Official review feedback thread - New: Jeff's FAQ about review system

The other day Jeff posted a new Letter from the Editor responding to common questions or concerns.

You are free to post constructive comments about the new review system either on his blog comments or here in this thread.

This consolidates previous topics on this subject, which are here and here. General feedback about gamespace page changes belongs here.

I don't quite understand the point of this thread when there are two threads that have been discussing these issues in great detail already. Are we supposed to re-post what has already been said in here? Why wasn't one of the other existing topics made a sticky?

Okay, here's a summary of most of my points:

There certainly isn't more to the review system now than there was before, it's had numerous features stripped out all of which have been well documented on this forum. The problems with the medal system have been clearly spelt out numerous times yet Jeff is still insisting they are better than component scores. That simply isn't the case!

He tells us the difficulty curve is still there in the new medal system, but it hasn't been seen yet. Well that's one prime example where component scores are superior, you could always see for every game exactly what it was about. Now, only special cases get singled out, how exactly does some obscure medal that stands for Easy become any more descriptive than just saying Easy?

Without component scores there is no way to see how a title earns its final rating. How do you see which multi-format game has the better graphics? How do you know if the music is any good? How do you know how much the reviewers personal influence has had on the score? You don't!

For example, I would say that tilt is quite an important, perhaps the most important category. It allows the reviewer to show how much his personal preferences have influenced the review. If you know you trust and have similar opinions to the reviewer you can be sure that it is a score you will agree with. If you don't, and we all have different tastes so some won't. Then you can look at the tilt and adjust the final rating yourself accordingly. The new review system doesn't take this into account at all.

I think tilt is a great feature, it's a prime example of something that set GameSpot apart from other sites that's now been lost. I don't think GameSpot realise just how much we appreciated these features.

I posted a suggestion on how the old system and new approach could work together quite well. It consists of:

2) Re-instate the component scores for Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value and Tilt.

3) Put information such as learning curve and difficulty back on the information panel.

4) Lose the formula for generating the final score based on component scores to save you having to fiddle the different aspects.

5) Keep the medals, because they might be useful to some.

6) Keep the new gamespace and review stlye with bigger screen-shots etc..

Basically we end up with something that looks like this but with emblems and no formula:

DiRT review

The argument about new games not being so reliant on the individual components is a valid point, but it doesn't make them un-important. If you keep them, but remove the formula, it means a game that has mediocre graphics can be given a 5 in that category but still score highly overall. It should then be obvious that graphics are not important to the title, and this will be expanded on in the text of the review.

Instead of trying to give us more information to make an informed decision GameSpot have removed a lot of the details that are important to us. It has made it much harder to make a judgment call based on the same game on different platforms, or even two games of the same genre on the same platform.

I still feel strongly that we should have been involved in the changes, it would have avoided a lot of the hassle that has arisen. We don't fear change, we just don't like devolution, the gamespace changes are mostly excellent. I'm sure when it works properly the new FLV player will be fantastic. I've said before, there are hundreds of excellent ideas posted here for ways to improve GameSpot that are ignored, yet they are happy to forge ahead with these unwelcome changes to the review system. What did GameSpot really have to fear by asking for our input?

I honestly still haven't seen a convincing reason why it needed to be changed in the first place. By all means add more information to reviews, but please don't take it away!

I think the biggest issue here is a desire to update what is a "antiquated" system in light of newer generation games and the way in which we experience them. Understandibly there's an issue with a set-in-stone formula when certain games don't need great graphics or great sound to be a great game. That being said, this newfound reliance on the emblems/badges doesn't fully explicate any attribute of a game unless that aspect is really good or really horrible, leaving many of the games recently reviewed without badges to describe aspects of the game which people like myself felt we received better from a scored value.

There is no context for these badges without such a score. For example, say a game has great voice acting but a so-so soundtrack. Under the old system, that usually was reflected in a score of say an 8 for sound, followed up with a shout out to the voice acting in the "Good" section, allowing us to know that voice acting ballooned the score, and by how much. It allowed us to see how subjective a given review was. These little details are what affected our views of a given game. Under that system, I knew better than to buy say Killer 7 because I saw what exactly had caused its score to be so high (and subsequently knew these were things that I don't find all that appealing in a game based on info from the Good/Bad).

Yes, the composite score couldn't really do a game like Guitar Hero justice because the Sound and playability of the songs were what really made that game. Under the composite score system, the sound amounted for very little and may have made a reviewerd get creative in the scoring in order to get the game the score it deserved.

I still stand by the argument that most gamers realize such things when they see a genre stamp on a game or are mildly observant when it comes to what type of games they prefer. We didn't really need to be told that graphics mean literally nothing for Brain Age or Catan. Nor am I dumb enough to suggest that Gamespot should go to an alternating system whereby they could decide upon the weighting of different components for the score. We simply seek context to the scores. All these other changes would be great with a context AKA scores for Sound, Gameplay, Tilt, Graphics, and Value.

Don't average them if you don't want to. I think we're all smart enough to make the call on what matters most to us for a given game. But give us a arena in which to make these judgments for ourselves. Then slap all the little badges you want all over the review page. At least then we could understand them more clearly.

EDIT: I also agree in the redundancy of this thread as those who were willing to post a sensible response at Jeff's original letter and the other threads have already said pretty similar things: Go back to .1 increments, bring back scores for the components, and you can keep all the other updates.

I actually like the whole new system. I read through what Jeff had to say and it made sense. The new system seems like a good way to get reviews across. The review seems less about the score this way and more about the detail of the review. The new medals back up the fact that its less about the score and more about what the editors have to say.

Its a big change and its weird to get used to but I think after some time, people will get used to it and grow to like it, just like every other big change around here.

I actually like the whole new system. I read through what Jeff had to say and it made sense. The new system seems like a good way to get reviews across. The review seems less about the score this way and more about the detail of the review. The new medals back up the fact that its less about the score and more about what the editors have to say.

Its a big change and its weird to get used to but I think after some time, people will get used to it and grow to like it, just like every other big change around here.

Caddy06_88

I agree that it makes sense to make some changes, but stripping out information is not the right way to do it. I really don't get on with the new medals at all, they look tacky and make no sense without reading the descriptions. They don't really say any more than the old component scores and you had them for every game. Now you just get a few and sometimes none at all, most of which just reiterate what is written directly beneath,

I've put my views in several places but I'll post here too because I feel very strongly about this.

I think a lot of peope have made a great many good points. I think the best point I've seen so far is in regards to the new 19 point scale. As someone noted, with any measurement, the last digit is always an approximation. There should be little difference, if any, between say an 8.2 and an 8.3. Without this resolution though, it introduces a great deal of imprecision to the scoring system. Where as with the old system, it meant little if a game fell one notch either way. Now a game on the edge between two scores will far far in either direction becoming significantly over or under rated. I have always found the difference between a game that score an 8.3 and one that scored an 8.7 to be quite significant. Those two games would now get the same score and that means a huge loss of information. Any change that makes it harder for me to determine where to spend my money is a bad one!

The next big gripe I have is the medals do not replace the component scores. I am very simpathetic to the fact that rating all types of games basd upon the same weighted scores is problematic. I do however contend that the componenet scores helped more than they hurt and that most people, including myself, are quite capable of mentally adjusting scores based upon whats important in a game. Even though they may have shortchanged certain genres, the component score were invaluable both for guaging a reviews feelings on the individual categories and for comparing games. Its not always easy to summarize a reviewers feelings on a specific subject. Language is subjective. What means one thing to a reviewer does not necesarily mean exactly the same thing to me. A simple numeric summary of a review does a tremendous job of clarifying exactly how a reviewer feels. That in turn makes it much easier to compare games.

Medals don't really fill the gap. They are basically just text which again is subjective, they so far dont do much beyond what was in the good and the bad, and they are reserved for only extreme cases. As Jeff himself points out in his latest letter, its like taking the component score and breaking it into 60 categories. 60 categories would be hard enough to compare if all games recieved a score in each and its only complicated by the fact that the categories represented may be totally different for any two games.

What it all comes down to is a loss of precision. Scoring has intentionally been obscured to blur inconsistencies and problems with the system. There may be isues but removing information is no way to solve them.

I actually like the whole new system. I read through what Jeff had to say and it made sense. The new system seems like a good way to get reviews across. The review seems less about the score this way and more about the detail of the review. The new medals back up the fact that its less about the score and more about what the editors have to say.

Its a big change and its weird to get used to but I think after some time, people will get used to it and grow to like it, just like every other big change around here.

Caddy06_88

The fact that its less about the score is exactly what irks me about this new system. The text was always there and provided an excellent qualitative measure of a game. It does a great job of helping you decide wether or not you would like a game. For me it does next to nothing when it comes to comparing two games that appear to be equally appealing. To really compare games you need a quantitative measue and with the new system there is none. No numeric summary of a games attributes and an overall score than can be up to 2.5 points off from where it should be. That becomes a possible .5 point error when comparing two games. Thats difference between a great game and one thats just okay. Thats a lot of information to lose.

To follow on from your point about 60 categories for medals, presumably there are some that have a good & bad version cutting that numer down somwhat and then a few individual ones for specific things. Not quite the comprehensive system you would like us to think it is.

I also can't imagine you'd allow a whole heap of medals to be awarded to one game, that would look messy. So what is the limit imposed on reviews? What happens when a game comes along that has excellent graphics, voice acting, originality, great story, good start, is brutal, is technically proficient, has an "oh snap" moment (which I still don't understand even after reading the description), sucks you in, is family fun, has great multi-player and more all in the one game? Surly some of the medals will have to be dropped for aesthetics? So then the review suffers again because we aren't getting all the information. The old component scores catered for this perfectly.

OK, I would only like to make 1 suggestion here, and I am sure most will agree with me.

In the new review page. bring the ' Gameplay, graphics, sound, value' etc. table back. I like theemblems, but sometime, for a fair judgement, one wants to see how each of the following aspects of the game are rated on 10. No matter the score is related to it, but it should be there. Every major game review site seems to have it, and I don't understand why Gamespot seemed to omit something which was not broken in the first place.

Hope Gamespot looks into this matter, or we will have to refer to other gaming sites for those individual ratings (cough i-g-n).

So is there any chance that Graphics, Gameplay, Sound scores would be back? - they could be just scores and final score won't rely on those - it won't be average like it used to be...

because i think they are really helpful. Let's say Ninja Gaiden Sigma - i was looking at bunch of screens - some of them were fantastic - graphics are sharp, everything is detailed - but the other ones were all blurry and stuff- so what real graphics are? are they 5, 10?
Same with sound - how is the sound in the game? the emblems didn't say anything about it.
Also in a lot of games, you don't see the Outstanding Gameplay emblem (which probly equals to 10) - so how are we supposed to know what score is it - because there are two emblems - aweful gameplay, outstanding gameplay - what's in between?

I don't know - I am fine with emblems, but those scores were really helpful... i guess i am more math developed than writing skills developed - i need to see numbers...

so the final question is: is there any possibility those scores would be back?

so the final question is: is there any possibility those scores would be back?

Davidhye

The numbers are great for giving a general impresison of an area, sure, but they do nothing really to say what aspect of those subsections are responsible for the scores...and really, as we are getting more and more complex in these areas of things like Sound and Graphics, there's a lot more at play that can push and pull the score one direction or another, making the number in and of itself for the catagory less meaningful.

Especially with the rise of dramatically different styles of platforms and genres, the actual value of these numbers has dropped significantly, whether or not they're used as a means for averaging out the actual overall score. Personally, I don't see any purpose in such subcatagory scores in any publication, but that's just me.

For pete's sake give us the individual score for graphics, sound and gameplay. Seriously, what are you guys thinking? I dont give a **** if Lost Planet scored 7.0, if it scored 9 for graphics, i would buy it, but with a 7.0 score, if it scores 7 for graphics, i wouldnt buy it.

I am sorry, but this review system is pathetic to say the least and i am now going to have to look else where for my reviews. If it aint broke, dont fix it!

[QUOTE="Davidhye"]

so the final question is: is there any possibility those scores would be back?

Skylock00

The numbers are great for giving a general impresison of an area, sure, but they do nothing really to say what aspect of those subsections are responsible for the scores...and really, as we are getting more and more complex in these areas of things like Sound and Graphics, there's a lot more at play that can push and pull the score one direction or another, making the number in and of itself for the catagory less meaningful.

Especially with the rise of dramatically different styles of platforms and genres, the actual value of these numbers has dropped significantly, whether or not they're used as a means for averaging out the actual overall score. Personally, I don't see any purpose in such subcatagory scores in any publication, but that's just me.

Now you see this is my problem, you ask for the feedback, and when you get it you don't want to hear it. You just ignore what people are saying and think that making a thread about it will make it all alright.

What's the point of this thread? Seriously? If you've no intention of changing anything, why even bother to ask us? It's insulting.

You just sumed up the whole reason we want the component scores back yourself. Numbers are great for giving a general impression of an area... Bingo! That's the whole point! You then say they do nothing to say what's responsible for those subsections, but we know that. That's what you write the text of the review for. How do the emblems do a better job? I don't understand why you can't see the problem with this new system. Component scores are there for every game you review, now we have to rely on the emblems, which only award outstanding, or awful aspects. What about the grey areas in between? You know, the average where most games sit? There are no emblems on them, how can that possibly be any better than component scores? We now have a final rating, with nothing but the review text to guide us.

You just sumed up the whole reason we want the component scores back yourself. Numbers are great for giving a general impression of an area... Bingo! That's the whole point!Magic_Shrek

At least with the emblems, when something about a game's design/sound/graphics stands out in a good or bad way, they can directly show you what it is, and honestly...if something isn't exceptionally great or poor, it's nothing really worth noting in any sort of special way, from what I understand.

I understand that you guys felt that the subcatagory scores gave you something worthwhile, but personally, I don't see anything worthwhile information-wise that is really told through these scores at all.

The purpose of this thread isn't to listen to everyone's request, and just change things based on what a handful of posters said. If you looked at Jeff's blog, the vast majority of posters there seem to have no issues with the newer system as is. So should GS ignore those people, and reinstate/change things based on what seems to be a minority opinion on the matter? I'm not saying that your viewpoint doesn't matter, just providing a counter argument to your thought regarding the usefulness of this thread.

Except you seemed to gloss over when I said that the numbers for these subsections have become less and less meaningful over the years for any purpose at all. I'm not just saying that they aren't good at giving detailed information...I'm saying that they don't give any sort of realistic, meaningful information about how good something really is in those different catagories.

At least with the emblems, when something about a game's design/sound/graphics stands out in a good or bad way, they can directly show you what it is, and honestly...if something isn't exceptionally great or poor, it's nothing really worth noting in any sort of special way, from what I understand.

Skylock00

Why are they less meaningful? A score for graphics is still as meaningful today as it was 10 years ago, the quality of graphics may not be relevant to the final score of the game. However, good graphics are still good graphics.

I understand that you guys felt that the subcatagory scores gave you something worthwhile, but personally, I don't see anything worthwhile information-wise that is really told through these scores at all.

Skylock00

But we do, and we've explained it in great detail numerous times already. Why take them away from us?

The purpose of this thread isn't to listen to everyone's request, and just change things based on what a handful of posters said. If you looked at Jeff's blog, the vast majority of posters there seem to have no issues with the newer system as is. So should GS ignore those people, and reinstate/change things based on what seems to be a minority opinion on the matter? I'm not saying that your viewpoint doesn't matter, just providing a counter argument to your thought regarding the usefulness of this thread.

Skylock00

A handful? Did you read the original blog post comments? Did you see the other threads on this topic, that can hardly be described as a handful. And I'm not asking GS to take anything away, I want stuff re-instated. If we get component scores back why would that be of any consequence to those who aren't bothered about them? They can just ignore them and look at the pretty pictures. The same way that I would ignore the emblems but put up with them for the benefit of others. In the current format you are alienating a large portion of GameSpot users by denying them access to the information they want. In my suggested format it's the best of both worlds and everyone is happy.

I don't quite understand the point of this thread when there are two threads that have been discussing these issues in great detail already. Are we supposed to re-post what has already been said in here? Why wasn't one of the other existing topics made a sticky?Magic_Shrek

The purpose of this thread isn't to listen to everyone's request, and just change things based on what a handful of posters said. If you looked at Jeff's blog, the vast majority of posters there seem to have no issues with the newer system as is. So should GS ignore those people, and reinstate/change things based on what seems to be a minority opinion on the matter? I'm not saying that your viewpoint doesn't matter, just providing a counter argument to your thought regarding the usefulness of this thread.Skylock00

[quote="Skylock00"]The purpose of this thread isn't to listen to everyone's request, and just change things based on what a handful of posters said. If you looked at Jeff's blog, the vast majority of posters there seem to have no issues with the newer system as is. So should GS ignore those people, and reinstate/change things based on what seems to be a minority opinion on the matter? I'm not saying that your viewpoint doesn't matter, just providing a counter argument to your thought regarding the usefulness of this thread.robbristow

That is certainly true in my case, I'd already posted so many times making my opinions known that I figured it was a waste of time posting again under that blog. Call me cynical, but I think the delay in getting this official thread created and using a new one instead of one of the existing ones. Is so they can say there weren't many objections in the official thread and use that to back up their claims.

The fact there was such a huge outcry from the community when it first launched will be rather conveniently overlooked. I have given up hope of getting any joy out of GameSpot, but that isn't going to stop me complaining about it. I guess others have just resigned themselves to the fact that nothing is going to be done about it. They've either decided to put up with it (which isn't the same as getting used to it) or simply gone elsewhere.

ever consider that we might have gotten fed up of repeating ourselves so didn't bother doing so in that blog (i know that's why i didn't bother), if you're gonna look at overall response you have to look at every post/comment, not just the ones in probably the only thread with generally positive responses...robbristow

In short, I don't think the community is, as whole, as against this new system as you guys are.

Now, in regards to Shrek's comments about the subscores not being less meaningful, and a 10 in graphics now is just as meaningful as it was 10 years ago...I strongly disagree. As we advance to more elaborate and powerful hardware, in addition to having wider divides between hardware types in strength, as well as begin witnessing a wider range of approaches to graphics and such, trying to quantify graphics as a whole to a single number 1-10 simply becomes a less meaningful way of expressing those nuances regarding the different aspects of a game's graphics, especially when you have people trying to compare these subscores against different games and such.

I simply don't see the purpose or point of having such a needlessly detailed system of scoring a game, when the numbers for these subcatagories simply become more and more circumstantial in regards to what gets assigned to them, making the task more of a headache for a person reviewing the game than It should be. It's more rational, IMHO, to simply assign a game a general grade/score based on simple general quality, directly address strong and weak aspects of the game through the Good/Bad and Medal system, then go in depth regarding the game and its strength/weaknesses through the written review. This isn't just something based on the mathmatical system the old system used to derive a score...this is a personal opinion I have on such hair splitting approaches to simply scoring a game that I have for any website/periodical.

I'm getting pretty blue in the face by now but I'll try and eek out a few more comments.

First, even amongst a lot of the positive comments, I see people stating that going to the .5-point demarcations was a mistake. A lot people are suggesting at least .25-point demarcations. I persoanlly would rather see old scale brought back entirely but I think I could compromise with a .25-point system.

Second, I've seen a lot of argument that componenet scores didnt do anything for some people. Thats fine but I dont see that as a reason to take them away. The medal systems doesnt do much for me but I havent really called for it to go away.

Its starting to feel like we could all live happily but that it isnt going to happen. I can very much see a happy medium here. A scale based on quarter points, keep the medals, bring back component scores but dont base the final score on them. Oh and at least bring back the time spent and difficulty measures. Just give me some kind of numerical measure thas actually useful for comparing games (and no the final score in its current state is not sufficient. I can't trust a system that would give an 8.3 game and an 8.7 game the same score while giving an 8.7 game and an 8.8 game two vastly different scores.)

On the same note, it is just as disingenuine to look only at places where you're going to get predominantly negative responses (such as this board in general) to guage community response. The large outcry I've seen has consisted of around 100-200 or so users vocally complaining about matters, which only makes up about 1-2% (Sometimes slightly more) of the total number of users actively posting on the boards, whereas I see a comparable number of users who are vocally in favor of the new system (though very few of which are found on this board).

In short, I don't think the community is, as whole, as against this new system as you guys are.

Skylock00

Hmm, what's that saying you get taught in business school that for every complaint you receive there are at least 10 more people who didn't bother to complain and just took their custom elsewhere? So let's take an average of your figures at 150, multiply that by 10 and you've now got at least 1,500 disgruntled customers.

Add to this the fact that many who commented that they like the new style still don't really like the .5 steps in scoring.

Now, in regards to Shrek's comments about the subscores not being less meaningful, and a 10 in graphics now is just as meaningful as it was 10 years ago...I strongly disagree. As we advance to more elaborate and powerful hardware, in addition to having wider divides between hardware types in strength, as well as begin witnessing a wider range of approaches to graphics and such, trying to quantify graphics as a whole to a single number 1-10 simply becomes a less meaningful way of expressing those nuances regarding the different aspects of a game's graphics, especially when you have people trying to compare these subscores against different games and such.

Skylock00

But you still know when a game looks good and when it doesn't! There have always been advances in graphics technology over the years and the system stood up to them all. There is no bigger change now than when we first went into 3D, yet the system coped then and it can still cope now. Just because we have more powerful hardware doesn't mean a thing, some games are still coded badly and look poor in comparison to other titles.

I simply don't see the purpose or point of having such a needlessly detailed system of scoring a game, when the numbers for these subcatagories simply become more and more circumstantial in regards to what gets assigned to them, making the task more of a headache for a person reviewing the game than It should be. It's more rational, IMHO, to simply assign a game a general grade/score based on simple general quality, directly address strong and weak aspects of the game through the Good/Bad and Medal system, then go in depth regarding the game and its strength/weaknesses through the written review. This isn't just something based on the mathmatical system the old system used to derive a score...this is a personal opinion I have on such hair splitting approaches to simply scoring a game that I have for any website/periodical.

Skylock00

Okay, so you don't like component scoring, but lot's of us do. Just because you don't want it, why should we suffer? After all, you can just ignore them and look at the medals and text if that's what you like.

Judging from the (bugged) Super Stardust HD review, it appears that component scores are back!

[EDIT]

Here's a picture of it:

Judging from the (bugged) Super Stardust HD review, it appears that component scores are back!jediskilz173

Interesting, but I think that is going to transpire to be just a bug, however that's exactly how I'd like the new review system to be. I'd be very happy with that abd it would be the first time I've been pleased with a GameSpot alteration in a very long time. Have to keep an eye on it and see what happens there.

however that's exactly how I'd like the new review system to be.

Magic_Shrek

me too... the combo of those scores and the emblems = success!

It's simple enough for me. I'm a new TA subscriber and soon enough I will be a former customer. I liked the old system. Everything about this new one seems extraneous to me. I'm sure I'll visit gamespot in the future, just not with the same fervor or respect. If people like the new system that is great, who am I to demand change against the majority (if it clearly is one). The great thing about a capitalist nation is that I can take my business elsewhere. Also, there is really no reason for me to rant, many have spoken eloquently enough about it such that anything I say would not add to the argument. At any rate, I'll still be trolling around, I just won't be contributing to GS financially.

It's simple enough for me. I'm a new TA subscriber and soon enough I will be a former customer. I liked the old system. Everything about this new one seems extraneous to me. I'm sure I'll visit gamespot in the future, just not with the same fervor or respect. If people like the new system that is great, who am I to demand change against the majority (if it clearly is one). The great thing about a capitalist nation is that I can take my business elsewhere. Also, there is really no reason for me to rant, many have spoken eloquently enough about it such that anything I say would not add to the argument. At any rate, I'll still be trolling around, I just won't be contributing to GS financially.

Jynx_XIII

As I suspected, the review has been "fixed" if you can call it that, and they've removed the component section.

As I explained elsewhere, it's actually not as easy to take your money to another site as you might think. I pay annually, and I'm basically locked into that agreement, they won't refund me. So while I can stop reading GameSpot, they still get my cash - of course there's not a hope in hell of me renewing after this but that doesn't help me now.

I just don't understand why they won't put back component scores. Who does it hurt by using them? As far as I can see nobody loses out. Is there anyone reading this thread who likes the new system that would be against them adding component scores back? If so for what reason?

I wouldn't mind the component scores, as long as they maybe removed tilt, and the score formula. So you just have the four component scores, and the final score is decided by the reviewer.gakon5

See my post from further up the thread for why I think Tilt is probably the most important component score, reposted here to save you searching:

For example, I would say that tilt is quite an important, perhaps the most important category. It allows the reviewer to show how much his personal preferences have influenced the review. If you know you trust and have similar opinions to the reviewer you can be sure that it is a score you will agree with. If you don't, and we all have different tastes so some won't. Then you can look at the tilt and adjust the final rating yourself accordingly. The new review system doesn't take this into account at all.Magic_Shrek

Much as Jynx_XIII said... it's pretty simple. I just got my subscription renewal notice in my email, and if things stay the way they are, I'll switch from the "5 years paying for gamespot" column to the cancelled subscription end. I suspect that will be the pattern for a lot of people. Virtually every time I've tried to constructively critique the system, I get modded, the threads are juggled around, and then the feedback from the staff is zilch. For people who say this is a handful of complaints, they may be forgetting the 1800+ people who posted on the original news article, MOST of whom were pretty ticked off. After a while, people get quiet, then slip away. For me, I'll still see what gamespot has to say, but with the current reviews I can't say it will be the be all end all it has been for me. I'll touch base with metacritic and their links to every review in existanceand use a "check the general temperature" approach from now on.

Personally I think it's silly that we've all lost such a precise system, but hey, that's the way the chips are falling. I don't know if the staff is just trying to "work smarter, not harder" (hahaha), if they really believe there is a silent majority rooting for less precision and info in the reviews, or if it's justa matter of Jeff Gerstmann wanting to mark his territory and that's that.

I wish I could say more about the new reviews that SamP would call "constructive commentary", but like so many I've stated my position SO many times, only to be asked to say it one more time in X forum or thread that it's tiring. From here on in I'll speak with my dollars, Sephiroth's union, and a phone to CNET and Gamespot staff. My time may not be gilded, but it's still valuble enough not to waste getting moderated by overzealous admins who feel that any rebuke against this new review system that isn't just a repitition of the original "You lose precision with .5 instead of .1, the emblams are nice, but as an addon not a substitute FOR... the catagorical reviews which let you know HOW the reviewer arrived at a score". There, I said it, and I MEAN it. However, after a while, you move on to less concrete and more tangential discussions about how the gamespot users are being treated and ignored rather that endless repetition of the obvious point that's been made by a TONof people.

The constructive criticism I have to offer is to restore the old system! The new system offers little in regards to sophistication or complexity, as the scores have been simplified to a .5 scale from a .1 scale. While I appreciate the attempt to place greater emphasis on the actual written reviews, I am not going to read the review of every game that is released. Sometimes for me, to get a general idea of the quality of a game, I would simply look at the score and the table which would show generally how the graphics are, the sound is, etc. Now, to replace it, are the emblems. The emblems are a decent addition, but is by no means a replacement for the precision of the old system.

The loss of precision and to some extent competency in scoring a game in this site is a tragedy. A tragedy. I am no paying subscriber, but have been a loyal user for about one and a half years. I cannot threaten non-renewal of membership, as mine remains a constant free membership. But it is users like me who are the majority of the users on this site. I will not resort to personal attacks or petty insults, but I must say, I am appalled at how my fellow union members and dissenters have been moderated simply for expressing their opinions. As history has shown, those who do not wield power carefully will eventually fall, and this new system and the silencing of its protest are the beginning. I ask as a humble Gamespot user, who has used the site near-exclusively for the past two years, to reverse this change.

My "feedback"

-The new scoring system lacks precision, a .5 scale is too general, a .1 scale separates and differentiates some games from others.

-The emblem system is a decent addition, but the placement with "the good" and "the bad" feels unorganized.

-The written reviews remain as good as ever, but without a good scoring sytem to accompany them, the reviews will in time suffer. The attempt to place more importance on them by crippling the scoring system will fail.

-The removal of the categories from which a score was derived only hurts, not helps. The reviewer's opinion (tilt) was placed with other categories so that it would not be the only factor in a score. The score was more "scientific". Now, a number is stuck on a game with no real reason for its existence. It is in reality.... the tilt score. The scores and in turn the reviews are now more "opinions" than ever.

The simple answer to this problem is to restore the old system. It was more precise, accompanied the written reviews well, and was more than a simple opinion. These of course are my own opinions on the subject. But me, and rest of the We Want the Old Review System Union for each his/her own reason wants the old system back. You at Gamespot have already heard from some other members. We are unified behind this cause. Hear our pleas, and restore the old system.

[quote="Cube_of_MooN"]The score was more "scientific". gakon5

Two things to remember here... One, you aren't completely "in the dark." The game may have received some emblems to go with the review, or you can read The Good and The Bad. And even though the component scores aren't there, the actual text review still is. So if you want to know how the graphics are, at least one or two paragraphs in the review are dedicated to that. Two, and I was making this point in an earlier post, the individual component scores aren't telling you everything about the game. I'll quote that earlier post I made.gakon5

On the #2 poitn, personally, I disagree about the individual component scores. If you read enough reviewes, particularly for a given system, you begin to get a feel of what you will get when you purchase a game. The last 2 to 3 years I have purchased around 20 to 40 titles a year and I read a TON of reviews. The graphics, sound, and gameplay definitely had merit. The value and tilt are questionable, but I definitely put stock in the first three.

I didn't mind the formula, but there were aspects that I didn't really consider to be as valuable such as the value and tilt. Maybe a review system along the lines of the original component scores with the emblems weighed in some how would be a good marriage of old and new.

Holy omnislashing batman. lol

Of course the emblems represent extremes, but there's a WORLD of difference between one extreme and the other, and the emblems do not cover the ground inbetween. The emblems in and of themself are simply not enough to adaquately grade the quality of a particular aspect of the game. That's why we need the the point grade for graphics, sound, and the like.

It seems that their goal was to make it so we could easily and quickly understand the quality of a game based on the review of the game. The rating system helped us understand that quickly. The emblems help too. After seeing the emblems, I wouldn't want to go back to the old system without them. At the same time, I don't want the new system without the old point system. Both are good, and separately both are lacking.

Anything can be simplified. Maybe emblems aren't used as part of the forumla, but as a replacement for the 'good / bad' section of a review. The emblems can then be used to justify a low/high score for any one of the formulas.

Forcing us to use the .5 system too, that's just so confining. I went to score a game yesterday. It wasn't quite an 8.5, nor was it an 8.0, I felt it was somewhere inbetween. Unfortunately, I couldn't set it at 8.2 or 8.3. So... I simply didn't rate it.

The biggest point I will make right now is that before, I felt like I got a much better overview / breakdown of a game here at Gamespot as opposed to other gaming sites. After the removal of the scoring system, I don't think GameSpots overview is any better than any other site out there and, while I have no data, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people just look at the overview and don't read the full game reviews.

Alright... I can play the omnislash game as well. First one to 100 wins!

The emblems may represent just "good" and "bad," but they're all essentially subsets of the component scores. What goes into the Graphics score of a game? Technical proficiency, art sty!e, framerate, etc. These things are all represented as emblems. And you can divide up the Gameplay, Sound, and Value scores into similar subsets. And all these parts add up to the component score.gakon5

I wouldn't want them to take out The Good and The Bad. That's been really useful in helping to summarize reviews.gakon5

I don't see how you can pull a number like that out of thin air. Well, maybe that's the wrong wording, but that's really specific. I don't think I could score a game as specifically as 6.2 (without a formula that had generated it) and be able to justify it. And maybe I'm alone in that, but sticking to .5s just makes more sense, and it's easier IMO.gakon5

As I said before, the breakdown they had before was what set them apart from other gaming sites. Now, their review summaries aren't any better than say IGN's or GameSpy's. If GameSpot wants to lower their quality in order to make reviews more simple for their reviewers, then that's definitely their perogative, but the only thing separating them from other major gaming sites is a little emblem or two.

I guess it's my turn to chip in. I won't keep it long.

Firstly, can people stop saying "oh yeah, we unanimously hate it"? I know a fair amount of people -- perhaps less vocal -- who don't particularly mind it and welcome the changes. Think about it, you're more likely to complain if you hate it than praise it if you like it, right?

Anyway, now that I've got that out of the way, I'm going to say what I personally think of this new system. The farewell to the components scores isn't too bad a change. I would have preferred it if they had stayed, but it's no big loss. GameSpot's reviews have always been formatted such that you can quickly find the relevant paragraph that details the graphics, sound, value, whatever. Seriously, it takesthirty seconds -- one minute tops -- to read one measly paragraph.

What I'm happier about is how the score isn't dictated by a dodgy formula. Wasn't it silly how a sizeable proportion of the score was always dedicated to graphics and sound to a game like Brain Age? Another question to the folks out there: How hard do you think it would be to accurately rate a game with .1 increments? And more importantly, what's the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3? Or even an 8.2 and an 8.4? Even at a .3 difference, not everyone's going to think that the 8.5 is better than the 8.2. Without a formula, what's the point in keeping the .1 increments? You're seriously not going to tell me that you'd buy an 8.6 game over an 8.2 game of the same genre just because you looked at their scores and not their reviews?

I don't really have much to say about the emblems. For now, they're ok, I guess, but they're not essential. I'm more interested to see what happens when we can search which games have merits X, Y, and Z. That sounds like something that could be useful.Zaps

First thank you too gakon5 and yourself for posting here. I'm glad to get a conversation going so I can better explain my points of view.

To be honest, I agree with most everything you guys have said but for me things spin the other way. Your right that it only takes 30 seconds to a minute to find the right paragraph in a review. Unfortunately thats 25 to 55 seconds longer than it used to take to get a feel for just one aspect of a game let alone 5. The problem isnt the text reviews though. I think they're great and do their job nicely. My problem is what they dont tell you. What they don't give you is any sort of common measurement to compare games. For example, the text of one review may say, the puzzles for this game are well done." The text of another review may say, "there are some excellent story driven quests." Thats apples an oranges. I have no way to compare the gameplay from game A to the gameplay of game B. I want a nice packaged statement that tells me how well each aspect of a game stacks up against any other. Without that break down it can become pretty difficult to compare games particularly when your trying to decide which of the 4 or 5 games you missed over the last year to fill the summer drought with.

Your also right that I'm not going to say there is a difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3. Thats the way it should be. the scores should be such that if a game falls a point one way or another it isnt a huge deal. With the .5 demarcations, that isnt true. If a game is between two scores, say an 8.5 and a 9.0, its a big fall in either direction. Too far if you ask me. For example, lets say you have two games. One that would have scored an 8.7 and one that would have scored an 8.8 under the old system. We are both in agreement that they recieved essentially the same score. Under the new system, those two games would score an 8.5 and a 9.0. Those values indicate very very different levels of quality which I think most everyone, both proponents and opponents of the new system, would agree. It works the other way too. One game that would have scored say an 8.3 and one that would have scored an 8.7 would now get the exact same score of 8.5. The new primary scoring system simply has too much uncertainty. You no long know quite what you're getting. Two games may have gotten the same score but have noticably different levels of quality.

As for emblems, I agree they are nice and I agree they are essentially breakdowns of the old component scores. I have no problem with them staying. They are more information easily accessable. Unfortunately, I fail to see how they are a replacement for the component scores. How is taking five unique aspects of a game and breaking them down into 60 some categories which may or may not show up for any given game making it easier for me to summarize a review? And how do they help me compare games. To mesh my example from above with something gakon was saying, lets say game A got the technical proficiency emblem while game B got the art syle emblem. You can't tell me based on that which one has the better graphics.

My problem with the new review system isnt what it fixes. I agree that the problems iwth the old system were problems. I just think this removal of information is a bad idea. And this "improvement" is just that, a loss of information. Less precise main score, removal of the component score, and addition of emblems which so far offer little that the good and the bad didn't already do. To me, it just seems like all the tools you once had to copmpare two games have been either stripped out or undermined to the point of being unusable. Yes the text of the review is still good and yes it is plenty for me to decide wether or not I want to buy a game but there is nothing for me if I want to compare two or more games.

[quote="valdarez"]Anything can be simplified. Maybe emblems aren't used as part of the forumla, but as a replacement for the 'good / bad' section of a review. The emblems can then be used to justify a low/high score for any one of the formulas.gakon5

I'm glad you said this. This is exactly how I feel about losing the component scores. Imagine if instead of the component scores, they removed the good and the bad and replaced it with the emblems. Sounds like you'd be as miffed as I am.