Do Review scores need to go the way of the dinosaur?

The 8/10 vs 8/100 was from your statement that different sites and reviewers gave an 8 different weight. This was a prime example of what I thought you were addressing. But if you were saying that one person's 8/10 was another's 7.9/10, well, that's just splitting hairs.

The capitalism in a mixed world economy was just an example of a more complex premise that can't be boiled sown to such a simple conclusion. Game reviews are not nearly as complex an endeavor and they can be summed up quickly and succinctly with a numerical score.

Yes, I can tell you the general gist of the review just by seeing an 8. If it's an 8/10, then the review is pretty favorable and the game does what it does very well. Gamespot calls it "Great". If I have doubts, there's the text of the review to support this. A game rated 7 is less well received. This is actually simple stuff. I think the part that you get hung up on is expecting a greater precision than is possible; that there must be some scientific formula so that every reviewer comes up with the same number in order for the number to be valid. That's not how this works. Every measurement has a margin of error, reviews are no different. And a variance of, say 10%, really isn't that big of a deal.

I don't care what fanboys use scores for. A tool does not lose it's purpose just because a few people decide to misuse it, and I'm not going to let a few idiots shape my view of the world.

If you want a cheat sheet, here you go.

80% and up; if you like the genre and theme, chances are good you'd like the game.

70-79%; there may be some issues, but still generally favourable, so if you like the genre or subject matter, you should read more to see if you would mind the issues the game has.

60-69%; there are some significant issues that will dissuade most, but if it's in a genre or theme you love it could still be worth checking out.

59% and below; tread carefully, it only gets worse the lower you go. You may want to try a demo, a rental or pick it up cheap.

Wither review scores go or not i honestly couldn't care less as reviews and review scores have zero impact on my purchases heck i've enjoyed a lot of flops more than i did with games that didnt flop.

a flop or not that depends on how much you enjoy the game imo.. with that being said i plan to pick up my The Order copy soon ( actually im started to think maybe its best if i borrow the game from friends as almost all my friends have already finished the game lol ).

Yes, they need to go. To many people depend on them as if they're solid numerical data, wen in reality they're nothing more than numbers pulled out of the ass of whomever assigned them in a way to somehow quantify a fucking opinion (lol). They're not mathematically relevant at all, regardless of how you try to spin it around.

They're subjective as **** and serve no purpose than to derail the viewer/reader. Reading/watching an opinion on a game is infinitely more important to give you a perspective on said game, than looking at a score.

But it won't go away, ever. Stupid as it is, it's to much of a common thing to assign a number portraying the quality of something. It's a human thing.

No it didn't. I'm just asking a general question based on the article which you probably didn't read.

I don't give a shit about the order. I'm borrowing it from a friend saving my hard earned money. So no stunning here bruh.

Review scores pander to people who don't read paragraphs; which in turn makes it easier for publishers to manipulate the consumer.

I'm not saying websites like gamespot are in bed with the Publishers, acting as advertisers primarily and reviewers second but, they are.

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but reviews can't be objective. Reviewers talk about their experience and their experience alone. That's why you read them and then decide for yourself because reviewers aren't there to decide for you.

No but its funny how after the order flop a thread like this popped up, buyers remorse?

That is entirely the fault of the toxic garbage that is the video game community. Blame the mouth breathers who argue over review scores and take them as objective fact - if there was no market for reviews they wouldn't be around. Look at this thread, it all started because OP is upset over a game he likes getting a low score.

Yeah that's not true.

True SW idiocy at it's finest. Assuming what's going on in a persons head.

You should actually maybe just ask sometimes.

Sorry I posted an article and my opinion and never said anywhere I was upset at the fact that the games I enjoy got low scores.

So please take your dumb assumptions about me somewhere else.

Also I shouldn't expect much of an intelligent discussion from someone who used to call people plebs and I guess now calls the mouth breathers.

no!! It gives me an idea about the games that I'm not sure if I wanted to buy like Drive Club and Order 1886!

There will always be some subjectivity involved. However, there is also an objective nature to game design. Technicalities that are not the intent of the developer. For example: Tom Mcshea claimed to have issues with the fundamental controls in Skyward Sword. Not because he didn't like them personally, but because technical issues arose from them working 100 percent of the time in his case. That is a valid objective criticism. Another example is in Goldeneye where you could be shot at through the snow on the Surface level--in a game striving to give the player a stealth option the game fails to deliver this through a fault in the games engine. Uncharted has aiming issues in close quarters. Likes and dislikes of the aiming aside, sometimes aiming doesn't work because of the camera system in conjunction with the background and player movement.

Those are objective flaws in all those games. Reviewers need to stress these sorts of issues more. Skyrim a darn near perfect score when it was riddled with bugs? C'mon now.

This is probably one of the best posts I've ever seen in SW.

I wouldn't be upset if reviews (at least ones with scores) are removed forever cause they've been doing more harm than good lately except on a few occasions.

Lol cows would love that, but no.

Not the biggest fan of a score, but better mediums with better critical sources have had scores for years. Too many people put stock into a review, use absurd logic like 7=average (which yes in this medium might slightly be true, because it has inflated scores, 9s get given way too fucking easily), and all around use bullshit logic to criticize them. For instance the notion that reviews have become "more" subjective, um bullshit they always were, anything objective about older reviews were the 10 paragraphs they wasted on back of the box bullshit and things like graphics/audio design/controller input.

The larger issue with game reviews is the straight up shit writing, as game reviewers ( a lot of them) still review games like it's the 1990s, very mechanics oriented, when modern games (and even games back then) are less and less mechanics oriented, and becoming more about the entire composition of the gameplay. For instance the sheer lack of detail in The Order reviews seems contradicting. For instance I personally can fill in the blanks with the knocks on intrusive cutscenes, poor pacing, derivative mechanics, and wack-a-mole nature. But then I also notice that these same people loved Max Payne 3 and Gears of War, based on? In fact Kotaku out right said something like "it's like Gears of War, except not good", and I personally know what those games do better, and how do things better, but the review didn't detail that.

That's shit writing, and that's coming from the guy who raped the english language with the previous paragraph. Point is the scores themselves are hardly a real issue (though sure they should get dropped), as much as the horrible writing, soft critics, poor placement of values when it comes to game design (subjective, I know, but hey I have douchery quota to meet here), and all around lack of detail are bigger issues. Not to mention the gaming community and the internet in general being bitches.

I think that's a little unfair to what is actually written in the OP.

Kevin Vanord is a good writer. And yeah, i hate it wen people just don't know how to express their opinion, i mean, if you're gonna criticize something you better be prepared to explain exactly why you found 'X' a con. Filling in the blanks, as you say. That's what i appreciate in a reviewer that actually gets payed. Its a profession, you make money out of it, so be a fucking professional and think it through to the end.

Puting that aside, we each got a lot of personal influences and biases that form our opinion on a game, and in a reviewers case, he then gotta describe that very opinion in written words, so not every review is going to follow a set of rules. They're flawed by nature, they're just personal perspectives on something, and that's never going to be one hundred percent accurate to every element of a game. Wile playing around people are going to put different emphasis on different stuff which ultimately will decide how much of a good thing the experience was, and that's going to mirror whats in a review, if its well written.

I think the problem is that people value outside opinions far to much over their own letting these opinions influence their prior perspective on a game. And wen they try out the said game, they're gonna go in negative, trying to find flaws and ignoring the good stuff. I'm not saying that listing to an outside source on the quality of a video game is a bad thing, on the contrary, i do it all the time. Reviews, in general, have a place in this world. I'm saying that go in on another opinion with a grain of salt and don't let it decide your purchase. Decide yourself based on videos, the general design, etc., with the side dish being the outside opinions. In this day and age, you can literally know everything about the game before you buy it.

Objectivity in gaming is a tricky thing. Leniency and patience are also part of the personal influences that will decide your experience, and your review. For example, some people will hate the camera in Super Mario 64 and that aspect will prevent significant enjoyment for them. Wile some other people will feel it slightly impedes the experience and pass it off as a minor con. Another good example is Tomb Raider. The controls are designed around the level design, and they will work perfectly fine as long as you learn them. They're completely different from the standards of today, but with patience, you can learn them and enjoy the design of the game.

Wouldn't this effectively kill what goes on within this sub-forum? I can't see people posting walls of reviews to weigh one system against another.

Personally I like the numerical system, anything ranging between a 7-9 has a good likelihood I will enjoy it on some level, and I know to avoid the six's and below without at least doing some research prior to purchase.

@Lucianu:

I'm not sure where you are going with that. I'm assuming you are in agreement.

....Tomb Raider. Good game--really only care for the first two. Gamers of today pass it off as a poor action game but the focus of the gameplay was always about entering a room and figuring out point a to b, through puzzle/platformer with enemies being an impending threat. The camera though was still an issue in tight quarters. There were times where it simply didn't work. (btw makes me wonder what an actual modern tomb raider game would be like today)

More sites should follow Eurogamer's recent move.

This thread was made by a DCing Cow that through in Ryse and Kirby in his opening statement to not appear as such. PS fanboys just cant grasp the fact that the PS4 is all bark and no bite. I have yet to see a game on PS4 that would make me rush out and buy one over my X1!

Though ryse was technically a flop... People still enjoyed it.... Are you an idiot? did you read the OP?

My question is do scores inherently hurt what gamers instantly think of a game rather than maybe getting an objective as they can review and decide for themselves....
Such DC for a link that asks a pretty logical question.

I am glad their a score system be grateful everyone the butt hurt continues

No, but review scores do need to go the way of the sides of a pentagon. That is, described as "1,2,3,4, or 5"

...although I suppose "A,B,C,D, or E" would also be acceptable.

I would hate to be a video game dev, it's bad enough I'm starting to despise my fellow gamers for being mindless window lickers who rely on "Johnny Bro Gamer" to give a game a score which controls my opinion on whether I buy, rent or pass on a game.

It's beyond annoying to see people who bash a game who didn't even buy or rent the damn game, I mean really it's like they went

Why do I only see these threads/articles when an extremely terrible Sony hyped game flops?

The game is fucking shitty, GET OVER IT.

@Animal-Mother: i relying less and less on reviews. When a game like Evolve gets a 9, then you know there is something wrong. I am enjoying the Crew and i loved playing Destiny. I just don't rely on how they're being portrayed in the media at the moment.

I assume what he meant was what an 8/10 means on any given site varies depending how harsh the sites are, and what kind of scores they hand out to bland neither-here-nor-there games (I avoid the word "average" so get around confusion with "numeric averages" which is something completely different).

For example, if one site routinely awards a neither-here-nor-there games a 5 and treats anything 6+ as a positive score. then getting an 8 from them is going to be very difficult as it's an extremely strong recommendation. Whereas for other sites the neither-here-nor-there score might be a 7, making an 8 less of an almost-unconditional recommendation to meaning little more than "S'right, check it out" (something I heard Eurogamer was criticised for).

Two different sites. Both awarding 8/10. Each of them with completely different connotations/weight.

Your cheat-sheet generally holds true for modern sites on the higher end of the scoring spectrum, but in recent times sites have scaled back their neither-here-nor-there scores closer to 5, and because not all sites are doing this at the same rate the cheat sheet doesn't work.

That's where the 10% comes in. A single point on the scale isn't a huge deal (despite it's fury inducement here). And I'd say the guide holds for the vast majority of reviewers. And no, even though people try to build up Eurogamer as a harsh critic, it really doesn't hold true. They aren't that far off the average and only tend to dip further down the scale on the bottom half, which make their average seem lower. But for most good quality games, they aren't far off the rest. Now a case could, and has been made about being overly harsh on Sony exclusives, but that's neither here nor there. They did, however, give the Halo MCC a 9/10, a clearly deeply flawed game upon release. But instead of correcting their review or even mentioning the issues, they locked the comments and started the whole "numbers don't work" propaganda.

oh well Godbless and goodluck with your movement then i guess.

Publishers are struggling with the marketing now because the results are in before they can blink. In the old days, the word of mouth would take longer to circulate and bad games may have got some extra sales before the message spread.

So now, they come up with tricky ways to get you to buy the game while doubting the reviews. Or in the case of the embarrassing deal between IGN and Bungie, keep the results held back until the sales are all in and its too late.

I don't think ratings are ever bad, because they tell you which games are (probably) bad, and they don't let big companies get away with their nonsense marketing, (except those people who bought Destiny).

I agree, scores are fun for system wars, but for reviews in general; traditional scoring systems no longer have a place.

Personally I have really enjoyed DriveClub even though it got really low scores, and it ended up being that I enjoyed The Order and I have enjoyed what I have played of Ryse too... Now that doesn't mean I have bad taste in games, just means that not everyone has to have the same mindset with how 'good' a game is and on what qualities, since we all value very different things in games.

Previously in the past I would see review scores before going out and playing a game, but with these 3 games I no longer deem it necessary to be governed by a few other opinions before my own.

If we got rid of scores then reviewers would put more effort into their review content and it would help give a more informed decision to consumers on whether or not they might like a particular game.