Eurogamer Drops Review Scores

[Sheikah]

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'.

 

Not really; EG can give the verdicts 'avoid', no commendation, 'recommend' or 'essential'. That gives people all the information they need.

 

The current /10 system is bust. Everything below 7/10 is often considered shit. The scale is inflated and people can even take an 8/10 as a slight against their favourite franchise.

 

You also still haven't addressed the points made by Kotaku (as well as EG) detailing bonuses tied to metacritic, and the interviews they've had with publisher insiders who slam the current system. This is no longer the spiel of 'one guy' any more, which was your only way of discrediting the point Oli Welsh made before.

[Mandalore]

There are some massive walls of text in this topic. Can someone give each post a score out of 10 so I know which are worth reading?

[Rummy]

There are some massive walls of text in this topic. Can someone give each post a score out of 10 so I know which are worth reading?

 

Happs's post rating Goafer's post was probably the best so far, definite 10/10 at the time. However on reflection and seeing some of the later posts in the thread, I'd probably have to give it an 8.8 now. Potential to become a classic with time, though.

[Dcubed]

I don't really care about most reviews in general, but anything that helps clip Metacritic's wings is A-OK by me! : peace:

 

If this helps curb the tide of developer bonuses being tied to review scores, then this move gets a 10/10! (otherwise it's just an 8.5, which means it's worthless shite :p )

[Mr-Paul]

It's not games journalism that needs to change to stop developers' bonuses being tied to metacritic scores, it's the developers/publishers that need to change their policies. Scoring is a legitimate way of reviewing things that is used everywhere in our lives for a reason - it works. It tells us what a particular reviewer thought overall of a product, and we can find out why by reading the review. Aggregation sites like Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes etc. are great for giving an overview for those not interested in reading further. They are a GOOD thing for consumers.

 

To me, journalism needs to hold people to account. Removing review scores isn't going to do that, and to me, you're doing both the industry and your readers a disservice by removing them.

If anything all that needs to change is the whole 1-10 scale needs to be used more, rather than what tends to be the 6-10 scale. Are these numbers high because reviewers feel a duty to make sure the devs get their bonuses? They shouldn't care. If the game is crap or average, the readers should be told.

 

Or are they just pandering to whinging fanboys? Fanboy whinging needs to be ignored, because that's all it is, whinging.

 

Removing scores isn't going to improve anything about the industry. It's really just a statement saying "meh, we don't want to be involved" to the situation. And even then, Eurogamer are copping out by essentially assigning a star rating to their games so they show up on Google! So it's only metacritic that's the problem, then!

 

As a writer, of course the body of the review is important and I want people to read it. They'll get a better idea of the game and what I thought if they do. But the score is an important summary that I feel needs to accompany the review.

 

This video from GameTrailers kinda sums up a lot of my views on the matter.

[Zechs Merquise]

Not really; EG can give the verdicts 'avoid', no commendation, 'recommend' or 'essential'. That gives people all the information they need.

 

The current /10 system is bust. Everything below 7/10 is often considered shit. The scale is inflated and people can even take an 8/10 as a slight against their favourite franchise.

 

You also still haven't addressed the points made by Kotaku (as well as EG) detailing bonuses tied to metacritic, and the interviews they've had with publisher insiders who slam the current system. This is no longer the spiel of 'one guy' any more, which was your only way of discrediting the point Oli Welsh made before.

 

The current system isn't 'bust' at all.

 

Firstly, just because someone claims they spoke to someone else, or to many other people doesn't give an industry wide consensus, it is at best hearsay evidence.

 

Obviously publishers are going to tie bonuses to different factors - high review scores, awards a product wins and high sales. There's nothing odd or nefarious about that at all.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a publisher giving a bonus to staff for producing a game which is a critical hit is not a bad thing at all. Publishers don't have to give a bonus to their staff, and to me it seems rather generous that they would give bonuses tied to both critical and commercial success.

 

After all, by this bonus system a developer may well get a bonus for a game that is a commercial disappointment but is critically acclaimed. If anything that is extremely generous - after all this is actually a system where bonuses aren't simply tied to profitability but also to creating a well made product.

 

I'm sure if publishers only offered developers a bonus if they made a game that sold well, then people would be screaming it was all about making big budget soulless 'COD clones'. By this bonus system it actually rewards creativity. Often indie games which sell far less than the big block buster games receive much high metacritic averages.

[Sheikah]

Ha! Still denying the validity of the claims, even though clearly both Kotaku and Eurogamer have been reporting similar findings, and both consist of many employees that deal with industry insiders on a daily basis.

 

Honestly, the way you're still trying to discredit the truth reminds me of that sketch in Austin Powers. The one where Austin is discovered to have a penis pump and staunchly denies it's his. They then produce more and more evidence indicating it is his, like a signed declaration by him saying he endorses it or something, and he still keeps denying it. Fuck's sake man, nobody is buying it!

 

If even insiders are saying that the metacritic tied bonuses are a bad idea and ultimately hurtful to game development, then we'd have to be pretty daft to assume otherwise.

[Retro_Link]

The Final Bosman, on the topic:

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/0s327s/the-final-bosman-review-scores

 

I agree that I don't think Eurogamer have replaced it with anything better.

[Sheikah]

Removing scores isn't going to improve anything about the industry.

 

From what I've discovered, it actually would. Game developers are having bonuses tied to metacritic scores. If you get chance to read the article I put forward, you'd see how that's a bad idea because it leads to features being crammed in for the sake of it, like tacked on multiplayer modes.

 

The metacritic system is a reasonable idea but ultimately pretty flawed. These are not just my words, but the words of two really big game reviewers that no doubt have put a hell of a lot more thought into this than any of us here, on account of it being their jobs. You've also got the fact that certain kinds of games will score highly (leading to enrichment of those sort of titles on consoles; see metacritic), while others, that are still very much valued, often score lower. This system actually decreases the chance those games will ever see the light of day.

 

It's really just a statement saying "meh, we don't want to be involved" to the situation. And even then, Eurogamer are copping out by essentially assigning a star rating to their games so they show up on Google! So it's only metacritic that's the problem, then!

 

I know you're trying to be sarcastic in the bolded part, but pretty much: yes! At least, bonuses are pretty much being tied to that, and not Google.

 

As a writer, of course the body of the review is important and I want people to read it. They'll get a better idea of the game and what I thought if they do. But the score is an important summary that I feel needs to accompany the review.

 

Also as a writer, I value the idea that readers may want to instantly know if a game is good (in my case, that'd be a scientific abstract at the beginning of a publication). Well, the EG system awards merits, so you would instantly get similar feedback to a 9 or 10/10. What I think is better about this is that it removes the scale that isn't really fit for purpose. That scale allows comparing of some very different games that aren't really comparable, yet if they had the same score then people start to compare them. It just doesn't really work.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Sheikah

[Zechs Merquise]

Ha! Still denying the validity of the claims, even though clearly both Kotaku and Eurogamer have been reporting similar findings, and both consist of many employees that deal with industry insiders on a daily basis.

 

Honestly, the way you're still trying to discredit the truth reminds me of that sketch in Austin Powers. The one where Austin is discovered to have a penis pump and staunchly denies it's his. They then produce more and more evidence indicating it is his, like a signed declaration by him saying he endorses it or something, and he still keeps denying it. Fuck's sake man, nobody is buying it!

 

If even insiders are saying that the metacritic tied bonuses are a bad idea and ultimately hurtful to game development, then we'd have to be pretty daft to assume otherwise.

 

Assuming that because someone says something or says they spoke to someone who said something makes that something true is utterly pathetic and worthless logic.

 

The way you are attacking review scores and others who think they are a good thing reminds me of a way a child complains that because he doesn't like something no one else should either.

 

There are plenty of people who like review scores.

 

There are plenty of people who use them.

 

There are plenty of sites where people review products they use in their daily lives.

 

All media and products are subject to review with scores.

 

Games should be no different. They aren't some special media that transcend the normal rules of logic.

 

If there are some developers who don't like their bonuses being tied to the critical acclaim their products get - TOUGH! The games industry is a business, publishers put in place a bonus system for both critical and commercial success. If a game doesn't score well or doesn't sell well, then the developer doesn't get a bonus. What next, are you going to complain that developers don't get rewarded if their product doesn't perform well in the sales charts? It's business, if people can't deal with the realities of that, then that's their issue, not a signal that the whole way things are done should be changed to suit a few people's feelings.

[Sheikah]

Assuming that because someone says something or says they spoke to someone who said something makes that something true is utterly pathetic and worthless logic.

 

Not at all. Kotaku spoke to ~20 people involved in the industry when writing their article; not just one. Eurogamer have obviously spoken to people to come to similar conclusions.

 

The facts are there; people who know a lot more than you - people who are involved in the industry, say something that is completely opposite to what you, someone who knows very little, is saying. That's ultimately what it comes down to. Integrity of the speaker - the voices I am putting forward are more reputable than your own. And I can tell you fucking hate it, because there's nothing you can do to change it other than provide irrelevant comparisons to other media.

 

If there are some developers who don't like their bonuses being tied to the critical acclaim their products get - TOUGH!

Except - it's not! Thanks to the likes of EG, Kotaku and Joystiq, who have taken a stand, the governing system that is Metacritic is being weakened. It's not tough; people can do something about it.

 

Never believe it's pointless if something is able to be changed.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Sheikah

[Zechs Merquise]

The metacritic system is a reasonable idea but ultimately pretty flawed. These are not just my words, but the words of two really big game reviewers that no doubt have put a hell of a lot more thought into this than any of us here, on account of it being their jobs. You've also got the fact that certain kinds of games will score highly (leading to enrichment of those sort of titles on consoles; see metacritic), while others, that are still very much valued, often score lower. This system actually decreases the chance those games will ever see the light of day.

 

Stop making weak appeals to authority. Just because 'two really big game reviewers' disagree with something doesn't make it gospel.

 

What about Gamespot, IGN, Gametrailers and all the other 'really big reviewers' who use a scoring a system?

 

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:

 

Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument. Not able to defend his position that evolution ‘isn’t true’ Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn’t a primate).

 

Appeal to authority is a weak form of argument and is seen as a logical fallacy used in a childish manner to silence others.

 

Except - it's not! Thanks to the likes of EG, Kotaku and Joystiq, who have taken a stand, the governing system that is Metacritic is being weakened. It's not tough; people can do something about it.

 

Never believe it's pointless if there is something is able to be changed.

 

Power to the people??!?

 

But clearly lots of people don't want to change it. Just because you do doesn't make it gospel and something that has to be done.

 

Stop being so childish. There are plenty of people who values review scores. Just because you don't doesn't mean no one should use them.

[Mr-Paul]

@Sheikah I hear what you're saying, but I have to disagree largely with what you say. Like it or not, review scores are never going to disappear from everywhere, so bonuses will continue to be linked to them. You're never going to get a mass abandonment of review scores.

 

I'm not sure what you think about the 1-10 scale isn't fit for purpose - the fact that reviewers fail to use the whole scale?

 

Films are ranked on the same scale regardless of genre, so why shouldn't games that are very different be judged on the same scale?

 

Even if metacritic is such a big problem to the industry, which I'm not sure I agree with fully, I feel that overall, removing the scoring is doing a disservice to the reader. Games journalism is consumer journalism, so your first thought should be "how does this help the reader", not "how will my review effect the industry".

 

Bonuses being linked to review scores isn't journalism's problem. It's the problem of developers and publishers.

 

I've read that article and it is clear that there are some flaws in the way metacritic works, but overall, I feel review aggregation is a good thing. If you want to make a stand against how metacritic works and bonuses being paid based on them, fine, remove yourself from metacritic. But there's no need to remove review scores as well.

[Sheikah]

Stop making weak appeals to authority. Just because 'two really big game reviewers' disagree with something doesn't make it gospel.

 

Oh, hang on. Just because people who talk to insiders, say they have spoken to around 20 insiders to specifically write an article about it, who live and breathe games journalism; just because these people are reporting the same fucking story, we shouldn't necessarily assume there is truth there?

 

Hello?

 

What about Gamespot, IGN, Gametrailers and all the other 'really big reviewers' who use a scoring a system?

 

Hang on, you mean the system that has always been in place and is the de facto method of reviewing games. The system that, ultimately, will be used until one ventures to think of something better?

 

Tell me - where is the article from these other guys outlining that review scores are great, and that metacritic linked bonuses are great. You can't argue that people merely using a system proves its worth. If they haven't any counter evidence to refute the claims, then I'm sorry, but no dice!

 

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:

 

Appeal to authority is a weak form of argument and is seen as a logical fallacy used in a childish manner to silence others.

 

Appeal to authority happens all the time. Do you diagnose yourself of illnesses or go to the doctor, the expert, who has done research into how to treat diseases?

 

Your argument is fucking shit son. It's not like I'm purely using the fact they know more on its own to dispel your points. I'm also taking into account that they have done actual research into it (again, the article). And obviously, the decision to switch systems will not have been taken lightly. When you have both credibility and evidence, that's when shit gets real.

 

 

But clearly lots of people don't want to change it. Just because you do doesn't make it gospel and something that has to be done.

 

On the whole, the people are happy. Go look at EG's comment boxes - you'll see 300+ thumbs up at people congratulating the switch. People can also down vote on these things, and they often do on EG, so it's not like they're just 'EG fanboys'. Whenever EG make another Destiny article for instance, people will complain how poor it is for EG to keep making such articles and people +1 those posts. When EG make video articles, a lot of people don't like them and people +1 those negative posts.

 

@Sheikah I hear what you're saying, but I have to disagree largely with what you say. Like it or not, review scores are never going to disappear from everywhere, so bonuses will continue to be linked to them. You're never going to get a mass abandonment of review scores.

 

Of course they won't disappear, but if enough of the big reviewers abstain from scoring then it weakens Metacritic dramatically. All of a sudden, the key reviewer outlets are no longer listed and the case for metacritic use in this way weakens considerably.

 

Bonuses being linked to review scores isn't journalism's problem. It's the problem of developers and publishers.

 

Actually that's not true. It's a shared problem. Sure, publishers (not developers) are really to blame, but ultimately they wouldn't be able to do it if scores weren't MC listed.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[Zechs Merquise]

Oh, hang on. Just because people who talk to insiders, say they have spoken to around 20 insiders to specifically write an article about it, who live and breathe games journalism; just because these people are reporting the same fucking story, we shouldn't necessarily assume there is truth there?

 

Hello?

 

No you shouldn't. Because there are hundreds of thousands of people who use sites like metacritic. There are dozens of equally credible sites and reviewers who are continuing to use scores. Because there are plenty of people here on this site who like review scores.

 

Obviously Eurogamer and Kotaku are going to find people and make points to help justify their argument. However that doesn't make something a fact.

 

Just because some people say that something is bad, doesn't mean it is bad. It is an opinion.

 

You could walk into any church on a Sunday and find a group of people who believe in a particular god who would all make an appeal to the authority of their vicar or priest who clearly has more knowledge of that religion. Doesn't make it a fact.

 

Hang on, you mean the system that has always been in place and is the de facto method of reviewing games. The system that, ultimately, will be used until one ventures to think of something better?

 

Tell me - where is the article from these other guys outlining that review scores are great, and that metacritic linked bonuses are great. You can't argue that people merely using a system proves its worth. If they haven't any counter evidence to refute the claims, then I'm sorry, but no dice!

 

No dice? What are you on? You sound like a child who is having a tantrum because you have been challenged. There is no evidence to prove whether reviews are good or bad - it's an opinion.

 

It's not like smoking where it can be scientifically proved that it does you harm. Some people like reviews, some people don't. But to claim it actually harms the industry is a far stretch.

 

It also goes to chow how childish the industry is - when every other industry can deal with exactly the same thing with out this meltdown.

 

Appeal to authority happens all the time. Do you diagnose yourself of illnesses or go to the doctor, the expert, who has done research into how to treat diseases?

 

Your argument is fucking shit son. It's not like I'm purely using the fact they know more on its own to dispel your points. I'm also taking into account that they have done actual research into it (again, the article). And obviously, the decision to switch systems will not have been taken lightly. When you have both credibility and evidence, that's when shit gets real.

 

Claiming that a diagnosis based on scientific fact and medical research is the same as an opinion on whether people like reviews or not just shows how silly and immature you are being.

 

The opinion of the people who are doing away with reviews is not based on a genuine scientific study, it is based on their opinion and the opinions of other who agree with them. That is different from seeing a doctor.

 

You analogy holds no water and your language shows how frustrated you are. You are literally trying to shout down everyone who doesn't agree with you, refusing to accept that anyone else can hold an opinion.

 

My opinion is just as valid as those who are doing away with reviews. More so in some ways as I am outside of the industry and I am a consumer.

 

On the whole, the people are happy. Go look at EG's comment boxes - you'll see 300+ thumbs up at people congratulating the switch. People can also down vote on these things, and they often do on EG, so it's not like they're just 'EG fanboys'. Whenever EG make another Destiny article for instance, people will complain how poor it is for EG to keep making such articles and people +1 those posts. When EG make video articles, a lot of people don't like them and people +1 those negative posts.

 

Wow, 300 people liked the article? It must be gospel. I mean 300 people out of industry that has has millions of users. That statistic is truly relevant and in no way statistically pointless...

 

Whereas I can understand that some people don't like review scores. I do like review scores and so do many others.

[peterl0]

Tell me - where is the article from these other guys outlining that review scores are great, and that metacritic linked bonuses are great. You can't argue that people merely using a system proves its worth. If they haven't any counter evidence to refute the claims, then I'm sorry, but no dice!

 

The Final Bosman this week, who is from gametrailers (but does not necessarily speak for them I imagine) does indeed defend review scores (although not metacritic bonuses) as a benefit for the consumer.

[Mr-Paul]

@Sheikah, I think where we're coming from different standpoints here, is that you feel that journalists need to stand up to metacritic to stop these bonuses. That's fine if you believe developers shouldn't get bonuses based on review scores and all that can be done to stop it should be done. Journalism can be a powerful tool for change.

 

I feel, on the other hand, removing review scores compromises the content. Games journalism is for the consumers, and by removing review scores, you aren't doing your best for them. You're only doing the best for developers, those who you are meant to be judging. For me, the consumer comes first. Sure, campaign against metacritic bonuses on the side, remove yourself from metacritic if you can, but don't compromise what you're doing for the reader.

 

You're merging an argument about review scores and about metacritic into one. You can be in favour of review scores without liking metacritic/the bonus system.

[Happenstance]

I feel, on the other hand, removing review scores compromises the content. Games journalism is for the consumers, and by removing review scores, you aren't doing your best for them. You're only doing the best for developers, those who you are meant to be judging. For me, the consumer comes first. Sure, campaign against metacritic bonuses on the side, remove yourself from metacritic if you can, but don't compromise what you're doing for the reader.

 

I think this absolutely is also for the consumer. It should be forcing them to actually read the content rather than just focus on a single number. Obviously not every gamer just checks the number and then freaks out but enough of them have over the years that is has become a constantly talked issue. Reading the actual content of the review will always be the best way to get the relevant information about a game, something a single score will never get across.

 

Its something Giant Bomb have talked about a lot as well and why they originally moved down to a 5 star rating, to try and make the arguments between a 3 and 4 less relevant. Jeff Gerstmann has said before that he has thought about removing scores altogether as well.

[Sheikah]

No you shouldn't. Because there are hundreds of thousands of people who use sites like metacritic. There are dozens of equally credible sites and reviewers who are continuing to use scores. Because there are plenty of people here on this site who like review scores.

 

Obviously Eurogamer and Kotaku are going to find people and make points to help justify their argument. However that doesn't make something a fact.

 

Just because some people say that something is bad, doesn't mean it is bad. It is an opinion.

 

You could walk into any church on a Sunday and find a group of people who believe in a particular god who would all make an appeal to the authority of their vicar or priest who clearly has more knowledge of that religion. Doesn't make it a fact.

 

I guess it seems that all you need to believe a specific method is best is for most people to continue to do something the way they always have done. Nothing would have ever changed throughout history if we continued to do things in exactly the same way, purely on the basis that it's the way it has always been done. That's tradition rather than evidence-based behaviour.

 

What we have here is two (maybe three, if you count Joystiq) reputable reviewers. Both present similar experiences and findings as a means to justify changing their system. Arguably they could have changed more when they changed to a new system. They could have much more experience and understanding than what they have told us as their reasons for switching, throughout their many years of dealing with the industry, but we don't know. What I can say though is that there doesn't appear to be underlying, profit-related motive for their change. To me, what they've reported and the lack of a financial goal here forms a rather compelling argument (again, it may not for some, but that's just fine). Large groups of journalists are independently reporting similar things, while I don't see much evidence on the contrary (from review sites that retain the scoring system). Again, purely using a system that has always been around does not, to me, prove its worth.

 

 

Wow, 300 people liked the article? It must be gospel. I mean 300 people out of industry that has has millions of users. That statistic is truly relevant and in no way statistically pointless...

 

Hmm, not sure if you're doing this on purpose now. :/

 

I think it was pretty obvious what my point was. If it was generally a change that people didn't want, then let's say that cluster of ~350-400 EG readers who regularly vote on comments there wouldn't have been overwhelmingly positive. And as I pointed out, people on that site can be very negative towards EG.

 

Sure, you can focus on the fact there's only a +300 score, but you'd do yourself a disservice to do that. If most people hated the removal of scores then we'd have seen a different spread.

 

The Final Bosman this week, who is from gametrailers (but does not necessarily speak for them I imagine) does indeed defend review scores (although not metacritic bonuses) as a benefit for the consumer.

 

There's no actual research involved in that (as in, speaking to people involved in publishing or game making - at least not to our knowledge). It would be the same as if Zechs made a video now slamming it, or me praising it. Also, his argument does have some merit, as he slams EG for now just going with Google instead of Metacritic. That's a fair point, but it doesn't really argue against the use of review scores in general, just that EG were being a bit hypocritical.

 

You're merging an argument about review scores and about metacritic into one. You can be in favour of review scores without liking metacritic/the bonus system.

 

Actually, I've said I don't like review scores either, purely because they are falsely interpreted (e.g. many people will consider an 8/10 game to automatically be better than a 7/10 game, even if one is train simulator and the other Uncharted - it's just daft). It puts certain games on a scale that just doesn't 'fit all'. Now, EG might recommend both.

 

You may argue that this is a problem with the reader, but ultimately a writer has a responsibility to get their point across. If people falsely interpret meaning from scores that they never envisaged, then arguably their review isn't doing the right job. You may argue differently, and I totally accept that. What I'll also say is that the inflated use of scores kinda makes them pointless anyway - 'good' scores can usually only be 8/10, 9/10 or 10/10. So really, you're looking at an /3 system (plus 'avoid') which pretty much gives 4 variables, the same as what EGs new system gives. So...yeah. Not seeing how EG's system is giving so much less information. :p

Edited February 12, 2015 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[peterl0]

Ahh @Sheikah, I had not realised that you meant articles only about journalists having spoken to publishers/developers.

His argument is most definitely from a consumer standpoint.

 

On the point of the ambiguity with scores you can still have that with the EG system, as Bosman himself clearly disagrees with the Mario Kart and Never Alone getting essential scores(*), but I guess you could have that with any summary system. One thing I like about the EG system is that it does not have the crutch score of 3/5 of the halfway house that you get in 5 star systems.

 

(* Possibly this is just a repeat of his dislike of the word essential)

[flameboy]

One thing for sure I hate about this new system is the "score" is right there for all to see on the homepage:

 

 

So now your already giving people preconceptions going into the review. It's almost like some kind of conditioning, doesn't matter what the words say you'll focus on the negative. To me that's not right it could lead to lazy writing.

 

Also I do wonder if they will deliberately start reviewing a broader range of games to justify this new ranking system. Eurogamer are famous for not using their full scale to speak (granted they have on occasion but there is a reason there is that joke about the the 8/10)

 

I really hate the ambiguity that lays between Avoid and Recommended...So you shouldn't avoid it but also they wouldn't necessarly recommend buying it? So then what? Sure it falls under the "Average" category, I feel like it would take an exceptionally well written review to effectively tow that balance and make readers aware why it's not so bad to avoid and perhaps worth buying.

Edited February 13, 2015 by flameboy

[Sheikah]

To be honest, I think most people probably click reviews and check the score before actually reading the review, so I'm not sure it'll make much difference for your average reader. It would be a good idea to remove that though, for the people who do actually want a surprise.

[The Bard]

This is a good conversation. One thing to remember; the bonuses tied to Metacritic scores are usually never for the development team, many of whom are laid off at the end of the cycle anyway. Instead it's usually for the PR representatives that serve as liason between the publisher and the press. Now why would PR reps be getting bonuses for the Metacritic score? Unless it was the publisher's assumption that they had a direct ability to (contrary to what you believe Zechs) nefariously influence the score through, say, publisher events where press are invited out to five star resorts, catered to with all the Doritos and Mountain Dew they can quaff, paraded in front of literal dog and pony shows, and all the rest of it? That's what's being objected to; the idea that metacritic and its primacy fosters the backward idea among publishers that they can influence score irrespective of the quality of the game. And let's not be naive, they try this in every which way they possibly can.

 

Secondly, Zechs, Eurogamer are dropping the scores not only for this reason, but because they put more emphasis on the critique that goes on in the body of the text, and to attempt to foster the habit of actually reading the shit wot they wrote. To say that there is very much of meaning that you can gather from a fraction at the end of a page, about a cultural product that on average could take you twelve hours or so of your time to experience, is mad. I'm not saying all people who like review scores are syphillis afflicted, just that all syphillis afflicted people like review scores.

 

There are still scores (hurrr) of sites and publications that have got the numerical element, which you can read at any time on your undoubtedly merry traipses through the internet, bruh. So chill the fuck out.

 

Not only that, but the existence of scores in a world with Metacritic, creates an incentive structure backed by publishers, where publications and sites are afraid to give big budget games scores outside of the 8.5-10 range because there exists the threat of access to future games made by that publisher being revoked. For reference, take what happened to 1up with the original Assassin's Creed, or Gamespot with Kane and Lynch. This only happens because say, a score of 40/100 for a game that has been scoring in the low 80s could bring the average down into the 70s. Yet another function of Metacritic, and yet another perverse incentive structure that it creates. It causes publishers to enforce an atmosphere wherein reviews and the opinions they can prospectively project are normalised within a very narrow continuum.

 

And before anyone says "well those publications with aberrant opinions deserve to have the iron fist of publisher x brought down upon them," remember that you're a fucking idiot for thinking that, and a wide diversity of opinions about cultural products is not only to be expected, but to be celebrated.

 

Bad juju. Getting out of that shitstream is the best thing a serious publication can do.

Edited February 13, 2015 by The Bard
Automerged Doublepost

[Ashley]

 

I really hate the ambiguity that lays between Avoid and Recommended...So you shouldn't avoid it but also they wouldn't necessarly recommend buying it? So then what? Sure it falls under the "Average" category, I feel like it would take an exceptionally well written review to effectively tow that balance and make readers aware why it's not so bad to avoid and perhaps worth buying.

 

Maybe those are purely in the reader's hands? They're neither exceptionally good or bass, so read the review and see if it sounds right for you?

[Mr-Paul]

Maybe those are purely in the reader's hands? They're neither exceptionally good or bass, so read the review and see if it sounds right for you?

 

The thing is though, reviews should give you a verdict. You go to them for judgement on a product. The way they've done it is so ambiguous you don't really know how much they liked it/how good they thought it was. I really think it's too much of a cop-out.

 

Yeah you can get the feel of what they thought from what they've written what they thought, but you're not getting a real committed conclusion, if you know what I mean? It shouldn't be down to the reader to determine the verdict for themselves. Yes, I believe the body of the review and the critique is very important, but I feel the conclusion and verdict is equally essential to a good review, for the reader.