Support NeoGAF

[Lady Gaia]

I'll at least check out their reviews now, so that has to be a net positive from their perspective. It means I'll actually take the time to understand their point of view and see whether it bears any resemblance to mine. Presumably their advertisers will also prefer seeing me spend more time on their site.

The only numeric rating I'd like to see in a review is "here's the minimum score we were required to give by the publisher to get a review copy." Oh, wait, that's pretty much what we get now.

 

[TheMasterGoblin]

Well, it looks like I've found my new game review site!

This is a good idea and a long time in coming, unlike that Polygon bull... excuse me, Provisional... shit.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

I like scores since I don't read reviews (to many unmarked spoilers).

 

[faridmon]

My favourite gaming website just became even better.
I just love how accurate is their critical response to a game. Alot of sites would do well to learn from them.

 

[SkylineRKR]

No more metacritic clauses.

No ratings would be excellent. A rating does no one good. Some dude walks into the store, checks metacritic, sees a 7 and ignores the game. Not reading the content either. Most consumers only look at that number, not at the review itself. Which does no one a favor.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

Let's see it the other way round...

if the all the reviewers who care about the impacts of reviews and how flawed scoring-systems are, drop the scoring, then the borderline corrupt review-outlets who are ensnared by publishers will be the only ones left to make the meta-critic scores which still influence the buying decisions of millions of gamers.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Let's see it the other way round...

if the all the reviewers who care about the impacts of reviews and how flawed scoring-systems are, drop the scoring, then the borderline corrupt review-outlets who are ensnared by publishers will be the only ones left to make the meta-critic scores which still influence the buying decisions of millions of gamers.

Yep.

Only scores are interesting to publishers. So sites who hold on to ratings are bound to be influenced. Sites who don't are probably independent.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

No more metacritic clauses.

No ratings would be excellent. A rating does no one good. Some dude walks into the store, checks metacritic, sees a 7 and ignores the game. Not reading the content either. Most consumers only look at that number, not at the review itself. Which does no one a favor.

So do you believe these people you're referring to will actually start reading the text portion now? If anything, this harms those under-the-radar games that get great scores, not the AAA titles.

 

[Steve McQueen]

It takes balls to do this and it's a nice move.
On the other hand....if you look at the amount of recommended games....wow.

 

[Devilgunman]

Most consumers only look at that number, not at the review itself. Which does no one a favor.

Just a few post above you.

I like scores since I don't read reviews (to many unmarked spoilers).

Bravos

 

[Siddiqui]

I like scores and I like sites like metacritic and gamerankings. Maybe people don't realize how many games come out every year. I don't have time to read multi page reviews from five or six sites for every game that comes out. I check what's getting the best reviews when I have less time and work my way down if I have more time, read/watch few of the reviews for however many games as I have time, watch a gameplay video, maybe click on threads I come across on forums...

Though I do like that now they're only reviewing retail games and reviewing online games after release.

 

[SkylineRKR]

So do you believe these people you're referring to will actually start reading the text portion now? If anything, this harms those under-the-radar games that get great scores, not the AAA titles.

Those under the radar games were already harmed. Bayonetta 2 scored perfect 10s but it didn't help. Its not like no scores would sway the opinion of the masses. But I think scoring became too important for publishers, and harmed the integrity of outlets. We know how some examples turned out.

No metacritic could mean the return of mid tier, no pressure, bribes or clause to deliver on that particular scoring front. Also way too many games got a score slapped on to it prematurely. Sure you had a quick reference, but it was all thin air anyway. I purchase an above average amount of games per year, mostly at release too. I'm reading reviews before I decide, and yes metacritic numbers do influence me. When I see 70 (on new IPs at least, franchises close to me I buy blindly) I think 'probably not worthwhile to buy right now'. In case of Dying Light i've been told i'm wrong on that.

 

[jtb]

A lot of games do come out every year. But, at the same time, when I'm about to spend $60 on a game—that's no small investment. Personally, I have never found it a problem to read up reviews on a product just because I'm not just giving up my money, I'm giving up a huge chunk of my time, as well.

A single, coherent opinion from someone who I trust is infinitely more valuable to me than some aggregate of journalists, half of whom have all been paid off and have a huge conflict of interest anyways.

 

[The Boat]

Good, good. Hope more sites take notice.

 

[HowZatOZ]

Glad to see the shift but for smaller sites like the one I work at we'll still use review scores because we aren't big enough to rely solely on organic traffic. I'd love to remove our review scores but that's only a possibility if we get better organic traffic, otherwise it's a death sentence for anything other than the big names.

half of whom have all been paid off and have a huge conflict of interest anyways.

Just so you know that's completely false. If we were getting "paid off" For good review scores there wouldn't be an average income of $30k for game journalists, if that.

 

[spekkeh]

omfg

 

[Gentle Rodriguez]

Great initiative, one I was backing for a while now, hope others follow, but I'm not counting on it.

And for good measure:

FUCK METACRITIC

 

[unapersson]

Let's see it the other way round...

if the all the reviewers who care about the impacts of reviews and how flawed scoring-systems are, drop the scoring, then the borderline corrupt review-outlets who are ensnared by publishers will be the only ones left to make the meta-critic scores which still influence the buying decisions of millions of gamers.

Are you suggesting that Metacritic's methodology could be flawed? Surely it's impossible to game and nothing like that could ever happen. Or might it simply be a case of garbage in -> garbage out?

 

[Devilgunman]

I don't have time to read multi page reviews from five or six sites for every game that comes out.

You don't really have to. You can just read the summary sentence or pros&cons section at the end, which function the same as the review scores or even better. If you say you don't really have time to read those as well then I really have nothing to say.

Glad to see the shift but for smaller sites like the one I work at we'll still use review scores because we aren't big enough to rely solely on organic traffic. I'd love to remove our review scores but that's only a possibility if we get better organic traffic, otherwise it's a death sentence for anything other than the big names.

Do you think your scores are the reason people visit your site? Why would anyone visit a small website for a reviewing score when they can just go to Metacritic to see all the scores in one place? If you want more traffic, generate more interesting or unique contents.

 

[Aikidoka]

I don't really see why this change is a great thing. I tend to agree with Jim Sterling that review scores are just a tool that can be valuable based on how it's implemented. People complain that review scores cause people to ignore the review but that, to me, seems like a complete non-sequitor. The very existence of the scores don't cause a reader to do anything - the reader is responsible for his/her own actions. This is evident based on when a review doesn't have a review score, people do not suddenly become rational critics and discuss the content of the review. Indeed, the review simply stops being visited altogether.

As far as stating that "they're are just arbitrary numbers" that is only true if the reviewers fails to give clear definitions to each of his scores.

EDIT: most reviewers already give short concluding summaries, so Eurogamer is not really adding anything at all to their reviews. As a poster pointed out, there is not much difference between have three options insteads of 5 numbers.

 

[Karak]

Glad to see the shift but for smaller sites like the one I work at we'll still use review scores because we aren't big enough to rely solely on organic traffic. I'd love to remove our review scores but that's only a possibility if we get better organic traffic, otherwise it's a death sentence for anything other than the big names.

Well also the fact that this won't in any way stop contracts being written with review specifics in them. It requires nothing for some subtle changes that include wording instead of numbers. This title must have fewer than 10 "not recommended scores" blah blah blah. And then list out the review sites that matter.

The only reason I know this is because I just sat in on a contract discussion where this was done.

The very existence of the scores don't cause a reader to do anything - the reader is responsible for his/her own actions. This is evident based on when a review doesn't have a review score, people do not suddenly become rational critics and discuss the content of the review. Indeed, the review simply stops being visited altogether.

Though I agree its no big change. I mean these guys had to be forced to do it and if it wasn't natural or made sense to them its not like they are doing anything other than scrambling. But I have never done review scores in 2 years of content and what you said doesn't happen(Games discussing the game) is exactly what does happen on our reviews. I might be an outlier or something and those reviews still get great views months later.

 

[angelic]

EGs scores have always been weird, this just gives them an easy way to not upset publishers yet say a game is flawed (recommended: silver award).

This is the site that hired the awful Cara Ellison to give EDF 2025 a hatchet job review because she doesn't like the genre and always has an agenda.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-18-earth-defense-force-2025-review

 

[HowZatOZ]

Well also the fact that this won't in any way stop contracts being written with review specifics in them. It requires nothing for some subtle changes that include wording instead of numbers. This title must have fewer than 10 "not recommended scores" blah blah blah. And then list out the review sites that matter.

The only reason I know this is because I just sat in on a contract discussion where this was done.

Oh it most definitely won't, publishers will find a way to screw over the developers in paying any extra royalties. As you said, it'll just be a change of words.

 

[TRI Mike]

Excellent, I hope more people follow. Review scores have become quite irrelevant lately.

 

[THRILLH0]

look at all these terrible games guys!

 

[Karak]

Oh it most definitely won't, publishers will find a way to screw over the developers in paying any extra royalties. As you said, it'll just be a change of words.

Ya its not even a blip on anyone's radar. We switched between numerical and summary requirements in our contracts in just a couple hours and once it was done no one had to look back. However, its going at the situation backwards but for many at least they feel someone is going at the situation.

 

[jtb]

Also, frankly... if games and the people that write about them want to be taken seriously, they have to stop treating reviews as a product recommendation guide.

They should be a single person's response to an experience. They're an opinion—no more, no less. Just express that opinion coherently and thoroughly, and you'll be just fine. We all have brains. One person's response should be able to inform me about whether or not something is for me. That's what a good reviewer does, anyways. Where I can read someone's review, say a negative one, read it and know that I'll probably like it anyways—or vice versa.

no other medium treats reviews as such a transparent buyers guide, with a compulsive urge to quantify and rank everything.

games can be different from one another. they don't have to all be in perpetual competition. it's the difference between a review for a piece of art and a review for a refrigerator.

 

[Freshmaker]

Gone are the days of 7/10 and now we have "good game but has some issues"

I foresee a lot of vague reviews-

Guess I'm just old school.

So you mean nothing will actually change?

 

[HowZatOZ]

Do you think your scores are the reason people visit your site? Why would anyone visit a small website for a reviewing score when they can just go to Metacritic to see all the scores in one place? If you want more traffic, generate more interesting or unique contents.

It definitely isn't the sole reason for traffic but it does help and that can't be ignored. We don't have the high traffic of sites like eurogamer or kotaku to completely ignore review scores, even with our hopefully interesting and unique content. Who knows though, it is definitely something that needs to be tested before I can definitively say that yes, removing review scores is okay for us.

 

[THRILLH0]

I think political magazines like charlie hedbo should stop publishing religious cartoons because some people take them too seriously.

 

[unapersson]

look at all these terrible games guys!

I know, it's almost as though they averaged out all the available scores of all other websites on the internet over a year rather than coming up with their own list. Very algorithmic.

 

[Bl@de]

Ehm, yeah I don't really care about that. If there is a number at the end or not, doesn't change the review itself. Never really liked eurogamer reviews because they are very short with no real details. Don't really get all the cheering and hate about metacritic though. Aggregate statistics as an extra tool are always nice. The insulting comments are kind of childish.

 

[THRILLH0]

Don't really get all the cheering and hate about metacritic though. Aggregate statistics as an extra tool are always nice. The insulting comments are kind of childish.

People get upset when those pesky statistics don't validate their personal opinions.

 

[Memorabilia]

I feel 7.6/10 about this.

I LOLed

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Eurogamer's review prose has always been better than its scores, so I'm in favor of this.

 

[Aikidoka]

Though I agree its no big change. I mean these guys had to be forced to do it and if it wasn't natural or made sense to them its not like they are doing anything other than scrambling. But I have never done review scores in 2 years of content and what you said doesn't happen(Games discussing the game) is exactly what does happen on our reviews. I might be an outlier or something and those reviews still get great views months later.

I'm not really familiar with your audience or content, but do you think that if you just added review scores that the members of your audience that provide good discussion suddenly wouldn't?

 

[sora87]

They'll probably still give the poor order 1886 a avoid

"It has no soul!"

 

[Karak]

I'm not really familiar with your audience or content, but do you think that if you just added review scores that the members of your audience that provide good discussion suddenly wouldn't?

Good question.

Its very possible but that's a hypothetical that I can't accurately guess at. I was sort of just saying that I don't currently do it like most reviewers (no reviews) and the discussion is far different from most youtube reviews. That feedback is coming from many of the viewers. I do think that users congregate around what works for them personally however.

But this change is basically a reviewer walking into the editor and saying "this is an 8" and the editor saying ok recommended. People are being sold a bill of sales here and sadly it means nothing until the true issue of who is doing the review and how they are doing it is resolved. Also this won't change metacritic nor contracts(I wrote contracts for 21 years and it happens to be in the input rating arena).

All IMHO of course

 

[Liberty4all]

Interesting verrrrry interesting.

 

[Victrix]

Might actually read reviews on an online gaming site again.

... shocking news!

 

[Liberty4all]

I think what's more interesting is if other major sites follow suit breaking the metactitics business model the industry hangs on.

 

[Rushster]

Scoring is irrelevant anyway of people READ the text. You can make your mind up from a well written article. EG have simply changed from a 1/10 scale to 1-5, 6-7, 8-10 scale. So there is still scoring. There is no change.

The problem that nobody has raised on this review issue is the actual methods used to review games. With so many freelancers writing for sites, they want to get the text done as fast as possible, then send it to the editor and get paid which has created a culture of writers not completing games. You can not give an opinion on a game without completing it. If you do then you're not reviewing it properly. This is an issue that has only been addressed on a handful of sites and is as big a problem.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I think the most interesting part is how many people apparently think that removing review scores is going to make the actual reviews suddenly worth reading.

Like, I kind of get it if you're just going there to give them traffic and view their ads by way of support. But a lot of people are posting as if removing ads means they will have good content that they are now excited to consume.

 

[Hydrargira]

I hate it. How much time do they think I have?

 

[CountAntonius]

RIP childhood. Probably for the best though.

 

[EvB]

Next they'll need to remove all numbers from the digital found art articles

 

[Aikidoka]

. You can not give an opinion on a game without completing it. If you do then you're not reviewing it properly. This is an issue that has only been addressed on a handful of sites and is as big a problem.

I disagree with a general statement like that. With a game that's heavily story-based, sure the reviewer should very well "complete" the game. On the other hand, I really don't think it's necessary to "complete" Skyrim in order to give an accurate assessment of the game. Really the reviewers just needs to experience all the mechanics in the game and some of the the way the story is told to provide a valuable assessment.

Moreover, for many games, it's not really well-defined for what it means to complete them. Does it simply mean getting to the end of the main quest line? Should they have to see all alternate endings and dialogue branches? Do they need to do this with every available build?

 

[Karak]

I think the most interesting part is how many people apparently think that removing review scores is going to make the actual reviews suddenly worth reading.

Like, I kind of get it if you're just going there to give them traffic and view their ads by way of support. But a lot of people are posting as if removing ads means they will have good content that they are now excited to consume.

Agreed. It will take a change to the actual reviews themselves and it is a different thought process at the end.

I disagree with a general statement like that.

Ya agreed there are a boatload of caveats with that.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Oh it most definitely won't, publishers will find a way to screw over the developers in paying any extra royalties. As you said, it'll just be a change of words.

Yup. I still don't understand why people think removing reviews scores is going to solve any problems. It's not like there aren't incredibly easy alternative solutions for the publishers to use that will basically make the removal of scores completely meaningless

 

[sora87]

I think what's more interesting is if other major sites follow suit breaking the metactitics business model the industry hangs on.

I would love it if they did.