Should review scores be abolished?

[Vexer1]

Even those don't take that long to read though.

[Herschie1]

A lot of times I'll be at People Play Games, or Games Then and Now in Chicago, and I'll be wanting to see if a classic game is worth it or not. This is the first site that I come to, and often time my wife will be nagging me to get a move on (Hey, two can play that game as I often do when we're shoe shopping!). So I'll need to make a snap decision, and the grades help tremendously.

[Rev1]

[QUOTE=Vexer]

I just don't get why people want to skim over reviews, I really don't see how time is an issue as it doesn't take that along to read a review(even a full page one only takes about five minutes to read).

[/QUOTE]

I can definitely understand that but we live in a busy world and people don't always want to read everything. If review scores weren't there you'd be pretty much forced to read every single review that came out, in depth, to gather what was actually good or not (5 minutes to read x how many games you're interested in looking at). Goosebumps the video game and Halo 15 would require the same time dedication if people were actually interested. Even then, people are always going to bias what they read and what they don't somehow. If review scores didn't exist then people would probably just be like, "Goosebumps has got to suck, Halo rocks, I'll read that," and not even pay attention to the other review, potentially missing out on a good game (although chances are the consumer would probably be right). Of course, I doubt this will change your mind but it is how I view things. I feel like their really isn't a right answer to this because people are always going to shortcut what they do. Still, great topic.

[scotland171]

Video game scores are just part of a larger discussion on metrics in general.  Everything gets scored, either with relatives like 'rank your employees from best to worst' or subjective but absolute like 'on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being unplayable and 10 being the game that defines gaming' to objective absolute like how much that marijuana weighs.

Everything gets a score or a rank.  Hospitals.  Colleges.   How well you do your work. How fast you run.  How good is a video game.   Fortune 500 companies.  Quarterly earnings reports and stock prices.  A pitchers ERA or a batting average.  Grade point average and SAT scores.  IQ tests.  Your vision.  Your blood alcohol level.  Your FICA credit score.   Whatever Google uses to score websites for searches.  Et cetera. 

Scores are tools with rules.   And they can be very important.  You can urge people to stay qualitative (read the review) all you want, but its neither practical nor desirable.  If everyone can game the system, then the values are become basically the same and the score becomes moot - killed by its success.    You could advocate ranking like Dave does, but that has drawbacks as well.    Or come up with a scale like some sports that start all games at 10, but deduct for each flaw, glitch, failure.  Or have a degree of difficulty modifier to reward games for trying to do something novel.     Anyway, its the internet age, if you disagree with a game's score, then there are no shortages of platforms to voice your opinion.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=Rev][QUOTE=Vexer]

I just don't get why people want to skim over reviews, I really don't see how time is an issue as it doesn't take that along to read a review(even a full page one only takes about five minutes to read).

[/QUOTE]

I can definitely understand that but we live in a busy world....[/QUOTE]

Minor note: No, we do not.  We have more time and ease than at any point in history, but we think we are busy because we consider consumption (both of physical and digital goods) a job.  Reading game reviews is not being busy.  That is leisure.  You can't be too busy with leisure.  Anyone skipping reading reviews is skipping something that is an enjoyable waste of time so they can hurry up and get to wasting money so they can waste time on something else, so they can decide 10 hours in that they really just want the next thing to waste their time and money on anyway. 

I think that is the issue with review scores.  People want to skip to them because they don't consider an enjoyable activity (reading things written about your favourite hobby) as enjoyable as the process of just telling someone to shut up and take their money. 

"Oh man, that review of the thing I love and am interested in as a hobby is sooooo long.  Can't I just skip to the end so I can go out and buy something already!  Then I can hurry home to not enjoy it once I see there's another shiny thing."

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=scotland17]Video game scores are just part of a larger discussion on metrics in general.  Everything gets scored, either with relatives like 'rank your employees from best to worst' or subjective but absolute like 'on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being unplayable and 10 being the game that defines gaming' to objective absolute like how much that marijuana weighs.

Everything gets a score or a rank.  Hospitals.  Colleges.   How well you do your work. How fast you run.  How good is a video game.   Fortune 500 companies.  Quarterly earnings reports and stock prices.  A pitchers ERA or a batting average.  Grade point average and SAT scores.  IQ tests.  Your vision.  Your blood alcohol level.  Your FICA credit score.   Whatever Google uses to score websites for searches.  Et cetera. 

Scores are tools with rules.   And they can be very important.  You can urge people to stay qualitative (read the review) all you want, but its neither practical nor desirable.  If everyone can game the system, then the values are become basically the same and the score becomes moot - killed by its success.    You could advocate ranking like Dave does, but that has drawbacks as well.    Or come up with a scale like some sports that start all games at 10, but deduct for each flaw, glitch, failure.  Or have a degree of difficulty modifier to reward games for trying to do something novel.     Anyway, its the internet age, if you disagree with a game's score, then there are no shortages of platforms to voice your opinion.

[/QUOTE]
Well, I'll give you this, review scores are a lot better than I.Q. scores and Batting Average at least.  At least review scores are tied to something sensible (a measure of quality for one person).  I.Q. and Batting Average are both horrible, pointless numbers that actually measure nothing.  Sorry, statistical pet peeve. 

I get that you're saying it isn't just in games, but in games it really is unique in how it is used.  I am not aware of camera crew taking a financial  hit if Star Wars Episode 7 gets a certain review score.  I don't see a lot of forums erupt into war because of an SAT grade. 

In this industry (and hobby) it has become disgusting in how it treats art.  Game companies can't take risks, because the reviews might be bad.  Game companies try to hold reviews hostage (look up the Jimquisition from last week about Shadow of Mordor for some scary legal rules sent to reviewers) because they are terrified of them.  People who pour months or years into a project are docked pay if enough people in the general media don't like the cool, experimental hook in their game.   It makes companies risk averse. 

And the fans.  Oh God, the fans.  Go to the comment sections on the last 10 reviews on IGN, and read down them a few pages.  Then come back here.  Done.  See what is being produced.  This is how dumb the current system is trying to make EVERYONE who likes games.  Sheep who can be sold a number instead of a thought.  Because you could, if you tried hard enough (again go watch that Mordor video) buy a review score.  And if that's all anyone wants, well, you can buy their interest. 

[scotland171]

Its always enjoyable to have a conversation with you, Atarifever:

Because you asked me to, I did go to IGN - I'll start with tv show for a baseline.
*Gotham (TV show) is getting a 7.7 "Good" and the comments were civil and of various opinions.

Went to Game Reviews -- I see a grade slider filter and an 'editors choice' filter.  That's a sign people do filter by score.

* Evil Within is 8.7 "Great" 13 paragraph review with 4 embedded videos. (To watch the videos is 13 minutes).  Comments were civil and fair.
* Borderlands the Pre-Sequel is 8 "Great". 10 paragraph review with 1 hour and 20 minutes of embedded video. Comments were civil and meh
* Bayonetta 2 is 9.5 "Amazing". 13 paragraph review with 28 minutes of embedded video. Comments civil and enthusiastic
* Alien Isolation is 5.9 "Mediocre". 14 paragraph review with 44 minutes of embedded video.  Comments civil and actually mentioning a sloppy review

That's a good enough sample.  Basically, the reviews ranged from 15 minutes to an hour and half to read with video.  They ranged from 5.9 to 9.5. Comments seemed okay.  Thank golly for scores.    

I did read about the Shadows of Mordor thing.  Apparently if you agreed to just be an 'entertainer' (e.g., a promoter) then you got an advanced copy as long as you agreed to some rules.  These might include just being very positive, ignoring any glitches, and talking up some aspects of the gameplay, and having your video get approved prior to posting.  In return, you got the advanced copy and the page clicks to make you money.   Quid pro quo.  You could also negotiate that contract.   Those that actually wanted to critically review the game had to wait for retail release.   Not a nice thing, but if everyone is above board that they are just entertainers/promoters and not reviewers, all good.  If they try to be both...not so good.

As for taking risks....yeah, that's always tough.  There has never been a reward for taking a risk...just for being successful.  There are no great and glorious accolades in this business.  No Oscars or Emmies, just money.   Maybe some brand recognition, but mostly that's just a means to get more money.   

The bigs are never going to heavily invest in risk.   That's why occasionally something small will hit bigtime, like Minecraft which was an indie game initially.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=scotland17]


* Alien Isolation is 5.9 "Mediocre". 14 paragraph review with 44 minutes of embedded video.  Comments civil and actually mentioning a sloppy review

That's a good enough sample.  Basically, the reviews ranged from 15 minutes to an hour and half to read with video.  They ranged from 5.9 to 9.5. Comments seemed okay.  Thank golly for scores.    


[/QUOTE]
Good read, and good research.  Enjoyable as always. 

In the particular case I quoted, they did a podcast and a separate video and feature on how bad the comments were on that one.  Like IGN itself did that.  In response to the horrible comments section on their own article.  In particular, on IGN, I have never seen a reviewer so obviously attempting to explain and elaborate on his scoring, and the comments being so far off the actual review.  I think you and I have different definitions of both civil.  To put it in perspective, he's the host of thier Xbox podcast, and he went on the Playstation podcast to explain himself, I am assuming because that podcast posts earlier and he really needed to get his points across. 

Still didn't work.  He got such civil comments so far today as:

"Hahahaha This is the s(*#^$% review I've seen in aeons, good grief, admit that you suck reviewer, I loved this game scary and hard."

"This reviewer played this game on hard difficulty only because the game recommended the difficulty??? lol, i thought you had to be professionals to get into big game journalism sites like ign, meaning that hard difficulty should be ideal. mind you ign finished the cod ghosts campaign 5 hours after i did, check out that review.
Im sorry that sega didn't pay you enough ign..."

"Your professional opinion is a joke, Ryan.

IGN needs to do something about this if they want to keep up appearances as a "respected' game "review" site."

"Boohoooo this game sucks and there should be no HARD mode!! Game should of only been 5 HOURS! Lmao And there should of been 100 customizable assailt rifles! And I would of given it a 9! Lol ahahaaa"

"Shame on you IGN!! You gave Heavenly sword a 7 !?! WTF for being too short. Now they give Alien 5.9, because it's too hard & too long. No wonder people don't respect your reviews any more. At least get a 2nd opinion, coz Gamesradar gave it a "BIG FAT 90%"

"I am guessing Ryan McAffery has the attention span of a gnat and a constant need for gratification.

The game is amazing. It's stressful, it's exciting and it's not your typical fps.

I am having a blast!"

That's in the first few scrolls down. 

Now what is the obvious bias displayed in the review?  What sloippiness did Ryan McCaffary partake in? 

He argued that a jump scare can't maintain its effect over 15 hours, that it feels like it is ending at least twice before it does, making it drag on, that the ending is really badly handled, and that the game suggests you play it on hard, but is likely too hard on that setting.  He even says he doesn't normally play set on hard on a first play, but that the game itself says you should. 

And as for the sloppiness, he clearly states that he loved the game and got what it was doing for a bunch of hours, and then got bored.  Getting bored in a horror game is no bad?  Understanding that horror cannot be maintained infinitely is sloppy?  Arguing that entire sections seemed tacked on is not a worthy critique? 


It is not hard to see what is wrong with calling someone's credibility into question because they mark a game TOO HARD compared to other sites. 


Honestly, some of the earliest comments on that article were "guess Sega didn't pay you enough for a good score."  That theme has continued for days there.  A low score means someone had to have been BRIBED IMPROPERLY.  This is what this focus on scores has ended with.  If a game scores high, it bought the score.  If it scores low, the reviewer was charging too much for the bribe.

No one there understands the score because they didn't read the review.  They looked at the score, did a quick skim of the article, and then argued somehow bribery was the answer for the low score, not anything actually argued in the review.

Read that review and tell me it honestly sounds sloppy. 

[Tron1]

Skim over reviews? I have to skim just the posts here. You guys are writing books for posts. I like scores. Take em for what you want. If some people refuse to see anything, but the score then that's their prerogative. Don't remove scores for those of us that like em.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=Tron]Skim over reviews? I have to skim just the posts here. You guys are writing books for posts. I like scores. Take em for what you want. If some people refuse to see anything, but the score then that's their prerogative. Don't remove scores for those of us that like em. [/QUOTE]

I'd apologize, but I kind of wrote that for people who would read it. 

I can score it for you. 

I gave Scotland's reply a 10 out of 10 for quality.  I then argued one of his points at length because I thought it illustrated my point, and not his, perfectly.

+ Lots of quotes in Atarifever's work, showing he did the research.
+ The article Scotland posted was actually the prime example of what Atarifever dislikes about scores, giving the argument a decent flow despite its length

- Very wordy
- Too many quotes not in quote boxes
- Tone a little "ranty."
- Okay, very ranty. 

Overall: 65% (what I call a MUN B)