoiler and draw a lot of enjoyment from knowing nothing about a game/movie/TV episode. Even overhearing about a new feature in Majora's Mask on PS4 chat annoyed me. But a 9 on Metacritic means "yep, I will definitely enjoy this game, it's worth my money".

 

If a site has some semblance of integrity and consistency (eg, someone like Eurogamer) then there's nothing wrong with scores.

[Sheikah]

I like review scores because I don't actually want to read all about a game before I play it. I'm very anti-spoiler and draw a lot of enjoyment from knowing nothing about a game/movie/TV episode. Even overhearing about a new feature in Majora's Mask on PS4 chat annoyed me. But a 9 on Metacritic means "yep, I will definitely enjoy this game, it's worth my money".

 

If a site has some semblance of integrity and consistency (eg, someone like Eurogamer) then there's nothing wrong with scores.

 

Well, now it's 'recommended'. :p

Edited February 11, 2015 by Sheikah

[Zechs Merquise]

I wouldn't say that it's a childish view. In the game industry, blockbusters are more expensive (as compared to indie, or older games), big releases need to stand out any way they can. It happened that review scores actually do influence the public opinion of a game during its release.

 

It is a childish view, because it suggests that whilst every other product and form of media can be scored on a simple star rating or score out of ten, games can't because the fans and the those who produce the games can't deal with something that simple and normal.

 

Review scores influence people on purchases in all industries. When people search for a takeaway online, when people look to book a hotel, buy a TV, a mobile phone or go to the cinema to see a film. Reviews and scores help people decide what to buy. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you say review scores influence the public on whether to buy a game or not. This is what they are intended for.

 

This doesn't happen in the movie industry for a few reasons. The first is that most movies cost the same, whether you're buying a ticket or a disc, so marketing and movie trailers are more effective in selling the film. So, you get big summer flicks that do well in the cinema, but badly in ratings, but no one truly regrets paying a ticket to see. That doesn't happen with 40€ games, obviously, every time a game is bought, it's a pondered decision, unlike with movies (how many times have we gone to the cinema without even knowing what we were going to watch, first?).

 

Largely speaking, games also cost the same. Arguably what you are saying is that game ratings are more important than movie ratings. If I go and spend £8 on a cinema ticket it's less of a big deal than £45 on a new game. Thus I will spend more time deciding on whether a game is right than a movie as one is more of a throw away purchase.

 

Likewise, I spend less time reading up on a local restaurant that might set me back £45 for a meal than I do on my next TV which costs significantly more (£550 and upward) and will last a lot longer.

 

Film scores are more relevant when deciding which films stand the test of time, mainly because sites like Imdb and Rotten Tomatoes treat their scores as deciding just that. Meanwhile, a game that got 9/10 back in the day is more likely to have aged badly (as of now, anyway), because the industry as a whole hasn't accepted a globally accepted technical standard yet. So, a review is often only a measurement of how good the game is in the context of its launch (and with the existence of patches and DLC, it will stay that way in the foreseeable future).

 

I completely disagree. I think often movies age badly too. Some games stand the test of time, some don't. To make a sweeping generalisation like a game is more likely to have aged badly simply doesn't wash with me. I often go back and play classics on the NES and SNES. The only generation that arguably aged worse is the early 3D games of the PS1/N64/Saturn era. However just because it can be argued that games age differently to films, doesn't mean that review scores should be discarded. I accept that graphics and sound may not be up to today's standard, but I still think Street Fighter 2 Turbo is the finest 2D fighting game ever made and Super Mario World is my favourite 2D platformer.

 

It could be argued that any technology shouldn't be attributed a score, after all, all technology ages. A Nokia phone that was rated 5/5 back when it was released is hardly going to hold its own against a Samsung Galaxy S5, however does that mean neither sdhould ever be rated?

 

Finally, the fanboy discussion that this and this game got a score that's higher than the other? The oscars are coming up, remember the publicity that nonsense brings to the table (both positive and negative). Videogame awards and Literature Nobels don't bring up such discussions, so it's easy to argue that the film industry is "childish" due to the weight it puts on awards that can (or rather, must) be given to only one actor/film per year, and are given by people who haven't even watched all the nominated films.

 

This doesn't hold water. By this logic, because some people don't use something in the way you like it be used, does that mean that 'something' should be banned? Some people will be alcoholics, does that mean we should ban alcohol? Because some people use review scores in a way you don't accept is right and correct, do we change the way we do things? In my book, no!

 

Remember when Sonic Boom was withheld from reviewers? Remember the Kane&Lynch fiasco, a few years back? The GamerGate followers that think it's okay to ignore some downright lousy things done by the movement because gaming press integrity is apparently that much of a serious subject?

 

Clearly it isn't just one member from one company that feels that review scores influence what the industry does, and how well a game performs.

 

Sonic Boom was withheld from reviewers because they knew their product was shite. In the same way movie makers often with hold advance screenings when they know they have a turd on their hands. This is more reason for review scores. If you are considering buying a game and are having a quick look at meta critic, it's good to see what the consensus is. Are you suggesting that people should have been sent in blind with a game like Sonic Boom? That reviewers shouldn't have given it a low score? Or that rubbish should be purchased? If a game is well made, it gets a good score. If its poorly made it doesn't. That helps the consumer decide. Does a game like Sonic Boom deserve to garner good sales? No it doesn't. That is why review scores help the public.

[Rummy]

I do tend to get more of my gaming opinions from video content these days. That's one of the reasons I like Giant Bomb's Quick Look videos so much but I think dripping scores is a good move. The only reason I still look at them is lazyness and the content of the review is so much more important. If gamers spent more time reading instead of focusing on a single number then we'd have less nerds freaking out and sending death threats to reviewers.

 

I am a little lazy and scores help that - I'll skip to N-E's review summary, and intend to read the review later but not neccessarily always manage to. However, for me, the two go well together. I can be reading someone's review and from that think to myself what they might score it at the end - it's then interesting to consider the difference(or similarity) when I reach the end. If I get used to reading reviews by a certain people then I can come to rely on the number on the end a bit more when I'm deciding to be lazy. Similar to how on forums you can find people with similar thoughts/feelings on gaming and will value their opinion(such as on here), something about that number helps that relatability for me.

[nekunando]

I really miss N64 Magazine.. it was awesome If I remember correctly, though, I think it had TWO scores for each game in the directory at the back

 

I believe there was the percentage, which the game obtained at the time of review, and then there was also a star rating out of 5 that basically indicated how well the game holds up 'now', or something along those lines.

 

I actually quite like scores as a rough indicator of a games quality, but ultimately it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what games are for them, whether it be through watching videos or reading impressions and reviews. Something like Fire Emblem: Awakening might get ridiculously good reviews and scores, but ultimately I know that it's not a genre I find particularly appealing. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what score it obtains, I know I shouldn't buy it However, people with an affection for that type of game can probably read a little more into the score and that may be enough to tell them whether they want to buy the game or not!

 

Over the years, I've played, and disliked, enough high-scoring games to know that score is probably one of the least important parts of a review, but there are so many factors in deciding whether a game is for you or not. I'm sure many of us could even tell by a single screenshot if we're intrigued by something or not

[Rummy]

I'm of the mind that yes the review text can sell you on a game without the score however you can often read a review thinking a game sounds great and then it's only given a 6. So then you delve deeper into the words because of the number, perhaps realize that the minor flaws they wrote about may make the game only slightly above average. No ones writing is perfect and neither is every reader able to take the same meaning from a review, the two kind of help to reinforce each other.

 

Just seen this bit, kinda what I feel about reviews/scores. I think the Google thing is just a traffic issue though, and won't tally up exactly a piece. Re: metacritic, I use it sometimes - but I never just go face value, I'll usually delve in to see the breakdown of green yellow and red, and what the source of review was. It's a good place for collating brief reviews where I can check a couple and see what I then think.

[Jonnas]

It is a childish view, because it suggests that whilst every other product and form of media can be scored on a simple star rating or score out of ten, games can't because the fans and the those who produce the games can't deal with something that simple and normal.

 

Review scores influence people on purchases in all industries. When people search for a takeaway online, when people look to book a hotel, buy a TV, a mobile phone or go to the cinema to see a film. Reviews and scores help people decide what to buy. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you say review scores influence the public on whether to buy a game or not. This is what they are intended for.

 

Games absolutely can be properly reviewed, but that doesn't mean that's the reality of it.

 

Hotel and restaurant ratings are averages given by users who don't give it much thought (extreme example), and they are certainly not the primary deciding factor in going to a place (rather, price and location are prime priorities when deciding restaurants and hotels). TV prices can also vary significantly (no, not everybody cares or even notices stuff like the difference between 720p and 1080p), meaning that's a criteria that can easily be more important for a good chunk of consumers.

 

With games, however, price at retail doesn't vary much beyond the 40€, and this is key. It means that review scores are a heavier factor than it would be for TVs, hotels or even films. You might notice that people don't make a fuss over the scores of cheaper releases, that's because scores are a lower priority in that case. Another example are yearly releases like Fifa: the reviews matter less because the people who buy them don't care for scores, they get the information they need from friends and word of mouth.

 

It's not that the game industry is childish because they "can't handle" numbers in reviews, it's that they're a more important factor in game distribution than they are for other media, which of course influences factors such as development.

 

Eurogamer feels like review scores are being handled badly by the industry as a whole, and I can't say I disagree, hence their attempt at diminishing their importance. Scores will continue to exist, but they certainly should not influence how a developer is paid.

 

Largely speaking, games also cost the same. Arguably what you are saying is that game ratings are more important than movie ratings. If I go and spend £8 on a cinema ticket it's less of a big deal than £45 on a new game. Thus I will spend more time deciding on whether a game is right than a movie as one is more of a throw away purchase.

 

Are you saying that one ends up spending more in movies than games, but get the same fulfilment overall? Might be, but that isn't the point I was making. It's more about marketing, and how easy it is to sell one, instead of the other.

 

I completely disagree. I think often movies age badly too. Some games stand the test of time, some don't. To make a sweeping generalisation like a game is more likely to have aged badly simply doesn't wash with me. I often go back and play classics on the NES and SNES. The only generation that arguably aged worse is the early 3D games of the PS1/N64/Saturn era. However just because it can be argued that games age differently to films, doesn't mean that review scores should be discarded. I accept that graphics and sound may not be up to today's standard, but I still think Street Fighter 2 Turbo is the finest 2D fighting game ever made and Super Mario World is my favourite 2D platformer.

 

It could be argued that any technology shouldn't be attributed a score, after all, all technology ages. A Nokia phone that was rated 5/5 back when it was released is hardly going to hold its own against a Samsung Galaxy S5, however does that mean neither sdhould ever be rated?

 

Admitted, I expressed myself badly there. I was just trying to say that what a review score means for videogames and what it means for films are different things, and used the "importance at launch" thing as an example.

 

This doesn't hold water. By this logic, because some people don't use something in the way you like it be used, does that mean that 'something' should be banned? Some people will be alcoholics, does that mean we should ban alcohol? Because some people use review scores in a way you don't accept is right and correct, do we change the way we do things? In my book, no!

 

I merely gave an analogy. The film industry also gives weight to something that other forms of media don't. That does not mean that the film industry "can't handle awards", or that they're childish.

 

Certainly nobody here is clamouring for banning review scores entirely, just being more responsible about it.

 

Sonic Boom was withheld from reviewers because they knew their product was shite. In the same way movie makers often with hold advance screenings when they know they have a turd on their hands. This is more reason for review scores. If you are considering buying a game and are having a quick look at meta critic, it's good to see what the consensus is. Are you suggesting that people should have been sent in blind with a game like Sonic Boom? That reviewers shouldn't have given it a low score? Or that rubbish should be purchased? If a game is well made, it gets a good score. If its poorly made it doesn't. That helps the consumer decide. Does a game like Sonic Boom deserve to garner good sales? No it doesn't. That is why review scores help the public.

 

But that's the point: they hold reviewers in high regard. Similarly, remember that advance screenings aren't reviews or professional criticisms, they're just publicity, which is important in selling a film. In videogames, the closest thing to advance screenings are demos (which are rarer, certainly not a standard thing for highly anticipated games).

 

Sega was afraid of what reviewers had to say. I can't recall any film producer ever try to outright prevent professional critics from viewing a film. That's because there are other ways they can sell the film, even when reviewers lambast it.

[Zechs Merquise]

Games absolutely can be properly reviewed, but that doesn't mean that's the reality of it.

 

Hotel and restaurant ratings are averages given by users who don't give it much thought (extreme example), and they are certainly not the primary deciding factor in going to a place (rather, price and location are prime priorities when deciding restaurants and hotels). TV prices can also vary significantly (no, not everybody cares or even notices stuff like the difference between 720p and 1080p), meaning that's a criteria that can easily be more important for a good chunk of consumers.

 

With games, however, price at retail doesn't vary much beyond the 40€, and this is key. It means that review scores are a heavier factor than it would be for TVs, hotels or even films. You might notice that people don't make a fuss over the scores of cheaper releases, that's because scores are a lower priority in that case. Another example are yearly releases like Fifa: the reviews matter less because the people who buy them don't care for scores, they get the information they need from friends and word of mouth.

 

It's not that the game industry is childish because they "can't handle" numbers in reviews, it's that they're a more important factor in game distribution than they are for other media, which of course influences factors such as development.

 

Eurogamer feels like review scores are being handled badly by the industry as a whole, and I can't say I disagree, hence their attempt at diminishing their importance. Scores will continue to exist, but they certainly should not influence how a developer is paid.

 

So, because people pay attention to the scores given by critics, instead critics shouldn't give a score? I think people give a lot of importance to the score, because if you're going to end up getting one game every month you want to make sure it's a good game - not a stinker. I don't think any other industry or group take reviews and their scores to heart like gamers - primarily because the industry and those surrounding it are childish.

 

But at the same time, reviews and their scores matter just as much to all industries. Just look at what a critical mauling can do to so many big budget films - they effectively make them into giant loses for studios. Look at what happened to The Lone Ranger - it got destroyed in reviews and became a total failure - does that mean that no one should have rated it?

 

Arguably, the new Eurogamer scoring system will be far worse for studios as it's literally going to be 'Buy this game' or 'Don't buy this game'.

 

Which when it boils down to it, is the most idiotic system of scoring. For example, if a Sonic game gets a 6/10, a Sonic fan may feel that's acceptable, so may someone who sees it in a sale. But the out right 'don't buy this game' rating is a much greater death sentence for a game than a 6 or 7 out of 10 ever was.

 

In fact, if you use the Kotaku system, one critic gets to use his power like he is an Emperor at the Coliseum, it is either thumbs up or thumbs down. You walk out alive or you're dead where you stand. Hardly a graded and fair system.

 

Are you saying that one ends up spending more in movies than games, but get the same fulfilment overall? Might be, but that isn't the point I was making. It's more about marketing, and how easy it is to sell one, instead of the other.

 

No I was saying that games are largely the same price as other games - £45ish, the same as movies are largely the same price as other movies!

 

Admitted, I expressed myself badly there. I was just trying to say that what a review score means for videogames and what it means for films are different things, and used the "importance at launch" thing as an example.

 

I merely gave an analogy. The film industry also gives weight to something that other forms of media don't. That does not mean that the film industry "can't handle awards", or that they're childish.

 

Certainly nobody here is clamouring for banning review scores entirely, just being more responsible about it.

 

But that's the point: they hold reviewers in high regard. Similarly, remember that advance screenings aren't reviews or professional criticisms, they're just publicity, which is important in selling a film. In videogames, the closest thing to advance screenings are demos (which are rarer, certainly not a standard thing for highly anticipated games).

 

Sega was afraid of what reviewers had to say. I can't recall any film producer ever try to outright prevent professional critics from viewing a film. That's because there are other ways they can sell the film, even when reviewers lambast it.

 

Sega should have been afraid of what reviewers had to say, the game was utter trash. Plenty of film distributors have done the same thing -

 

Warner Bros., the film's distributor, refused to allow any early press-screenings for movie reviewers that most releases use to generate interest; such a decision is often made when a studio and/or distributor knows a film will not be received well and pre-release reviews would only be negative.[2][3][4]

 

This was written about The Avengers (1998) which was held back from advance screenings and reviews in exactly the same way Sonic Boom was.

 

If game producers make shit they should be scared of reviewers as the public should be informed that they are about to buy a piece of shit for £45. Imagine being a child who hears about a new Sonic game and ends up with that rubbish because you didn't know what it was going to be like, because Sega held it back from reviewers.

 

Reviews and their scores are important. But are you suggesting that review scores are dropped so that publishers can breathe a sigh of relief when they make sub par games?

 

But again, to go back to what I wrote earlier, the Kotaku system of 'buy it' or 'don't buy it' is far more damaging but without any of the gradient that scores allow. It's just one or the other based on the opinion of one reviewer.