Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten

[Palademon]

I'm experiencing this today on Machinima's review of AC: Revelations. It got a 7. Commenters are tearing the shit out. Even the one's that have coherent arguments are misrepresenting what the reviewer said.

Half the comenters thought he said "I haven't played the game" instead of "Having played the game, [point here]"

Others say that Machinima don't like fun. And don't seem to understand opinion. And the ones that do understand opinion thinks it makes what they say more important, even though they haven't played the game yet.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

Reviews aren't primarily given for journalistic integrity anymore, the attraction of traffic is of more concern.

The top (and bottom) review in Metacritic is the most hit "View this publication" - so there is a lot of logic in either fighting for top or bottom.

I personally believe the only way something can be trusted is if it's accessible by subscription only. When hits don't matter.

However, the conundrum of how to get subscribers without those initial traffic attraction tricks is a concern.

Personally, I only read reviews for how good the control scheme is - then I watch gameplay videos and go from there.

 

[Redd the Sock]

It's like that old bit: everyone thinks they're an above average driver (which even if true, if everyone is of a particular quality of driver, then it isn't above average, it's average).

I could go on at length on the unusefullness of scores in themselves, how biases can affect them, or how many people use them to overcompensate for cerain sexual shortcomings, but overall you are correct: 10/10 is somewhat too common just because the fanbrats won't let reviewers give it an "average" rating, even if what was once "exceptional" has become average. We're blessed in a reletively low amount of the god awful shovelware games that could dominate the NES, SNES or even PS and PS2 eras. Games that just weren't quirky, or not to taste, but games that were downright unplayable (see any angry video game nerd video for examples), and the number of high quality games is so high we can ignore their existance. I guess they still exist, but no one cares about reviewing playstaion minis, and ios casual games. But back then we had not onle a lot of crap to keep us grounded in what good and bad are, we also had good reason to distrust the term "average" because what was average was a lot of crap anyway.

Today, average is still pretty damn good.

 

[esperandote]

Hate Out Of Ten

Review controversies are nothing new, but things went from bad to worse this year with gamers going crazy every time a major title got scored by various outlets. The "Year of Threes" have created more high profile titles than ever, and spawned more insane fanboys than the world knows what to do with. Even worse, the review score system has gotten so thoroughly screwed that 8/10 just doesn't cut it anymore. It's now become Hate/10.

Watch Video

Just a thought

Five shouldn't be average in a 1 to 10 scale (I don't mean in a mathematical sense but in a subjective(qualitative) one), average sholud be around 3 because numbers under 5 are barely used and so many games fall between average and perfection. Quality testing and publishers, and the risk of losing money, make it difficult for games under 3 to be released. More numbers between average and perfection would give critics a wider range of options and a chance to rate games more specifically.

 

[Ipsen]

Good points Jim, but don't pop a blood vessel.

The criteria for a 'good game' is way too general when gaming media does a review; since we base the value of a game by how entertaining it is, most attempts to divide game aspects (sound, graphics, controls, etc.) tend to depend on or be overshadowed by that that ultimate question of 'is it fun'? Not to say those aspects are not important; its much more difficult to enjoy a game if the controls suck, or the voice acting is terrible, but one or two of these aspects can always be overlooked.

I believe that reviews should hold weight in the originality of the game. That means, no perfect scores for sequels, because they carry the spirit of the original game in their creation (exception for 2's in the line, if they both take risks to both change and build from the basics of the original, while being well made; never 3's in the line).

Many games come out in the span of a year, so reviews need to appraise originality of games in general MUCH better. Just being well made and even extremely entertaining, unfortunately, does not cut it.

...At least, not for the growth of the industry. As far as you buying the game though? It works.

 

[Shameless]

Here is an idea: why not ditch numbers and force people to actually READ the review ?

 

[Jack O'Shea]

i would have thought that a 10/10 was impossible to achieve as a game that is 10/10 is a PERFECT game that has no faults and would be like by everyone regardless of genre preference. So if one review gives a game 10/10 but in the description it mentions that the enemy AI could be better, then it's not 10/10 as that is not a perfect game. People really need to remember these things.

 

[AMAZED]

just went to IGN, saw assassins creed revelations and halo anniversary reviews (they got an 8.5 and an 8) people were whining about both reviews. Fortunately not everyone there was a total idiot, a lot were satisfied with the scores, so I guess all hope for humanity isn't lost.

 

[lockgar]

Remember, humans can only simplify. Ether something is shit, or something is Great. There is no middle.

I use to go by an old system. Since I have a limited time to play games, I only wanted to best. So I used good old metacritic. Anything lower then a 70% I would deem not worth my time. Not because my time was so valuable, but because I "rationalized" that I could spend my time doing something "better". I never thought that anything below a 70 was horrible though, since I had nothing to stand on. Now I'm so back logged with games that I'm still trying to get through them.

I also never wasted time posting on review scores. Since again, lack of time. That being said, I've played tons of "less then stellar games" that I found far more fun then some of these 9/10 games.

That being said, if there was a game that I was interested in that was in the 5-7 range, I would actually read several reviews to see what was wrong with it. However, I still found 4 and lower to be a red zone to never touch it with a ten foot pole. Don't know if that is wrong.

As to why people have so much e-penis for something they are not directly involved in. I guess its the same idea for sports teams. You feel like your part of something. I feel more and more animosity towards gamers as I get older. Maybe thats just it. I got older, and got wiser. I know if I saw this back when I was 18, I would probably get ready to flame jim for calling me immature while proving his point entirely.

 

[Right Hook]

This video was so good, I laughed so much at the end, it is probably my favorite episode so far. Jim is doing a great job.

 

[MichaelMaverick]

The trouble is that our gaming culture is populated almost exclusively by actual children and their adult versions, people who sincerely don't WANT opinions other than their own to exist. They're insecure and only read/watch reviews to get their opinions validated, then cry bias and just plain idiocy when it doesn't happen. They need their game to get a 10/10, for they can't accept some games generally being considered better than the one they're deceiving themselves into thinking is absolutely perfect. Though I agree that reviewers themselves contributed to this situation by lowering standards so much. I also think that people just don't pay attention to the words of the actual review, and just focus solely on the numeric value, the stern hammer of judgement that it is.

Obviously the solution is not to just get rid of reviews altogether, though I admit I often find myself thinking it might be for the best. No, we just need to grow the fuck up.

 

[lRookiel]

Review controversies are nothing new, but things went from bad to worse this year with gamers going crazy every time a major title got scored by various outlets. The "Year of Threes" have created more high profile titles than ever, and spawned more insane fanboys than the world knows what to do with. Even worse, the review score system has gotten so thoroughly screwed that 8/10 just doesn't cut it anymore. It's now become Hate/10.

Some people are idiots Jim, you may as well just ignore them, with the exception of people directing their hatred towards things you say yourself ofcourse.

Great video dude, by a rational standard I would say a 7.8/10

 

[zombiejoe]

Personally, do to how reviews seemed to me, the ratings were like:

10: OMG TEH BEST GAME EVA!!!!1!!!
9: Great
8: Good
7: Average
6: Mediocre
5-1: Don't exist

And now it's even worse. You shouldn't get mad at a review for not like a game, it's their opinion, or at least it's supposed to be. But not anymore, now it's "Give me a 9" or "Give me a 10"

This video basically explains what reviewing has become

 

[socialmenace42]

My feelings exactly Jim (lately I've been grudgingly agreeing with you more and more) but the painfull thing is that I think a lot of people who see the rating rage because 1. yes, they are ignorant and a product of the 'perfect ratings glory' we have been putting up over the years, also however 2. just because they are too lazy to take the numbers in context. people who rage about this sort of thing are almost exclusively lazy bastards who don't even bother reading the whole article, just look at the numbers and judge based on that. Some of these individuals (agreed, a heavy number would still be biased and ignore any critique leveled against the game, but there's always a few with more than one braincell) would be better able to understand the rating and realise their mistake.

To be honest this is part of what has always drawn me to the escapist: the reviews are not only well formulated, unbiased and usually consisting of both text and video, what really attracts me is the fact that they don't need numbers to bring their point across (OK fine they have stars, but it's easier to see past a star rating than a hard number, and besides it's right at the end of the review, not trumpeted loudly on the front page) . To clarify, I don't think anyone else needs them either, it's just for an 'at a glance' perspective of the reviewers oppinion, to grab passing readers attention and interest.
However since this whole misconception about the value of 'hate out of ten' for example, this number becomes completely non-objective. It means nothing, and it (specifically the interpretation of it by misinformed readers) devalues the review itself as a result.

Which is a shame really.

 

[Cousin_IT]

Personally, I think one of the problems might be that the games industry is expanding so rapidly in terms of technology & ability that it leaves reviewers, who for the most part are still all of the same generation of enthusiastic amateurs, spellbound by the pace of it. I've seen it suggested in defence of score inflation, on this website in fact I think it was, that games are so much better than they were 10years ago that they deserve the increased score, as an "average" game now is clearly better than an "average" game then. To me, this ignores the idea that the bar should be continuously raised as progress is made, which is a problem if the idea of a games reviewer/critic as someone who critiques games with the intention of aiding the continuous progression of the medium is to remain relevant (if it ever did).

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Great show Jim...you know what, I'm not doing anything productive. You've inspired me to start some reviewing of my own. I won't be carpet bombing review sites with 1's but there are a lot of games that I love that I'd like to write about. I doubt I'll have a profound effect but it'll be a chance to talk about how Pokemon isn't a perfect 10 series.