>>> what? A review without a score is just.. pointless..
and reviews had saved me from wasting money on crap games many times (like 5 times just this year)..
>>> what? A review without a score is just.. pointless..
and reviews had saved me from wasting money on crap games many times (like 5 times just this year)..
>> The black orb glitters ominously... but nothing happens..
I, like most people in this thread, am not a fan of review scores. Use your writing to communicate to me your thoughts on the game, don't throw a number at me or use it as a crutch. I like that GameCritics include scores at the bottom of their reviews as plain text that must be highlighted in order to see.
In regards to reviews, I tend to ignore them. This is for 2 main reasons.
1. Reviews are based on personal opinion. For example, I could rate the new Mario Kart Game as 11/10, but someone playing the game with me could score it as a 5. The average would be 8 despite the fact I really enjoyed it, and the other person thought it was just average.
2. Review Scores tend to be wonky, and players take these score to heart. Recently, the guys over at Edge Magazine gave Yoshi's New Island a 5/10. The people who read this review on /r/nintendo exploded because someone dared to criticise a game the might like. There were even talks of people boycotting the magazine because of this low score. People played the game when it came out, and they agreed with the score. It was a generally mediocre game when compared to the originals. Didn't stop anyone throwing a tantrum when someone didn't like that they liked.
No one should award games a 10/10 score. This means that there is no room for improvement in the game and there are no flaws. Every game is flawed in some respect, be it run time, difficultly, glitches. At the same time I've seen reviews for games (lets say Alone in the Dark 360/PS3) scoring in at 8/10, 7/10 despite being a horrible broken mess of a game. I can generally grasp if I'll like the games based on trailers and screenshots of the game. The reviews however don't mean anything to me anymore.
Personally, I'm not surprised when I don't see the numbers 0 - 4 crop up that often if at all because I generally can't think of many games that would score that low. I've been reviewing for three years and there's only been two occasions where I scored something under five, which is below average for me.
Several months back I would have agreed with this, but I've played a couple of games since then where I couldn't think of anything negative to say so they got a ten by default. If you can't think of anything bad to say what are you supposed to do?Originally Posted by Mr. Shauna
Averages and aggregates are ignorable, but reviews can still be valuable. I've heard some reviewers make the point that for reviews to be useful, you should find a reviewer that you personally tend to agree with. Which is what I try to do.
Like when I want to know if a new RPG is good, I'll ask a friend that I know enjoys RPGs and has enjoyed many of the same ones I've enjoyed in the past. Their opinion will probably be relevant. Similarly I'll try to find a reviewer that seems to like the same stuff I like, and keep coming back to them.
Most games I get I don't read reviews for just because the games I get lately are generally for things I would be buying anyways probably. If there is a game (or anything really) that I'm unsure of, I like to look at at least 1 professional review and then a few reviews on places like Amazon from the low end, middle end, and high end just to get a sense of the details that stuck out to people. That can give me a fairly good idea on if I'll like it. While I don't like scores in general, it does make it easy at a glance to see the trending scores people give, and it makes it easier to find the types of reviews I'm looking for.
>>> Incredible how people waste money here, games are not cheap you know..
If you dont like reviews atleast rent the games first..
>> The black orb glitters ominously... but nothing happens..
This is what a lot of reviewers do, and this is why the scoring system is skewed. If people are using a 0-10 scoring system but aren't utilising the 0-4 range for the worst games they look at, the scores are weighted to the top end. This means games that are scored a 5, which is 50% and should be at least a pass mark, are considered the worst games out there by readers. It also means that reviewers that do utilise their full 0-10 scale cannot have their review scores compared to those who use the weighted system, as the resulting aggregates are meaningless.
streme Wheelie
Recognized Member
What would a game have to do to score that low? Ride to Hell: Retribution was buggy to the point of unplayability, looked terrible, had a paperthin plot and was generally seen as an affront to gaming. The latest Rambo game is in a similar vein, being utterly bland and uninspired. What would you give those games if not below 5?
If a game is playable, that does not mean it is entitled to a 5. I also don't think we should not hand out 10s, because if you are weighting games against "THE PERFECT GAME" then most of them are probably in the negatives because the future holds endless possibilities. 10/10 means a game is near perfect or better, because perfection is subjective and nobody has a standardised scale.
What would you rate Tetris when compared to Grand Theft Auto V or Call of Duty: Ghosts? Tetris has trout graphics, repetitive music that relies on nostalgia, has tight but extremely limited and repetitive gameplay, and there is no chooseable gameplay difficulty or customisation options. Tetris also has no campaign, no multiplayer, and no free-roaming ability, let alone dialogue. 0/10.
The way I calculate my numbers isn't the same as other critics. I subtract by the cons. Every game I look at starts at ten by default until I find a con worth noting. A game would have to have ten cons or more to get a 0/10 from me and I'd have to play those games you mentioned in order to tell you how they'd rate. It isn't a perfect system and for a while I stopped using numbers altogether until last September. But it's worked for me in the long run.What would a game have to do to score that low? Ride to Hell: Retribution was buggy to the point of unplayability, looked terrible, had a paperthin plot and was generally seen as an affront to gaming. The latest Rambo game is in a similar vein, being utterly bland and uninspired. What would you give those games if not below 5?
If a game is playable, that does not mean it is entitled to a 5. I also don't think we should not hand out 10s, because if you are weighting games against "THE PERFECT GAME" then most of them are probably in the negatives because the future holds endless possibilities. 10/10 means a game is near perfect or better, because perfection is subjective and nobody has a standardised scale.
Games are rated on a case by case basis for me. The only times I do comparisons is when the game is a sequel or a part of the same genre.
streme Wheelie
Recognized Member
"For me" is a key phrase there: not everyone follows these standards. There is no universal standard, and as such, something like Metacritic is inherently flawed because the data it uses is inconsistent and unevenly weighted.
How do you determine what is serious enough of a flaw to dock marks? What aspects do you favour? The problem with giving an objective rating like a number to a subjective enterprise like a video game review means that the number is a suggestion at best.
And if Loony BoB's (or anybody's, given the variability in those lists) Top 100 games is anything to go by, a marker of a game's greatness does not equally translate into the amount of fun it generates for a person.
Yeah, I get what you're saying.
It depends on the game. The only things I can think of off the top of my head that can apply for any game would be glitches and I tend to lump glitches together as one minus.
Burn on Loony BoB!
This is interesting to me. If a game has so many technical glitches that it is practically unplayable, are they considered to be only one flaw? Is that game still eligible for a 9/10 by your system?
It depends on the game. The only things I can think of off the top of my head that can apply for any game would be glitches and I tend to lump glitches together as one minus.
I haven't encountered this situation so I can't say. The first game I reviewed where glitches were mentioned was Dark Souls, and the glitches were more of a WTF than game breaking. Arkham Origins had on three separate occasions bugged to the point where I had to restart the game, but I thought the auto-save feature was a redeemable addition to combat this and it didn't happen often. Assassin's Creed III had a couple of glitches that ruined sidequests and moved your character into position for the plot to play out ruining immersion into the story and I separated those by two. Though that's mainly because I wasn't sure if the latter counted as a glitch or not. I may have to reevaluate my system.This is interesting to me. If a game has so many technical glitches that it is practically unplayable, are they considered to be only one flaw? Is that game still eligible for a 9/10 by your system?
It depends on the game. The only things I can think of off the top of my head that can apply for any game would be glitches and I tend to lump glitches together as one minus.
Or give ET a 9/10 and unlock the Ultimate Trollage achievement.
What would such a game look like? Something with brilliant writing and gameplay concepts that just so happens to be horribly glitchy? The idea of this is interesting. Can you think of any examples?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
