Forums

Topic: What are your thoughts on Review Scores?

Posts 1 to 18 of 18

Whydoievenbother

A while back, Nintendolife released a video in defense of review scores, and an article against them. That got me thinking, what does the community think of review scores? So here are a few questions about review scores:
1. Do you like review scores?
2. Do you use them?
3. Why do you like/dislike review scores?

NOTE: This is not at all going to influence NintendoLife in any way. This is alos not official. I would simply like to know the community's thoughts on review scores.

Edited on by Whydoievenbother

"I'll take a potato chip... AND EAT IT!"
Light Yagami, Death Note
"Ah, the Breakfast Club soundtrack! I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff!"
Phillip J. Fry, Futurama

Joeynator3000

I kinda stopped caring about scores at this point...I just look at the review itself.

My Monster Hunter Rise Gameplay
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzirEG5duST1bEJi0-9kUORu5SRfvuTLr

Discord server: https://discord.gg/fGUnxcK
Keep it PG-13-ish.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Joeynator3000

Buizel

Review scores are a great way to gauge the overall quality of the time. If a game is getting 9s and 10s across the board, with say a 94 on Metecritic, it is undoubtably a great game. Something consistently getting something like a 4 is probably garbage and/or would only appeal to a very specific group of people.

If you're interested in a game there's always the option to read/watch the review itself and see the author's justification of the score, as well as learning a little more about the title and how it may fit your personal tastes.

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

MarcelRguez

Buizel wrote:

If a game is getting 9s and 10s across the board, with say a 94 on Metecritic, it is undoubtably a great game.

In a world of questionable journalistic outlets and dumbed down design conventions, I find that hard to believe. Nevertheless, I don't think scores are the problem. It's people comparing the scores of games in completely different genres (meaning, the videogame community as a whole) what makes the scoring system a problem. Not to mention what those scores might mean to publishers, but that's another can of worms I don't really want to open.

From a user perspective, I don't find games like, say, Tropical Freeze and Uncharted 4 comparable at all. Now, I know this is common sense and that everyone is aware of this on a rational level, but I think people tend to forget it more often than not. Besides that, I think part of the detachment from current videogame journalism felt by a portion of the readers comes from the extremely diverse nature of the medium itself. I'm sure I could name a couple of games from different consoles and, when trying to give them a score, we'd see a good range between the highest and lowest score, mainly due to different users having different preferences when it comes to which aspect should have more weight in the review. The worst thing is, maybe both sides of the spectrum could have compelling arguments to justify their position. I'd like to see different review guidelines depending on the genre of the game in question. Reviewers already do this on a rational level, but I think the difference needs to be addressed more strongly.

What I mean to say is that gaming is such a quickly evolving and diverse medium that establishing review conventions has proven to be a very difficult task. Reviewers tend to use this kind of Frankenstein, one-size-fits-all review system for many different genres (the length aspect comes to mind as the worst offender) and I don't think it works well at all. Honestly, I think the best kind of videogame reviews nowadays (and I never thought I'd say this) are hands-on videos, streaming and YouTube footage. It only makes sense that in an audio-visual medium we get a feeling of both aspects of the product. And hey, if the streamer can give his or her impressions on the interaction aspect (controls, game feel and similar things), then all the better.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Luna_110

I really don't care about the number. If I've got time, I'll read the whole review, but if not, I'll just read the pro and cons.
Although, reviews aren't the only thing I keep in mind when I decide to get a game. I'll have a look at trailers and video footage of gameplay. The game might have excellent reviews, but if the gameplay isn't my cup of tea, I won't get it - like Splatoon or Mario Maker.

I have a chronic lack of time, for everything.

Now playing: Okami HD, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

Switch Friend Code: SW-8536-9884-6679 | 3DS Friend Code: 0877-2091-1186 | Nintendo Network ID: Luna_cs

Peek-a-boo

I prefer the old late 80's, early 90's method of reviewing which is:

'BUY!', 'rent' or 'avoid'.

Or stick to the old fashioned five star ratings that are commonly used to review films and theatre productions.

I do laugh at websites that rate something like 8.4 out of 10 though; game A is better than game B because it it got 0.1 point more. I mean, that's ridiculous!

Peek-a-boo

Buizel

Marce2240 wrote:

Buizel wrote:

If a game is getting 9s and 10s across the board, with say a 94 on Metecritic, it is undoubtably a great game.

It's people comparing the scores of games in completely different genres (meaning, the videogame community as a whole) what makes the scoring system a problem. Not to mention what those scores might mean to publishers, but that's another can of worms I don't really want to open.

Peek-a-boo wrote:

I prefer the old late 80's, early 90's method of reviewing which is:

'BUY!', 'rent' or 'avoid'.

Or stick to the old fashioned five star ratings that are commonly used to review films and theatre productions.

I do laugh at websites that rate something like 8.4 out of 10 though; game A is better than game B because it it got 0.1 point more. I mean, that's ridiculous!

I think the problem here is interpretation. Of course, there's simply no comparing two games of different genres, or even games of the same genre, to the finest level of detail such "X is better than Y because it got 8.5 rather than 8.4". This is why I would argue that review scores are good for a rough guide, but shouldn't really be taken too seriously. Again, I'll say that a game consistently getting 9s and 10s is likely a quality title (on @Peekaboo's scale it would be a definite "BUY!")...can anyone give me an example where this is not the case?

As to publishers misusing things like Metacritic...I would hope that someone whose job is dedicated to market research would take the time to read reviews and form a balanced, realistic opinion about what was good and bad about their products...though different publishers seem to have different philosophies on this.

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

Shinion

1. Yes.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "use them", hopefully not in the way that people have/will be using Uncharted 4 and other 90+ Metacritic scoring games to validate their own tastes and preferences over others and even attack other people's preferences and dodge criticism of their own likings. People that do that need to take a hard look at themselves. If I ever "use" review scores, it would be to help advise people about which games are worth their money, as generally games that review well are more worthwhile than games that don't review well. Obviously.
3. I like review scores because despite what people may think who become consumed with rage at them they are utterly harmless and help both critics and consumers in best separating the wheat from the chaff.

Shinion

Octane

Yes, I like them. Uncharted 4 has a metacritic score of 93, and I bought that game, therefore my gaming tastes are superior.

Octane

gcunit

As my recent financial review has highlighted, I don't have the income to regularly indulge in newly released games. Therefore much of my time is spent looking at games from the past. Review scores help me grab a big list of games on a system and have a rough idea how they were appraised at the time across a large number of reviewers. If I'm looking to build a collection of games for my Wii, for example, then the Top 100 games as scored on Metacritic gives me a great starting point to base my decisions on, once I've done more research.

So I don't usually buy soley based on a Metacritic score, but it's usually the first thing I check on a game as it gives me convenient access to the reviews that scored it highly and those that scored it not so highly.

I'd much rather place my trust in a Metacritic score (when aggregated over 30+ reviews) than the unbiased (or potentially otherwise) opinion of a select group of reviewers.

Metacritic is also good for exposing you to genres you mightn't always otherwise consider.

You guys had me at blood and semen.

What better way to celebrate than firing something out of the pipe?

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

My Nintendo: gcunit | Nintendo Network ID: gcunit

Megas75

Reviews need to get rid of scores completely. Far too often people never read the review itself, they'll just scroll down and see what number/letter it has and judge it from there, despite there not really having much stock to it alone. It also doesn't help that the current mentality of gamers is often "below 8 = game is sh*t/wurst game evur!!11!1!!!"

Steam/NNID/Xbox Gamertag - Megas75

MarcelRguez

Buizel wrote:

can anyone give me an example where this is not the case?

Gladly. Off Metacritic's top 200, and only listing games I've played, obviously:

GTA III and IV
The Uncharted series as a whole
Wind Waker
Metal Gear Solid V
Undertale
Flipnote Studio
Final Fantasy XII
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Half of Bethesda's output, especially Skyrim and Fallout 4

I think those would suffice. The thing is, I could make an argument, just by analyzing the design choices of the game, to support why I don't consider these entries worth mentioning when talking about "must-buy" games. The metacritic score of all these games is 92 or more which, in my opinion, is a score that should be reserved only to revolutionary games. And again, people might disagree with my selection, and that's absolutely fine. The thing is that, as I mentioned, there's no consensus about how some games should be scored. I'd never give clearly unfinished games like Wind Waker or MGSV such a high praise, especially when comparing them to previous entries in their respective franchise. Same for games with above-average plots narrated through cutscenes and/or with sub-par gameplay.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Buizel

Marce2240 wrote:

Buizel wrote:

can anyone give me an example where this is not the case?

Gladly. Off Metacritic's top 200, and only listing games I've played, obviously:

GTA III and IV
The Uncharted series as a whole
Wind Waker
Metal Gear Solid V
Undertale
Flipnote Studio
Final Fantasy XII
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Half of Bethesda's output, especially Skyrim and Fallout 4

I think those would suffice. The thing is, I could make an argument, just by analyzing the design choices of the game, to support why I don't consider these entries worth mentioning when talking about "must-buy" games. The metacritic score of all these games is 92 or more which, in my opinion, is a score that should be reserved only to revolutionary games. And again, people might disagree with my selection, and that's absolutely fine. The thing is that, as I mentioned, there's no consensus about how some games should be scored. I'd never give clearly unfinished games like Wind Waker or MGSV such a high praise, especially when comparing them to previous entries in their respective franchise. Same for games with above-average plots narrated through cutscenes and/or with sub-par gameplay.

How much of this comes down to personal opinion though?

On the whole, the games you've listed there are largely regarded as some of the greatest games ever.

The Uncharted series, for example, is considered one of most revolutionary franchises of the 7th generation, and Uncharted 2 was recently voted as the best Playstation game of all time by Push Square readers: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2016/05/site_news_uncharted_2_...

Wind Waker is a fan favourite in a critically acclaimed series, and considered one of the best Gamecube titles.

GTA III was revolutionary for its time and pretty much kicked off the Sandbox genre.

etc.

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

Shinion

@Buizel Uncharted 2? Uncharted 2? The best PlayStation game ever? Does that refer to solely in house games, exclusives or include third party games? Whatever the criteria was, I can safely say I'll never understand why people love that game so much.

Shinion

Buizel

TheLastLugia wrote:

@Buizel Uncharted 2? Uncharted 2? The best PlayStation game ever? Does that refer to solely in house games, exclusives or include third party games? Whatever the criteria was, I can safely say I'll never understand why people love that game so much.

From the look of the list, there seems to be no restrictions as to what is a "Playstation game". My personal opinion is that Uncharted 2 isn't even the best in the series, let alone the best game on Playstation. However, whether you think it's the greatest game in the world or not, it's not a fluke that it ended up on top.

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

Spagem

Peek-a-boo wrote:

I do laugh at websites that rate something like 8.4 out of 10 though; game A is better than game B because it it got 0.1 point more. I mean, that's ridiculous!

Agreed. It's just so goofy when game reviewers give a rating, pin-pointing exactly how much they liked it by the decimal. Just keep it simple.

Spagem

3DS Friend Code: 2406-5638-4729 | My Nintendo: Spagem | Nintendo Network ID: smp1998

DefHalan

Review scores are good to get a quick idea of how a person enjoyed the game. I have a bigger problem with how we currently review games rather than just the score. People should focus more of their engagement with the game, rather than the technical accomplishments. Whenever I see a review talk about how it is impressive how much they fit on screen, without talking about why it matters so much is on screen, then I get annoyed.

I find reading the final paragraph of most reviews will give you enough information to know if the product is right for you. The final paragraph often gives a summary of the entire review, and if it doesn't then normally the reviewer is focused on a single point to much to seem fair.

I don't like metacritic and I don't like how making a "big" game is more rewarding than making a engaging game. If you knock a point off just because the game is a 2D platformer and you are tired of 2D platformers, then you should probably stop reviewing products.

EDIT: Also I hate GOTY list where they just take the highest rated games and try to pick the "Best one" from that list. I am sorry, if a game that got a 5/10 stays with you longer than the newest 9/10 inflated budget AAA holiday title, then why shouldn't the 5/10 game be considered Game of the Year (not game of last month)

Edited on by DefHalan

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

MarcelRguez

Buizel wrote:

How much of this comes down to personal opinion though?

A large part of it. That's my point. There are some common guidelines when it comes to reviewing games no matter the outlet, but given how varied videogames are as a medium, one size cannot fit all, especially when the intended audience of those reviews might or might not share the guidelines provided.

I gave some of my personal ones (games that take player agency away often without a meaningful purpose should be penalized, games that are clearly unfinished should be penalized), and I'm sure many people disagree with them. The thing is, this happens with every single medium. Film reviews in particular share some of these problems too. Book reviews are so diverse and offer so many approaches you might as well cater to the niche that shares your mindset instead of trying to appeal to the larger audience and mute your writing as a result.

Again, the problem doesn't have as much to do with the reviews and scores per se. The problem comes from things like that "best PlayStation game of all time" list. I doubt Uncharted would even make it to my top 100 list, let alone be at first place. What's the criteria used to decide such a thing? How are these people comparing Uncharted to Final Fantasy Tactics, Symphony of the Night, Ōkami or Heavy Rain? It's an exercise in futility, I have a hard time considering it anything but clickbait, but people take this kind of articles at face value, and it does influence the industry big time. I don't blame reviewers, they're just giving a perfectly valid opinion, even if I think opinions should be a little more varied. I blame the people that get obsessed with these scores and the publishers that either manipulate the scores by buying the reviews or modify the product to appeal to reviewers.

DefHalan wrote:

I am sorry, if a game that got a 5/10 stays with you longer than the newest 9/10 inflated budget AAA holiday title, then why shouldn't the 5/10 game be considered Game of the Year (not game of last month)

Another funny topic. I agree with the idea that most of the AAA games on the market, while entertaining, are pretty bland, safe and forgettable. AA games used to be the ones that took larger risks and were, as a result, more memorable. Indies have filled the void somewhat, thankfully enough.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

  • Page 1 of 1

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.