Topic: IGN Changes Scoring System--Irritating Arguments Cease Forever

The only publication I've ever seen that gets scores right anyway is Edge. For everyone else, scores are used as a shock tactic, at best (OMG IT GOT A 1/10! OMG it ONLY GOT 89%!!!!), and rarely gel with the content of the review itself.

Even more often scores are used as a way of disguising a lack of content in the review itself. Games journalism has failed to ever grow up - too often a review is a simple description of the game, and then the score is meant to represent its "quality."

As I said - I'd be happy for them to do away with scores altoghter. Of course, for that to happen the games journalism industry would need to learn how to properly critique, which ain't going to happen. Doesn't pay enough, and games publications are in the habit of hiring enthusiasts instead of proper journalists. So, until that changes, game scores are necessary to actually 'review' a game.

I would much rather have octagons to represent the score.
That would make it much easier for me to judge whether or not a game is worth my money.

ftw

i do believe this thread proves that the arguments will never cease -- they'll just change focus, is all. :3

Waltz, do you actually believe this stuff your spouting or are you just trying to stir up trouble?

I mean I'd much rather read a review from someone who knows about gaming and what to look for when it comes time to write a review. I can overlook a slight lack of eloquence when it comes to the actual writing if the writer covers the questions I have about a game in their review. I certainly don't see how it would be as good or any better to have someone well-versed in journalistic writing that didn't know much about video games writing reviews of them. I do wish people would put less stock in the actual numbers, but many sites view them as important for those readers who choose not to read the actual review and rather quickly skim the numerical ratings instead.

I beg to differ. A 9/10 game is typically awesome and a 1/10 game sucks big time

Well, let me see, from what I've seen, he's also a freelance reviewer. Perhaps he's just talking out of personal experience?

I know what he is, I'm just asking if it's for real or just for kicks.

Eh, I think I was trying to poke fun at him, but in retrospect, I should've quoted him directly instead of quoting you. My apologies.

When does WaltzElf post arguments just for kicks?

Not like I haven't said this a million times before (maybe even in this thread, don't remember or feel like checking), but it IS possible for a review and score to properly match up, and a lot of the NLife staff (especially Corbie) excell at it. All we've got to do now is teach the REST of the gaming journalism industry...yeah...

I like reviews with scores rather than reviews with none.
Also,most "reviewers" on professional sites like IGN suck big time and are biased.

_{let's not with the calling down death upon IGN's reviewing staff, plz -- TBD}

While scores are not 100% accurate, they do make a simple summary that a majority of people can understand.

Bit from A) and a bit from B).

Games journalists are, by and large, the lowest paid, and lowest qualified journalists around. It's quite easy to be the editor of a professionally-produced gaming publication before you hit 30. Hell, you can do it before you reach 25 with a bit of luck.

Of course inexperienced journalists and editors are going to make mistakes, and gaming publications are full of them. Props for effort? Sure, but the quality difference between a journalist on a prominent gaming publication, and a movie, arts, food etc critic with a major newspaper/ whatever is quite big.

Of course knowledge of the material is required to be a games journalist! Never said it wasn't - it's bad journalistic practice to not know what you're writing about - business journalists need to know business, science journalists need to know science, political journalists need to know politics, but being qualified needs a bit more than sheer enthusiasm.

I would just like to see games journalism grow up and reach a quality equivilent of other forms of professional writing. That's all. When that happens, scores will be almost unnecessary, because the quality of the writing will match the enthusiasm, and the whole industry will be the better for it.

This is just my opinion - and it's formed by the especially-shocking quality of Australian games journalism, so of course it should be taken as such. I'm not trying to pick a fight, as such.

The scoring system isn't that great anyhows (in my honest opinion).

If you like a game which the majority may not like, don't be afraid to say that you like it...as it's your opinion and it kind of makes you an individual for not following the crowd. (Popular games excempt if only because many of us like popular games and that cannot be helped)

How do you feel about RottenTomatoes?
Should the site take down it's tomato-meter, and just have blurbs and links to reviews of a movie, in which each individual review also does not assign a score to the movie?
If review scores didn't exist, then we would have to:
1. Pick a few games to get really excited about.
2. Pick a few sites that review games, and read a review from each site for each game, to make sure that none of the reviews missed anything that might be important for us.

I actually have a lot of games that I wouldn't have bought if they didn't have a high review score, because I would have never heard of the games. NyxQuest, A Boy and His Blob, and Ys Book I & II are examples.

I don't use scores, and I don't have to pick a few games to get really excited about. That's kind of a silly suggestion. The internet is not that old, and people got by before Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes just fine.

Not that the ability to do without something is an argument against its utility, but I just mean to say that your first point is baseless. I generally use no other site but this. If there is an obscure game that catches my interest, I ask on the forum or just search and find the first two reviews -- or more likely, I watch someone play it on Youtube. It doesn't take that much effort to find out if you'd be interested in a game or not.

I'm mostly going with stuffgamer's contention that it's a lot easier to find games by review scores.
There are games that I had never heard of that I found by coming to this site, opening a list of games, then sorting by review score. I named 3 examples: A Boy and His Blob, Ys Book I & II, and NyxQuest.
If I just went by a list of genres, how many reviews for bad platformers would I have to read before coming across NyxQuest and ABAHB? It sure is a lot easier to step through the 10s, then the 9s, then the 8s, 7s, and 6s to find games you might like than it is to sort through a genre listing full of good and bad games alike. It's also much better than relying on happening-to-hear about a game.

Both games made front page news (here and on other sites), and both are among a relatively small number of games on their respective platforms once you realize that searching through virtual console platformers is an exercise in disappointment. I love platformers, but man are there a ton of awful ones -- not so on Wii or WiiWare, though.

It is very easy to keep up with reviews by simply checking one site regularly. You can even set Nintendo Life to update you via RSS (I think by individual game platform, too, if you're particular), so really, I don't see how it's an issue. I see when a game is announced and/or reviewed. I can tell at a glance if I want to read the review or not. Not once does score need to factor in.

What if I bought a Wii last week?

Good theoretical argument. The tendency to keep up with info as it comes out for systems you own is of no use for anything that happened before you bought said system.

Here's another one: Sometimes, people who DON'T follow gaming news as closely as we do want to know what games are good or bad. They missed the review that came out a week ago because they were busy doing other things. The scores make things a lot easier for them, too.