Support NeoGAF

[SerTapTap]

My point is, it can sound like a review likes a game, but how much do they really like it? a 9/10 tells you exactly how much they liked it. Or it can sound like the review didn't really like the game, but was it terrible or just mediocre. A 7/10 tells you that. A number tells the reader exactly what they thought of the game.

Apparently when you read a devastatingly negative review and see a 7/10 you think "oh, they liked it but just focused on negative things", I think a lot of us think "yep, yet another site where 7/10 is the bottom of the scale". The numbers are meaningless at best in the current climate, and a "please don't hate us TOO much, publishers!" tool at worst.

 

[Mesoian]

My point is, it can sound like a review likes a game, but how much do they really like it? a 9/10 tells you exactly how much they liked it. Or it can sound like the review didn't really like the game, but was it terrible or just mediocre. A 7/10 tells you that. A number tells the reader exactly what they thought of the game.

I give this post a 6.58 out of 10.

 

[CeePhour]

No they wouldn't. There are very few major titles annually that actually change so much after launch that they'd need a review score change. Maybe a handful, if that.

And here I thought you were joking. It's almost as if you stopped reading the article right after the 4.5 stars graphic towards the top of it. The very next few paragraphs explained exactly why they will not update scores.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Not a fan of this as I normally look at the score to see wether the review is worth reading.

Joke post? How can you determine whether a revised re is worth reading by the score?

Unless of course you are seeking to affirm your hoped for it present opinion.

 

[GreatestHits]

My point is, it can sound like a review likes a game, but how much do they really like it? a 9/10 tells you exactly how much they liked it. Or it can sound like the review didn't really like the game, but was it terrible or just mediocre. A 7/10 tells you that. A number tells the reader exactly what they thought of the game.

My point is who gives a shit what they like, would I like it? They could like it because of the free pizza they got from the publisher, who knows man. Would I like the game? The text helps me understand that, the number does not.

Hopefully reputable review sites follow suit with Joystiq's decision and all we are left with are less-reputable sites that still do review scores, that way it'll be out of sight out of mind

 

[dmr87]

Hope others follows, anything to screw with Metacritic.

 

[barit]

Good. Everything that shrinks Metacritics importance in this biz is an improvement

 

[Orayn]

I give this post a 6.58 out of 10.

That post is objectively a 5.231 out of 11.436 and you've completely destroyed your credibility by assigning it such a blatantly incorrect score.

 

[SDCowboy]

If you disagree with this change, I think y'all should exclusively use binary arguments as a show of solidarity.


So only major titles deserve to be rescored?

In an era of post-release support, Early Access, and PC titles, this is the only way it could work.

If the task of re-scoring is that much of a burden then, yeah, I'd say stick to major changes on major titles.

 

[Jazzkokehead]

"Scores" are unavoidable. If you believe in the concept of a "bad game" and a "good game", and more so if you also believe in accompanying "very bad game", "very good game", and in the middle "mediocre game", then you are working with review scores. You are just not vocalizing it, making your point of view less clear and precise.

No. You can say you think a game is "bad" or "good" without needing to apply some sort of number to it.

 

[Joni]

They're removing the scores because they aren't relevant anymore in this world of server stability and patches. That is smart, but it is ultimately pointless if the reviews don't change to reflect that.

 

[SDCowboy]

My point is who gives a shit what they like, would I like it? They could like it because of the free pizza they got from the publisher, who knows man. Would I like the game? The text helps me understand that, the number does not.

Hopefully reputable review sites follow suit with Joystiq's decision and all we are left with are less-reputable sites that still do review scores, that way it'll be out of sight out of mind

If you don't give a shit about what they like, then why the hell are you reading their review?

 

[FriedConsole]

Not a good idea, honestly. People care for numbers and stars. Always have. This could lead to fewer website hits.

I used to just skip to the numbers but now I just use Metacritic to see a bunch of numbers at once.

I give this move 3 out of 10 stars.

 

[Pakoe]

Good move.

 

[kinoki]

There's still too many gamers who believe that there is an accurate way of grading a game. The people who lash out at anyone who differs as much as one decimal from the correct score (regardless if they've played the game in question). I feel this comes from a social insecurity. Nothing else makes sense in their life so atleast a numerical score to tell the truth about how good a game is. Games are objective; life is subjective.

I don't think scores are a bad thing but I believe that video gamers as a community isn't mature enough to have a rating system in the entertainment media.

 

[Mr. Poolman]

This is the right thing to do.

Numerical scores are absurd.

 

[LurkerPrime]

If the task of re-scoring is that much of a burden then, yeah, I'd say stick to major changes on major titles.

In that case, how do they decide which titles should be re-rated? Let me guess, fan outcry that "they reviewed something wrong"?

 

[Riposte]

No. You can say you think a game is "bad" or "good" without needing to apply some sort of number to it.

The number is nothing other than a representation of "bad" and "good". Horrible games go in tier 1, bad games go into tier 2, mediocre games go into tier 3, good games go into tier 4, and great games go into tier 5. 1-5. So when you say a game is 4, you are saying that it's level of quality, it's peers, are the level of "good" - not mediocre or less and not great.

EDIT: This is not necessarily a number. You could use colors, hand gestures, symbols (although numbers are also symbols), etc. All means the same thing though.

EDIT: The judgment I'm describing here is almost always being made in an enthusiast review, all they are doing is making it less clear. (Reasons being obscurity means you have to read more or makes it harder for metacritic to sum them up.)

EDIT: Other points:

"Scores are inconsistent throughout a website" - that's because websites employ more than one person. Value judgments are subjective to the person and scores are nothing other than clean and tidy value judgments. That's all it comes down to. You can argue that they do not use the scores equally, but even that's subjective. "How good does a game need to be in order to count as good?"

"People get mad at the score" - People get mad at other people not liking the game they like (or the opposite), especially if they are in a position of relative power. As long as their approval or disdain is expressed clearly, the reaction will remain the same. Scores just make that more visible, because it is a more visible expression of one's final assessment. Even in those cases, people, as you can see on GAF, still look through review for quotes to see why they would give such a score. You can say that people will be quicker to dismiss someone who gives a good game a bad score, but there's really nothing with that insofar there's nothing wrong with dismissing someone who calls a good game a bad game. It just makes thing more clear and direct.

 

[nowarning]

Generally I don't mind review scores but most sites I've read are so inconsistent that there is no point in them even being there, so I can't say that it bothers me if they are gone.

 

[upselo]

Great move!
I think it has to be coupled with a buyer's guide a la Kotaku top 12, for new users to know at a glance which games are worthy on a platform they just bought, without having to read every single review (which could be provided by an external source like Metacritic, but that defeats the purpose).

 

[TheSlySoul]

Good. Everything that shrinks Metacritics importance in this biz is an improvement

It still really bothers me bonuses are tied to a 85 MC rating.
Obsidian got screwed over...

 

[jschreier]

Since people is worried about Joystiq losing clicks due to that, and since we have here a "Press Sneak Fuck" lol why that title? :lol) from the site who ditched review scores first, a question, Jason. How much did the anount of clicks change on your review articles, on average?

We never had review scores in the first place!

 

[Veritigo_X]

Let's see if any of the bigger sites (IGN, Gamespot) do this. They seem to pride themselves on their review scoring (laughably) so I'm going to guess no...

 

[Trigonometrize.]

I like scores, just not when an entire team of people have to adhere to a single scale. That's ridiculous. So it just doesn't work out and this is a good move.

 

[MYeager]

Good. At least then angry folks will pick apart the words rather than go nuts over what a number might mean.

 

[TheOldSlimer]

Let's see if any of the bigger sites (IGN, Gamespot) do this. They seem to pride themselves on their review scoring (laughably) so I'm going to guess no...

I can never see IGN dropping it, Gamespot maybe. I don't think they put the scores in their video reviews, only on the site.

 

[Jhotun]

I only care for scores that are under 5 or over 9. For everything else I prefer to play the game and see for myself.

 

[giant_frying_pan]

Great move. Hopefully they'll have the courage to stick with it. It's a shame Edge didn't keep the policy long term.

 

[dgrdsv]

Don't get the hate for Metacritic really. It is useful and most of time it's quite on point. You just need to do some additional research on games which you're checking on MC. If someone is basing his buying decisions on MC scores alone then he's an idiot and should suffer - which is what is essentially happening currently. Everybody wins.

 

[Bulzeeb]

What Kotaku is doing actually good idea but it needs to be evolved. Like, "Insta-buy", "wait for a price drop", "not for everyone/for fans only" "rent it", "stay away".

so you want to turn that into a 5 stars review instead of a 10 stars

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Good. The more sites that do this, the better. I'd love for one of the big boys like IGN, Gamespot, or Gametrailers to follow suit. They don't have the testicular fortitude though.

 

[Socat]

They aren't useless at all. They cap off or sum up the entire review. The body of a review can make it sound like a reviewer really likes a game when they're really just "meh" about it. Or reverse. A 7/10 is often much easier to interpret than 10 paragraphs of type.

That is the reason I don't like review scores, you have no explanation of what lead them to give them that score, and now your perception of that game is skewed, which can lead you to missing games that you might otherwise enjoy very much.

 

[Manu]

Hmm, not sure how I feel about this. I'd rather have people use the full scale instead of dropping scores altogether.

 

[LurkerPrime]

Don't get the hate for Metacritic really. It is useful and most of time it's quite on point. You just need to do some additional research on games which you're checking on MC. If someone is basing his buying decisions on MC scores alone then he's an idiot and should suffer - which is what is essentially happening currently. Everybody wins.

So it's useful unless people are actually using it to decide on a purchase?

...How is it useful, exactly?

 

[Bluenoser]

Generally I don't mind review scores but most sites I've read are so inconsistent that there is no point in them even being there, so I can't say that it bothers me if they are gone.

Which is why I wish IGN would follow suit and get rid of their inconsistent, ridiculous scoring system.

Halo: MCC - broken at release, and to some extent still broken 2 months later, 9/10
LBP3: broken at release, patched within 2 weeks, 6.8/10 - note the reviewer said many positive things about the game, and you would think it would get the benefit of the doubt that it would be patched and working soon, but nope- no mercy- 6.8.

I understand everyone is getting annoyed at games releasing that don't work, but they can't go taking out frustrations on one game and give others a pass. That's why numerical scores are bullshit.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Another draconian standard falling from the cliff. Who's next?

Which is why I wish IGN would follow suit and get rid of their inconsistent, ridiculous scoring system.

Halo: MCC - broken at release, and to some extent still broken 2 months later, 9/10
LBP3: broken at release, patched within 2 weeks, 6.8/10 - note the reviewer said many positive things about the game, and you would think it would get the benefit of the doubt that it would be patched and working soon, but nope- no mercy- 6.8.

I understand everyone is getting annoyed at games releasing that don't work, but they can't go taking out frustrations on one game and give others a pass. That's why numerical scores are bullshit.

Ryan McCafrey. He's to Xbox what Karl Rove is to Reps.

 

[GreatestHits]

If you don't give a shit about what they like, then why the hell are you reading their review?

Because they're basically journalists. I don't give a shit what reviewers like, I care about them explaining the game to me. I would just as soon watch a youtube video about the game but usually reviews are the most in-depth relay of info about a game and they're usually the first impressions. It's (supposed to be, and usually) the best option when wanting to know about a game

The number is nothing other than a representation of "bad" and "good". Horrible games go in tier 1, bad games go into tier 2, mediocre games go into tier 3, good games go into tier 4, and great games go into tier 5. 1-5. So when you say a game is 4, you are saying that it's level of quality, it's peers, are the level of "good" - not mediocre or less and not great.

EDIT: This is not necessarily a number. You could use colors, hand gestures, symbols (although numbers are also symbols), etc. All means the same thing though.

In this industry you're a fool to trust that a number truly means a game is good or not, and that there are no other factors (like doritos or personal preference). BTW, games are a little more complex than just "good" or "bad"

 

[Ervik]

About time. Now let's hope more follow suit.

 

[Phediuk]

How long until the scores are back? Any predictions?

 

[Noobcraft]

Engadget (their sister site) did the same a few years back. It kind of made me move away from that site and towards others that included review scores.

 

[SDCowboy]

That is the reason I don't like review scores, you have no explanation of what lead them to give them that score, and now your perception of that game is skewed, which can lead you to missing games that you might otherwise enjoy very much.

Uh, yeah you do if you read the review...I like a score in conjunction with the written review.

 

[jstripes]

Don't get the hate for Metacritic really. It is useful and most of time it's quite on point. You just need to do some additional research on games which you're checking on MC. If someone is basing his buying decisions on MC scores alone then he's an idiot and should suffer - which is what is essentially happening currently. Everybody wins.

The problem isn't Metacritic.

The problem is the effect Metacritic has on the industry, and the online screaming wars it ignites.

 

[SaggyMonkey]

They'll come back, they always come back.

 

[Lady Gaia]

I quite like the "Should you play it, YES / NO", that Kotaku do........

I feel like that's the opposite of dropping review scores. What I object to about trying to distil a review to a score in the first place is the assumption that everyone will enjoy or not enjoy a game for the same reasons. Getting rid of the score is a huge step in the right direction,

 

[Stereogatari]

Well done. The quicker Metacritic dies, the better for our industry. Hopefully this begins a trend.

Also, I'll take this moment to lament the loss of classic Joystiq. It used to be the only gaming site I browsed in the late 00s and their podcast was the first I regularly listened to, but after multiple design changes and Chris + the McElroys leaving it just wasn't the same with only Ludwig remaining.

 

[CecilRousso]

So that's Kotaku, Joystic and RockPaperShotgun without review scores then. Wonder who else will join them. Metacritic am cry.

 

[danowat]

Don't get the hate for Metacritic really. It is useful and most of time it's quite on point. You just need to do some additional research on games which you're checking on MC. If someone is basing his buying decisions on MC scores alone then he's an idiot and should suffer - which is what is essentially happening currently. Everybody wins.

Simply because it's unfairly weighted in favour of that one or two (possibly) deliberately high or low review from an outlet or outlets.

It's ok to use as a resource to judge the overall "feeling" the media has for a game, but far to many people use the metacritic score as an overall score of the game without even giving a thought to how that score was calculated.

I feel like that's the opposite of dropping review scores. What I object to about trying to distil a review to a score in the first place is the assumption that everyone will enjoy or not enjoy a game for the same reasons. Getting rid of the score is a huge step in the right direction,

Which is why they generally ratify it with a few plus and minus points to give you an idea of how different people might like it.

http://kotaku.com/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-the-kotaku-review-1639361008

The above is probably the best review I read last year, it sold me on a game I had no idea about, and I was able to judge with reasonable accuracy whether I'd like the game, and I did.

 

[pantsmith]

Because I'm weird, I actually prefer the x/5 versus x/10 review format, and will miss their review scores as a result.

But really, a well-written opinion piece about a reviewer's thoughts on a game is at least a hundred times better than the usual explanation of what the game is and assigning it an arbitrary score.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

But I want a quickly identifiable summary of that persons opinion of the game. Be it a yes or no, and small blurb or a score with numbers, they represent the same thing.

This though:

The very purpose of a score is to define something entirely nebulous and subjective – fun – as narrowly as possible. The problem is that narrowing down something as broad and fluid as a video game isn't truly useful, especially in today's industry.

Can equally be applied to the reviews themselves. Replace the word 'score' with 'review'.
So if that is the position, why do any review at all? You are still just defining something subjective, just with words instead of numbers.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Nobody should have scores. Good job on making the change.