How exactly do reviewers base their game scores upon? Is it fair?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by outworld222 (2498 posts) -

How do reviewers actually base their ultimate score of a game? What makes them give a game an 8.5 instead of a 9, and vice versa?

What can they do to make their scores as objective (Rather than as subjective) as possible; and how can they be comprehensive when they give an explanation in their article?

My personal opinion: I don't like most review scores because I don't see how they actually came up with a score as validly.

#2 Posted by JML897 (33131 posts) -
0 - 7.5 means it's bad 7.5 - 8.5 means it's okay 8.5 - 8.9 means they're trolling fanboys of that series 9 - 10 means it's good
#3 Posted by OneInchMan99 (1248 posts) -

I think they just pull numbers out of a hat LOL.Giving something like a video game a score is really stupid.Do a nice write up,mention the good and bad about the game and leave it at that,don't need to put a number on it.Of course lots of people are to lazy to actually read the review,I guess thats why the score is really there.Also DMC just got a 7.5 on PS3 while it got 8.5 on Xbox,so whats up with that,a few frame rate dips and it gets a whole point less.Stupid.

#4 Posted by outworld222 (2498 posts) -

I think they just pull numbers out of a hat LOL.Giving something like a video game a score is really stupid.Do a nice write up,mention the good and bad about the game and leave it at that,don't need to put a number on it.Of course lots of people are to lazy to actually read the review,I guess thats why the score is really there.Also DMC just got a 7.5 on PS3 while it got 8.5 on Xbox,so whats up with that,a few frame rate dips and it gets a whole point less.Stupid.

OneInchMan99
I don't think it makes much sense either. If you look at the review scores, there is a variety of opinions. That's really okay, but the wide variety on one subject hints at the process being subjective. So, Mario for instance will always be more loved (In most cases) than Master Cheif.
#5 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

i think scores in general aren't really worth much. as for how they're scored, i could see a reviewer assigning broad characteristics to a few numbers like 9 being among the best games of the year or of the current state of the genre. however, i have absolutely no idea what the difference is between between a 5.0 and a 5.1. even with the GS 19 point system, what's a 5.5? very mediocre?

honestly, i don't think reviewers should be that objective. i guess to a point there's a need for it, like i would expect a reviewer to mention significant bugs. however, i don't agree with the idea of a review as a text on whether or not to buy a game. it's one person's views on a game that, when successful, may deepen a reader's appreciation for the game.

#6 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

The Score is not what matter. Their opinion does not matter to a review. Their justifying it is what matters.

#7 Posted by Gibsonsg527 (3313 posts) -

The whole idea of scoring games is just stupid. Like seriously what makes a game .5% better? Reviews should be informitive of the game, explain what is, what's in the game and list the good and the bad. I think games should be at leats rated on a buy/rent scale.

If I were to review a game I would use a rating system like this:

-Worth full price

-Wait for price drop

-Rental

-Borrow from a friend

-Avoid

Thats a system that I think everyone could understand easily.

#8 Posted by Allicrombie (25419 posts) -
Ideally, the score should be an average of good points and bad points, supported by evidence in the text review. This is not always the case however, (either intentionally or unintentionally, ) which accounts for many people seeing something like a review praising multiple aspects of a game and then finding a 7.0 rating. (Or the opposite, where a game is called out for its many flaws, yet receives a rating of 9.0). You really just have to take it all into context, i.e. a game that has flaws but still gets a 9.0 would typically mean that those flaws wouldnt be enough to detract from the overall experience, while a game that does many things right yet still gets a 7.0 would probably mean that many of the negative aspects of the game, or genre would overshadow whatever good points the game has going for it. Just my take.
#9 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -
Their opinion. Yes, it's fair, but also useless. There's no way a reviewer can quantify how much better a game is than a game that was released five years ago. The only way they would be useful would be a 2 or 3 point scale with Good, Bad, and maybe OK.
#10 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

More often than not it's based on who gives them advertising money. Even when it isn't it's highly subjective. Back in the day Gamespot had a pretty good review system with grades based on gameplay, graphics, sound, etc. It was a good and fairly objective system. After the Twilight Princess 8.8 fiasco though, they switched their review system to try to offend as few people as possible.

#11 Posted by Lulekani (2151 posts) -
Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.
#12 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.Lulekani

A well writen story should improve a game score and hurt it a little.

I agree there is a problem when "games" with bad game play like Journy and the Walking Dead get game of the year because of their visual or story.

#13 Posted by Archangel3371 (16075 posts) -
They're based on a variety of technical and artistic aspects. I think they're fair and I like using reviews scores myself, the wider the point range they use the better. I'll also read the text of a review to understand the basis for the score, well sometimes othertimes seeing a score and glossing over the good and the bad points is good enough for me as well.
#14 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -
Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.Lulekani
This is the attitude that keeps games from being on the same level as film and literature.
#15 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

I think it's all random actually...Some of their ratings make no sense at all.

Gamespot gave Sonic Unleashed a score that was LOWER than what they gave Sonic 06.

I was thinking..."You feeling alright Gamespot? I think you may need to see a doctor..." when that happened.

#16 Posted by MrGeezer (56873 posts) -

How do reviewers actually base their ultimate score of a game? What makes them give a game an 8.5 instead of a 9, and vice versa?

What can they do to make their scores as objective (Rather than as subjective) as possible; and how can they be comprehensive when they give an explanation in their article?

My personal opinion: I don't like most review scores because I don't see how they actually came up with a score as validly.

outworld222
Solution: stop paying so much attention to the score and just read the review. The score doesn't really need to be accurate, it's just sort of a ballpark estimate. It's not really a science, there isn't a formula to it, it's based on the reviewer's judgement. As such, the score is pretty much worthless except as a means of just getting a quick glance. Lots of good scores probably means a game is good, but an individual score when looked at in a vacuum doesn't mean $***. What is the difference between an 8.5 and a 9.0? There really is no difference. At least, not as far as the reader is concerned.
#17 Posted by MrGeezer (56873 posts) -

i think scores in general aren't really worth much. as for how they're scored, i could see a reviewer assigning broad characteristics to a few numbers like 9 being among the best games of the year or of the current state of the genre. however, i have absolutely no idea what the difference is between between a 5.0 and a 5.1. even with the GS 19 point system, what's a 5.5? very mediocre?

honestly, i don't think reviewers should be that objective. i guess to a point there's a need for it, like i would expect a reviewer to mention significant bugs. however, i don't agree with the idea of a review as a text on whether or not to buy a game. it's one person's views on a game that, when successful, may deepen a reader's appreciation for the game.

LoG-Sacrament
The meat is in the actual review. The point may be to say "you must buy this, it's that awesome", the point may be to say "don't dare buy this, it's the worst $*** ever", or the point may be to simply indicate what the flaws and the merits are, and then to allow the reader to decide for themselves if it's something they think they'd like. But scores generally come with an actual written review, and generally speaking all of the useful information is going to be in the review, not the score. The way I look at it, scores in the "okay" to "average" range have serious merits and serious flaws (in that reviewer's opinion). Still might be worth a buy for some readers depending on where the game is lacking. But again...readers will still have to read reviews in order to determine what aspects of the game got it points deducted.
#18 Posted by MrGeezer (56873 posts) -
Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.Lulekani
Why? Video games are (sometimes) a story-telling medium. I've played plenty of games in which the biggest point of the game was to tell a story. Gamemakers are increasingly trying to copy Hollywood and make games interactive movies. Gamemakers are still trying to use games as a device to tell stories, so I have no problem whatsoever judging those games based on whether or not the stories are $***.
#19 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

What can they do to make their scores as objective (Rather than as subjective) as possible; outworld222

By acting with maturity and professionalism - two things rarely seen in gaming blogs. Er excuse me, "journalism".

It all comes down to opinion obviously. Somebody might give a sports game a high score, but I don't like sports games so if I bought it, I wouldn't get a 9/10 amount of enjoyment from it. Same with everything - objectivity is a pretty tough target to hit when the main criteria is enjoyment, but that's no excuse for not trying. I often see games get high scores because the reviewer was a fanboy of the franchise, or low scores because the reviewer didn't even want to play it, but of course had to because it's his job.

#20 Posted by scouttrooperbob (2439 posts) -

I beleive it is completly inconsistant. I really like Classic Gameroom on youtube because he never gives a score. He simply gives his oppinions on how the game plays, and explains why or whynot an individual will like it. There are alot of games that get really low score, but alot of people still enjoy them. I really enjoyed Medal of Honor Warfighter for example. The multiplayer actually has an authentic feel and the buddy system promotes teamwork.

#21 Posted by scouttrooperbob (2439 posts) -

Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.Lulekani

Thats the other problem with scoring, because I may be looking for a story driven game with alright gameplay, and another inividual will be looking for a game with outstanding gameplay and not give two craps about the story. I beleive video game reviews should grade the game on what the game is trying to do. Is it trying to tell a story, promote realistic shootouts, or portray an elegant style.

#22 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lulekani"]Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.scouttrooperbob

Thats the other problem with scoring, because I may be looking for a story driven game with alright gameplay, and another inividual will be looking for a game with outstanding gameplay and not give two craps about the story. I beleive video game reviews should grade the game on what the game is trying to do. Is it trying to tell a story, promote realistic shootouts, or portray an elegant style.

That seem too nice and not that professional. I agree with you in some way. I believe that the creator can call what they created any way they want. However, if they give it a common label like saying it is a game then I expect reviewers to review it as a game.

If the creator gives give their creation the label of game then I will have the game play as the most important. After all game play is the factor that makes a game.

I believe that game play is the art of the game. Story and visual should affect the score but I believe game play should be the main focus. Trying to find out what the game is trying to do is not the job of a reviewer. His/Her job is to look at what it is and judge it base off the other within the same label.

#23 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -
[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i think scores in general aren't really worth much. as for how they're scored, i could see a reviewer assigning broad characteristics to a few numbers like 9 being among the best games of the year or of the current state of the genre. however, i have absolutely no idea what the difference is between between a 5.0 and a 5.1. even with the GS 19 point system, what's a 5.5? very mediocre?

honestly, i don't think reviewers should be that objective. i guess to a point there's a need for it, like i would expect a reviewer to mention significant bugs. however, i don't agree with the idea of a review as a text on whether or not to buy a game. it's one person's views on a game that, when successful, may deepen a reader's appreciation for the game.

MrGeezer
The meat is in the actual review. The point may be to say "you must buy this, it's that awesome", the point may be to say "don't dare buy this, it's the worst $*** ever", or the point may be to simply indicate what the flaws and the merits are, and then to allow the reader to decide for themselves if it's something they think they'd like. But scores generally come with an actual written review, and generally speaking all of the useful information is going to be in the review, not the score. The way I look at it, scores in the "okay" to "average" range have serious merits and serious flaws (in that reviewer's opinion). Still might be worth a buy for some readers depending on where the game is lacking. But again...readers will still have to read reviews in order to determine what aspects of the game got it points deducted.

i think the "in the reviewer's opinion" part is important. a good reviewer will be able to articulate why they feel a certain part of the game worked or didn't, but they could still be completely wrong (more pragmatically, wrong to the reader). a recent example would be dragon's dogma, where a common complaint was that the fast travel feature was extremely limited. now reviewers can argue against that decision to their heart's content, but the game would have fallen apart if capcom went the bethesda route with fast travel. the pacing and themes presented by the day/night cycle would have been lost (visibility is low and enemies are harder at night, so trips need to be planned by how far they can travel in the day) and all the far corners of the meticulously designed world map wouldn't have felt far away at all.

but yes, none of that will ever come through in the score.

#24 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i think scores in general aren't really worth much. as for how they're scored, i could see a reviewer assigning broad characteristics to a few numbers like 9 being among the best games of the year or of the current state of the genre. however, i have absolutely no idea what the difference is between between a 5.0 and a 5.1. even with the GS 19 point system, what's a 5.5? very mediocre?

honestly, i don't think reviewers should be that objective. i guess to a point there's a need for it, like i would expect a reviewer to mention significant bugs. however, i don't agree with the idea of a review as a text on whether or not to buy a game. it's one person's views on a game that, when successful, may deepen a reader's appreciation for the game.

LoG-Sacrament

The meat is in the actual review. The point may be to say "you must buy this, it's that awesome", the point may be to say "don't dare buy this, it's the worst $*** ever", or the point may be to simply indicate what the flaws and the merits are, and then to allow the reader to decide for themselves if it's something they think they'd like. But scores generally come with an actual written review, and generally speaking all of the useful information is going to be in the review, not the score. The way I look at it, scores in the "okay" to "average" range have serious merits and serious flaws (in that reviewer's opinion). Still might be worth a buy for some readers depending on where the game is lacking. But again...readers will still have to read reviews in order to determine what aspects of the game got it points deducted.

i think the "in the reviewer's opinion" part is important. a good reviewer will be able to articulate why they feel a certain part of the game worked or didn't, but they could still be completely wrong (more pragmatically, wrong to the reader). a recent example would be dragon's dogma, where a common complaint was that the fast travel feature was extremely limited. now reviewers can argue against that decision to their heart's content, but the game would have fallen apart if capcom went the bethesda route with fast travel. the pacing and themes presented by the day/night cycle would have been lost (visibility is low and enemies are harder at night, so trips need to be planned by how far they can travel in the day) and all the far corners of the meticulously designed world map wouldn't have felt far away at all.

but yes, none of that will ever come through in the score.

I believe that there is a different between opinion and a review. I do not like fighting games. If I had to review one then my opinion would most likely be that I did not enjoy it. That is not a review. I need to be able to put aside that I do not like fighting game. I need to justify what I like or do not like about that game.

Take Dragon's Dogma poorly made fast travel. It was a big problem in the game. Also the combat in the game is not that good most of the time. This games makes you travel through the same area while fighting the same enemies three times in less that an hour does drag the game down.

It does not need to be a point of interest travel system but have something to cut down the repetitive backtracking that game has.



#25 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] The meat is in the actual review. The point may be to say "you must buy this, it's that awesome", the point may be to say "don't dare buy this, it's the worst $*** ever", or the point may be to simply indicate what the flaws and the merits are, and then to allow the reader to decide for themselves if it's something they think they'd like. But scores generally come with an actual written review, and generally speaking all of the useful information is going to be in the review, not the score. The way I look at it, scores in the "okay" to "average" range have serious merits and serious flaws (in that reviewer's opinion). Still might be worth a buy for some readers depending on where the game is lacking. But again...readers will still have to read reviews in order to determine what aspects of the game got it points deducted. wiouds

i think the "in the reviewer's opinion" part is important. a good reviewer will be able to articulate why they feel a certain part of the game worked or didn't, but they could still be completely wrong (more pragmatically, wrong to the reader). a recent example would be dragon's dogma, where a common complaint was that the fast travel feature was extremely limited. now reviewers can argue against that decision to their heart's content, but the game would have fallen apart if capcom went the bethesda route with fast travel. the pacing and themes presented by the day/night cycle would have been lost (visibility is low and enemies are harder at night, so trips need to be planned by how far they can travel in the day) and all the far corners of the meticulously designed world map wouldn't have felt far away at all.

but yes, none of that will ever come through in the score.

I believe that there is a different between opinion and a review. I do not like fighting games. If I had to review one then my opinion would most likely be that I did not enjoy it. That is not a review. I need to be able to put aside that I do not like fighting game. I need to justify what I like or do not like about that game.

Take Dragon's Dogma poorly made fast travel. It was a big problem in the game. Also the combat in the game is not that good most of the time. This games makes you travel through the same area while fighting the same enemies three times in less that an hour does drag the game down.

It does not need to be a point of interest travel system but have something to cut down the repetitive backtracking that game has.



how was fast travel poorly made? the entire game world was built on being cyclical and a big part of that being conveyed was through the day/night transition. if you could fast travel everywhere like skyrim, you'd never have to think about the effect of that system because you could completely ignore it. without the looming presence of a larger cycle, the last few hours of the game would make no sense at all.

as for your fighting game example, so what if you don't like fighting games? the entire review wouldn't be "i don't like fighting games." if it's well written, the reader will understand that the reviewer has an issue with core traits of the genre. most reviews for fighting games now are written by people who do like the genre. should all those reviews be discredited?

#26 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i think the "in the reviewer's opinion" part is important. a good reviewer will be able to articulate why they feel a certain part of the game worked or didn't, but they could still be completely wrong (more pragmatically, wrong to the reader). a recent example would be dragon's dogma, where a common complaint was that the fast travel feature was extremely limited. now reviewers can argue against that decision to their heart's content, but the game would have fallen apart if capcom went the bethesda route with fast travel. the pacing and themes presented by the day/night cycle would have been lost (visibility is low and enemies are harder at night, so trips need to be planned by how far they can travel in the day) and all the far corners of the meticulously designed world map wouldn't have felt far away at all.

but yes, none of that will ever come through in the score.

LoG-Sacrament

I believe that there is a different between opinion and a review. I do not like fighting games. If I had to review one then my opinion would most likely be that I did not enjoy it. That is not a review. I need to be able to put aside that I do not like fighting game. I need to justify what I like or do not like about that game.

Take Dragon's Dogma poorly made fast travel. It was a big problem in the game. Also the combat in the game is not that good most of the time. This games makes you travel through the same area while fighting the same enemies three times in less that an hour does drag the game down.

It does not need to be a point of interest travel system but have something to cut down the repetitive backtracking that game has.



how was fast travel poorly made? the entire game world was built on being cyclical and a big part of that being conveyed was through the day/night transition. if you could fast travel everywhere like skyrim, you'd never have to think about the effect of that system because you could completely ignore it. without the looming presence of a larger cycle, the last few hours of the game would make no sense at all.

as for your fighting game example, so what if you don't like fighting games? the entire review wouldn't be "i don't like fighting games." if it's well written, the reader will understand that the reviewer has an issue with core traits of the genre. most reviews for fighting games now are written by people who do like the genre. should all those reviews be discredited?

My point about me not liking fighting game is that there is a different between a person opinion and a person review. I do not like many fighting games. That is a valid point of view and the point of view of a person that love fighting game is. My point is that it is the justification of your opinion is more important than the opinion itself.

I said it does not need to be a point of interest travel system like Skyrim. A day night cycle does not matter if I am running through the same area for the third time during the day. Having a the time of day affect the game is good, but that does not a good reason to force the player to pass through areas he/she been to a number of times before. Even taking into acount the day night cycle, traveling in Dragon's Dogma get boring fast.

#27 Posted by scouttrooperbob (2439 posts) -

[QUOTE="scouttrooperbob"]

[QUOTE="Lulekani"]Whats bothers me is when a video game's story counts toward the score.wiouds

Thats the other problem with scoring, because I may be looking for a story driven game with alright gameplay, and another inividual will be looking for a game with outstanding gameplay and not give two craps about the story. I beleive video game reviews should grade the game on what the game is trying to do. Is it trying to tell a story, promote realistic shootouts, or portray an elegant style.

That seem too nice and not that professional. I agree with you in some way. I believe that the creator can call what they created any way they want. However, if they give it a common label like saying it is a game then I expect reviewers to review it as a game.

If the creator gives give their creation the label of game then I will have the game play as the most important. After all game play is the factor that makes a game.

I believe that game play is the art of the game. Story and visual should affect the score but I believe game play should be the main focus. Trying to find out what the game is trying to do is not the job of a reviewer. His/Her job is to look at what it is and judge it base off the other within the same label.

Yeah I can see that. I dont think the problem is the reviewers, they have there own oppinions, Its the individuals who automatically assume the worst because of another individuals oppinion. I find Game Informer to be my reviews with scoring because they seem fairly consistant. IGN isnt too bad even though they seem biased twards main streem games and Gamespot has been comletly off the wall on some games. They Low-ball alot of titles that have been given better reviews by multiple sources. But then again it just depends on who reviews it.

#28 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I believe that there is a different between opinion and a review. I do not like fighting games. If I had to review one then my opinion would most likely be that I did not enjoy it. That is not a review. I need to be able to put aside that I do not like fighting game. I need to justify what I like or do not like about that game.

Take Dragon's Dogma poorly made fast travel. It was a big problem in the game. Also the combat in the game is not that good most of the time. This games makes you travel through the same area while fighting the same enemies three times in less that an hour does drag the game down.

It does not need to be a point of interest travel system but have something to cut down the repetitive backtracking that game has.



wiouds

how was fast travel poorly made? the entire game world was built on being cyclical and a big part of that being conveyed was through the day/night transition. if you could fast travel everywhere like skyrim, you'd never have to think about the effect of that system because you could completely ignore it. without the looming presence of a larger cycle, the last few hours of the game would make no sense at all.

as for your fighting game example, so what if you don't like fighting games? the entire review wouldn't be "i don't like fighting games." if it's well written, the reader will understand that the reviewer has an issue with core traits of the genre. most reviews for fighting games now are written by people who do like the genre. should all those reviews be discredited?

My point about me not liking fighting game is that there is a different between a person opinion and a person review. I do not like many fighting games. That is a valid point of view and the point of view of a person that love fighting game is. My point is that it is the justification of your opinion is more important than the opinion itself.

I said it does not need to be a point of interest travel system like Skyrim. A day night cycle does not matter if I am running through the same area for the third time during the day. Having a the time of day affect the game is good, but that does not a good reason to force the player to pass through areas he/she been to a number of times before.

i agree that a good review is an opinion that is justified. it's the point i've been making all along. i may agree or disagree with the opinion, but if it's justified i'll still get something out of the review.

as for dragon's dogma, the day/night cycle absolutely does matter. cycles are what define the entire game world and the game is about trying to get out of that cycle. without some form of repetition, there can be no cycle. and yes, there were ways to limit the repetition. the player can place a shortcut stone and buy currency to use it. beyond that, there is no need to do all the side quests if you don't want to. they're side quests after all (although you can still find them in a variety of places).

#29 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -
If you do not like fighting games, you have no business reviewing fighting games. That would only have value to people who know your personality, know your tastes, and know your history, kinda like the Giantbomb guys do where you know almost everything about the reviewers. You could try to objectively look at the game, but you would fail just as much as someone who absolutely loved fighting games would fail. I mean, would you be writing that review for other people who hate fighting games or something? Writing about fighting games when you don't like fighting games would be like me writing about what it was like growing up as a poor black kid in 1950s New York. Completely pointless to everyone.
#30 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

If you do not like fighting games, you have no business reviewing fighting games. That would only have value to people who know your personality, know your tastes, and know your history, kinda like the Giantbomb guys do where you know almost everything about the reviewers. You could try to objectively look at the game, but you would fail just as much as someone who absolutely loved fighting games would fail. I mean, would you be writing that review for other people who hate fighting games or something? Writing about fighting games when you don't like fighting games would be like me writing about what it was like growing up as a poor black kid in 1950s New York. Completely pointless to everyone.guynamedbilly

How so?

If you do not like something then it give you a different view of things. A different point of view allows a person to notice different things that if very one have the same ideal would be hard to notice. As long as the stay respectful of the game and support their opinion then that review is just as valid as any other.

#31 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] Writing about fighting games when you don't like fighting games would be like me writing about what it was like growing up as a poor black kid in 1950s New York. Completely pointless to everyone.

so you don't like poor black kids that grew up in 1950's new york? harsh.
#32 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="scouttrooperbob"]

Thats the other problem with scoring, because I may be looking for a story driven game with alright gameplay, and another inividual will be looking for a game with outstanding gameplay and not give two craps about the story. I beleive video game reviews should grade the game on what the game is trying to do. Is it trying to tell a story, promote realistic shootouts, or portray an elegant style.

scouttrooperbob

That seem too nice and not that professional. I agree with you in some way. I believe that the creator can call what they created any way they want. However, if they give it a common label like saying it is a game then I expect reviewers to review it as a game.

If the creator gives give their creation the label of game then I will have the game play as the most important. After all game play is the factor that makes a game.

I believe that game play is the art of the game. Story and visual should affect the score but I believe game play should be the main focus. Trying to find out what the game is trying to do is not the job of a reviewer. His/Her job is to look at what it is and judge it base off the other within the same label.

Yeah I can see that. I dont think the problem is the reviewers, they have there own oppinions, Its the individuals who automatically assume the worst because of another individuals oppinion. I find Game Informer to be my reviews with scoring because they seem fairly consistant. IGN isnt too bad even though they seem biased twards main streem games and Gamespot has been comletly off the wall on some games. They Low-ball alot of titles that have been given better reviews by multiple sources. But then again it just depends on who reviews it.

The best a site like those can do is create acceptable standers and practices then enforce them. By acceptable standers and practices I mean you can not become focus on single moment of the story and use that to judge the entire story off.

#33 Posted by RageQuitter69 (1366 posts) -

Gamespot's review score system:

  • 10 = Almost perfect.
  • 9.5/9.0 = Amazing.
  • 8.5/8.0 = Great
  • 7.5 = good.
  • 7.0/6.5 = mediocre.
  • 6.0 = fair.
  • 5.5/5.0 = poor.
  • 4.5/4.0 = bad.
  • 3.5/3.0/2.5/2.0/1.5/1.0 = crap/
#34 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]If you do not like fighting games, you have no business reviewing fighting games. That would only have value to people who know your personality, know your tastes, and know your history, kinda like the Giantbomb guys do where you know almost everything about the reviewers. You could try to objectively look at the game, but you would fail just as much as someone who absolutely loved fighting games would fail. I mean, would you be writing that review for other people who hate fighting games or something? Writing about fighting games when you don't like fighting games would be like me writing about what it was like growing up as a poor black kid in 1950s New York. Completely pointless to everyone.wiouds

How so?

If you do not like something then it give you a different view of things. A different point of view allows a person to notice different things that if very one have the same ideal would be hard to notice. As long as the stay respectful of the game and support their opinion then that review is just as valid as any other.

That review would only be relevant to people who also don't like fighting games. If you don't have context, then your judgments are not useful to those who do have context. This is assuming the point of the review would be to tell people if a game is good enough to buy or not. If you look at reviews merely as points of discussion, validation, or some kind of fanboy bait, then it doesn't matter as much. It's the same kind of thing as asking someone which wine is best when all they ever drink is soda. All the person who didn't like wine could do would be to pass on second hand information. It's just not relevant.
#35 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]If you do not like fighting games, you have no business reviewing fighting games. That would only have value to people who know your personality, know your tastes, and know your history, kinda like the Giantbomb guys do where you know almost everything about the reviewers. You could try to objectively look at the game, but you would fail just as much as someone who absolutely loved fighting games would fail. I mean, would you be writing that review for other people who hate fighting games or something? Writing about fighting games when you don't like fighting games would be like me writing about what it was like growing up as a poor black kid in 1950s New York. Completely pointless to everyone.guynamedbilly

How so?

If you do not like something then it give you a different view of things. A different point of view allows a person to notice different things that if very one have the same ideal would be hard to notice. As long as the stay respectful of the game and support their opinion then that review is just as valid as any other.

That review would only be relevant to people who also don't like fighting games. If you don't have context, then your judgments are not useful to those who do have context. This is assuming the point of the review would be to tell people if a game is good enough to buy or not. If you look at reviews merely as points of discussion, validation, or some kind of fanboy bait, then it doesn't matter as much. It's the same kind of thing as asking someone which wine is best when all they ever drink is soda. All the person who didn't like wine could do would be to pass on second hand information. It's just not relevant.

They will bring their own insight to to. A person that have never tasted wine before will find a different view point that will notice things that some one "who do have context" will not. Those that drank wine often will overlook things like a bad after taste.

I enjoy WRPG. I can watch or read a review about a WRPG made by a person that does not enjoy them. They come from a different view point that will point out things that a person that enjoy WRPG would not care about. I will see value in that review.

#36 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -
So it sounds like you view reviews more as a point of discussion. Would you see enough value in that review to buy the game? Obviously, it depends on the amount of coverage, but would you base your purchase of an RPG on the positive review of someone who didn't like RPGs?
#37 Posted by wiouds (5400 posts) -

So it sounds like you view reviews more as a point of discussion. Would you see enough value in that review to buy the game? Obviously, it depends on the amount of coverage, but would you base your purchase of an RPG on the positive review of someone who didn't like RPGs?guynamedbilly

It depend on how well they justify their points and some other details they bring up. If they do that well then I may get a game base of that review.

I would like to look at more with different points of views.