Scores out of Ten for Game Reviews - A Bad System

[hermes]

I liked your graphical representation but, bottomline, all is reduced into: people don't want to read a lot of text to see wheter its a good game or not. Any sort of numeric or graphical representation of the "quality" of the game is there to help people make fast decisions.

I am not saying numeric rating are perfect or even desirable (the best would be you to browse sites and read the reviews), but any summary of the reviews can be overused until it has the same problems ("why MW2 has less substance than SF4?", "The reviewer said "Seth is so damn cheap", ergo, he is dumb and unable to have an opinion"). I do preffer, however, when the numeric rating is an average of several numeric values... at least then it doesn't look like they pulled the number out of thin air.

 

[Jamash]

I've never liked the points out of 10 system, I always prefer a percentage out of 100, it's much better.

 

[hermes]

Games shouldn't be reviewed in any way.
There should be a video of some gameplay footage, showing the features.
Then people would buy the game based on what they see.

That would just be effectivly trailers, secondly many games won't give an accurate impresion from just watching somebody play it (Planescape Torment for example) and thridly what are dead tree fans supposed to do?

Yes, that would effectively be trailers. I'm glad we understand each other.
No accurate impression from seeing the game played? I suppose hearing someone lie about the game makes up for a more accurate impression?

If anything, I prefer journalists "lie" to me than PR people. At least they don't do it for a living.
When it comes to reviews, it is just a matter of finding a place or person that suits your own taste and expectations about the game, and that you agree with the weight of his complains.
Some reviewers complain about the long cutscenes in MGS4 as if it were a big deal, some didn't think so. If it is not a big deal for you, there you have it.

 

[ryukage_sama]

Use the escapists review system: Prose. No score, no number, no grade, just a thoughtful, detailed description of the reviewer's experience with the game.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I've never liked the points out of 10 system, I always prefer a percentage out of 100, it's much better.

If by "much better" you mean "worse", then yes. All of the flaws with a ten point system are, frankly, ten times worse with a 100 point system.

If you wish to defend a 100 point review system, then you need to be able to explain the qualitative difference between two individual points on the scale.

It is just about possible to do this with a ten point scale (and by that I mean an actual ten point scale where only integers are used, not a 20 or 100 point scale in disguise). It is completely impossible to describe with any realistic usefulness the difference between 84% and 85%, and so a score given in that scale is utterly meaningless.

 

[Jamash]

I've never liked the points out of 10 system, I always prefer a percentage out of 100, it's much better.

If by "much better" you mean "worse", then yes. All of the flaws with a ten point system are, frankly, ten times worse with a 100 point system.

If you wish to defend a 100 point review system, then you need to be able to explain the qualitative difference between two individual points on the scale.

It is just about possible to do this with a ten point scale (and by that I mean an actual ten point scale where only integers are used, not a 20 or 100 point scale in disguise). It is completely impossible to describe with any realistic usefulness the difference between 84% and 85%, and so a score given in that scale is utterly meaningless.

???
but... but it goes up to 11 100.

EDIT: Ok, Spinal Tap references aside, you're completely right, a 100% system is just a 10 point system in disguise, much the same as a lettering system, A-F.

I suppose I have a familiarity with it because the first computer magazines I read, like Your Sinclair and Amiga Power used that system.

Also when I was at school, all our exams were graded out of 100%, there's that familiarity too,

I don't really know what I think about review systems, since to me they all have the same fundamental flaw of being someone else's opinion, which is hard to quantify.

Most of the time I read reviews as an extended "blurb" as to what the game's about and it's features, rather than how good it is, and usually let a demo tell me whether I think it's good or not, or take a risk and buy a game because I think I'll like it.

I have to say, I'm quite lucky in the way my "hocus pocus" gut feeling way of buying games hasn't really ever let me down, and I can't even remember the last game I've bought which I've regretted.

 

[brtshstel]

The problem with game ratings in general is that it's the opinion of one person, one person whom has the position of a journalist. And in that, it does not really tell anything but one person's opinion. You have to actually read the review, not just look at a number, in order to understand the the strengths and weaknesses of a game.

Personally, I don't take anything about a game review too seriously. It's entertainment for me. The only thing I truly digest in a review is the addressing of real technical problems like glitching, dreadfully long load times, unfairly difficult obstacles to negotiate due to a bad control layout or broken game engine. But other than that, it's just an opinion from a self-important critic.

"Out of 100 possible points, I give it a B"

 

[Alphavillain]

I haven't read the comments above, but how about just doing away with scoring altogether? The best reviewers of films and music in magazines and the internet generally refrain from giving scores (the great Scaruffi apart), so why not with games as well?

Plus, people that diverge from the herd view tend to get shouted down: e.g., if I were to give "Bayonetta" a 7/10, then no one is going to read my review because I'm a "troll" however eloquent I may be.

 

[jebussaves88]

We thoroughly agree, and that's kind of why we have the review system we do: We don't give scores. You can't boil a game down to a score. That's why the entire written (and/or video) review is there, and you're better off reading it than just looking for whether we gave something an 8.8 or an 8.7.

I never think of the scores on IGN as scientifically accurate. What you have to take into account is how this score compares to the games peers. If you're interested in Dragon Age for Xbox 360, and you read up it has a Metacritic score of 86, then compare it to something similar, say, Oblivion (in terms of style of narrative and artistic direction), Mass Effect (same developer)you can see the slim difference in scores. This in turn, should lead to further investigation to see if the thing that makes it an 86 as opposed to Oblivion and Mass Effect's 94 and 91 respectively is enough of a difference to make you think again. So in that way, I've always thought that numerical scores are a great help.

You have to take into account that just because something is reviewed highly, not everyone is going to buy it. It may seem stupid to many of us to even consider Fifa 10 and Left 4 Dead 2 as equally scored, but the scores are usually quite accurate when compared to the game in questions relatives (I hear Fifa 10, which got a Metacritic score of 90, is actually considerably better put together than its nearest rival, Madden NFL 08, which has 85)

In other words, a simple numerical score is a good summary as to how this game compares to other games of its type, or even those who are so close together in terms of quality, that a tenth of a score is what is needed to point out which is ultimatly better. This is why, with all due respect, that the traffic for IGN's reviews is much higher than the traffic for the Escapists reviews, and why that is unlikely to change any time soon. An argument of "Number scores are for indecisive idiots" simply doesn't cut it

Edit: To be fair though, the Escapist isn't trying to be IGN... I'm not implying it is. I'm aware that the reviews on this site are more deliberatly targeted towards the Escapists audience, and that the audience share with IGN is of little concern. Just saying why I find numerical scores more useful.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I think is so so damn stupid, why is it still being done?

It's no more or less stupid than the alternatives you have come up with, which are numbers based just with different symbols.

Ultimately any arbitrary score system is dumb, enjoyment of games is entirely subjective, so putting a value score on it is utterly pointless, just read the review.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Apparently reviewers forgot the rules of decimals.

 

[John Funk]

We thoroughly agree, and that's kind of why we have the review system we do: We don't give scores. You can't boil a game down to a score. That's why the entire written (and/or video) review is there, and you're better off reading it than just looking for whether we gave something an 8.8 or an 8.7.

I never think of the scores on IGN as scientifically accurate. What you have to take into account is how this score compares to the games peers. If you're interested in Dragon Age for Xbox 360, and you read up it has a Metacritic score of 86, then compare it to something similar, say, Oblivion (in terms of style of narrative and artistic direction), Mass Effect (same developer)you can see the slim difference in scores. This in turn, should lead to further investigation to see if the thing that makes it an 86 as opposed to Oblivion and Mass Effect's 94 and 91 respectively is enough of a difference to make you think again. So in that way, I've always thought that numerical scores are a great help.

You have to take into account that just because something is reviewed highly, not everyone is going to buy it. It may seem stupid to many of us to even consider Fifa 10 and Left 4 Dead 2 as equally scored, but the scores are usually quite accurate when compared to the game in questions relatives (I hear Fifa 10, which got a Metacritic score of 90, is actually considerably better put together than its nearest rival, Madden NFL 08, which has 85)

In other words, a simple numerical score is a good summary as to how this game compares to other games of its type, or even those who are so close together in terms of quality, that a tenth of a score is what is needed to point out which is ultimatly better. This is why, with all due respect, that the traffic for IGN's reviews is much higher than the traffic for the Escapists views, and why that is unlikely to change any time soon. An argument of "Number scores are for indecisive idiots" simply doesn't cut it

That's your view, and it happens to disagree with our own - and my own. We dislike number scores; games are entirely too complex to break down to such a simple pithy summary, and we aren't going to use them. We have standards, and no amount of "Oh, but it would get you traffic!" is going to change that.

For the record, we go with our numberless system well aware that it will exclude us from sites like Metacritic. Which we're fine with as long as it means sticking to our guns.

 

[TotallyFake]

I've never liked the points out of 10 system, I always prefer a percentage out of 100, it's much better.

100 is just unnecessary, there's no need for that kind of accuracy. Heck, a 5 point scale will suffice: Avoid. Bad but kinda neat at times. Good. Great. Compulsory buy.

The problem with a 10 point scale is that the lower numbers are never used. Take Advent Rising's review from Gamespot: http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox/action/adventrising/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review&page=2

5.7, mediocore, review discusses how the combats okay and the music is great, but that it's glitchy and just generally stupid. So far, I agree.

He then concludes: Advent Rising is a severely disappointing effort on all fronts, and it just isn't worth playing.

Now, ignoring how much I disagree with that (you can backflip whilst duel wielding rocket launchers and psychic powers, thats worth playing) how the HECK is that 5.7. Severely dissappoint and not worth playing is 1. Surely? Why are there 5 whole points entirely to categorise "not worth playing"?

 

[The_Deleted]

A lot of you seem to basing the reviews down to one person, but who among us ever bought a game based on one review. Metacritic is a useful tool for games you're unsure about and then you get the user reviews underneath. It's about finding the ones you trust and the ones who have similar taste.

 

[The_Deleted]

Surely? Why are there 5 whole points entirely to categorise "not worth playing"?

Maybe the graphics and control system is works well. Maybe the story and characters are worth the rime but the game isn't.

 

[hermes]

I've never liked the points out of 10 system, I always prefer a percentage out of 100, it's much better.

100 is just unnecessary, there's no need for that kind of accuracy. Heck, a 5 point scale will suffice: Avoid. Bad but kinda neat at times. Good. Great. Compulsory buy.

The problem with a 10 point scale is that the lower numbers are never used. Take Advent Rising's review from Gamespot: http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox/action/adventrising/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review&page=2

5.7, mediocore, review discusses how the combats okay and the music is great, but that it's glitchy and just generally stupid. So far, I agree.

He then concludes: Advent Rising is a severely disappointing effort on all fronts, and it just isn't worth playing.

Now, ignoring how much I disagree with that (you can backflip whilst duel wielding rocket launchers and psychic powers, thats worth playing) how the HECK is that 5.7. Severely dissappoint and not worth playing is 1. Surely? Why are there 5 whole points entirely to categorise "not worth playing"?

That is another thing that leads me to a somehow related point. Lately I have noticed that most reviewers have grown cowards. Anything has over 5 out of 10 (5 being the bare minimum), and any AAA title have a 9 almost assured.

 

[jebussaves88]

SNIP

That's your view, and it happens to disagree with our own - and my own. We dislike number scores; games are entirely too complex to break down to such a simple pithy summary, and we aren't going to use them. We have standards, and no amount of "Oh, but it would get you traffic!" is going to change that.

For the record, we go with our numberless system well aware that it will exclude us from sites like Metacritic. Which we're fine with as long as it means sticking to our guns.

As I said in my edit, I'm aware that a points system on the Escapist would be undesirable for many of its contributors and to some of its readership, and it would be kinda useless, as the Escapist doesn't set out to review every game and therefore, have a cohesive reference point for comparing to other games. However, I do take issue with the point you make about games being too complex to break down into a "pithy summary". Whilst I am a huge fan of games, and would name it my number one entertainment pursuit, unfortunatly games are far from immune to numerical scores. There will always be points to it where you can say "in that respect, this game is better than that one!", be it through graphical superiority (Mercenaries 2 sure ain't no GTA IV), control schemes (Prototpe beats Infamous in movement control, but lacks Infamous's better grasp on combat control), hardware friendliness (like how Crysis Warhead is much more well suited to most graphics cards when compared to the somewhat fussy Crysis), voice talent etc. Numerical scores really help to see what game does what better, and allow the reader to make further judgements on their own about whether the story, genre and artistic direction are what they want as opposed to the other game which scored similarly.

As I said, it's not for the Escapist, and that's fine by me. But to all those who begrudge the big websites like Gamespot and IGN their review scores should, for want of better words "GTFO" of there.

 

[Axolotl]

Yes, that would effectively be trailers. I'm glad we understand each other.
No accurate impression from seeing the game played? I suppose hearing someone lie about the game makes up for a more accurate impression?

Most reviewers don't lie about the game their reviewing. And for some games just watching gameplay clips is a horrible way to judge it like Planescape Torment as I pointed out.

I don't get the dead trees fans joke. Who the fuck are they?

It wasn't a joke I'm talking about magazines.

 

[maninahat]

The whole 10 point system doesn't work because people can't use it properly. You'd think that a game of average quality would get a 5/10, a good game, 7/10, and a poor game, 3/10. But no. All mainstream, popular games get scores between 6-10 (6 meaning rubbish, 7 meaning average, and 10 excellent). They are not using half of the scale, and people have gotten used to that. The problem is that "10" suggests a perfect game to which I say, there has not been one yet. Some reviews who disliked Mirror's Edge (for example) gave the game a 6.5 to 7/10. If you were unfamiliar with game reviews, and know how to use a 10 point scale properly, you'd assume the reviewer was saying that Mirror's Edge was a good game.

If you are going to use a numerical scale, do it out of 4. 4 being great, 3 being good, 2 being average/mediocre, 1 being poor. Or simpler yet, a three point scale (avoid it/rent it/ buy it). Or best of all, don't give any scale and expect people to actually read your review.