Topic: What are your thoughts on Review Scores?

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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!!!"

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.

@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.

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.

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)