Why do most games never get below a 7? EDIT: And how to we fix it?

[Tupolev]

Depends on the site, but there's been people who were fired for rating a big budget game with a score lower then a 7 (I recall this happening to a reviewer over the first Kane and Lynch). There's also the problem of ad revenue for websites and magazines, I'm sure you'd alienate companies by giving them lousy grades. And then there's the whole 'subjective' element, a game you might think is absolute shit someone else will love, or at least give it a passing grade.

You're talking about a different (although equally valid and probably more important) problem. That problem is that publishers are paying reviewers to give their game an "Above Average" score when they don't deserve it. The problem I'm talking about is why we have an artificial average score.

If Kane and Lynch is Truly a below average game, then it should get a 4 or a 3. Not the 6 that got Jeff Gertsmann fired. In fact, if Kayne and Lynch really is a below average game, he was overrating it with a 6.

The two issues aren't necessarily unrelated, though. If reviewers sell out to adveritising pressures, that's something that will likely cause the "average score" to increase; if everyone suddenly gets an 8, reviewers start dropping 9's and 10's on the good products.

 

[Elamdri]

I disagree with the 'Zero Punctation' style method as well, largely because I find that Yahtzee gets too hung up on little things and then obviously exploits that for the sake of comedy. Not the best way to actually understand the game or what it entails.

Elamdri was saying that we should judge games on more qualitative bases rather than simply slapping a number on, not that we should tear all games completely apart by exploiting comedic potential.

I find Zero Punctation to lack this as well however. I probably should've explained my point a bit more, I do understand what he wants in a game review, I'm just replying that Zero Punctation is hardly a good example of this.

I choose Zero Punctuation because it's well known example, not because it's a perfect example. I do agree with you, although personally I think we could use to emphasize the negatives in reviews more. I think that's a result of our "constructive criticism" culture, were we view "Constructive Criticism" with emphasizing only the good points. No one learns when you are told what you did RIGHT.

 

[Elamdri]

Depends on the site, but there's been people who were fired for rating a big budget game with a score lower then a 7 (I recall this happening to a reviewer over the first Kane and Lynch). There's also the problem of ad revenue for websites and magazines, I'm sure you'd alienate companies by giving them lousy grades. And then there's the whole 'subjective' element, a game you might think is absolute shit someone else will love, or at least give it a passing grade.

You're talking about a different (although equally valid and probably more important) problem. That problem is that publishers are paying reviewers to give their game an "Above Average" score when they don't deserve it. The problem I'm talking about is why we have an artificial average score.

If Kane and Lynch is Truly a below average game, then it should get a 4 or a 3. Not the 6 that got Jeff Gertsmann fired. In fact, if Kayne and Lynch really is a below average game, he was overrating it with a 6.

The two issues aren't necessarily unrelated, though. If reviewers sell out to adveritising pressures, that's something that will likely cause the "average score" to increase; if everyone suddenly gets an 8, reviewers start dropping 9's and 10's on the good products.

True.

 

[Shoelip]

I remember when nines were rare and tens were nearly unheard of.

I think it all comes down to money. The game companies pay the sites and magazines to run their ads. It's only one step more for them to make their own ads in the form of reviews. That way the sites and magazines get money, the game companies get money, and the consumers get screwed. The majority of consumers don't give a crap and just keep consuming. Everybody's happy... Well everyone they care about anyway.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Imagine a mainstream games site/magazine began using 5 to mean average, they'd start to become viewed as pessimistic. Fanboys would just dismiss the site based on games like HL2 getting a 7 or FFXIII getting a 4. 1-10 and 0-100% scales have become somewhat skewed because it's so entrenched in gamers minds that the status quo is 7-8 for average and 9-10 for great. People don't react the same way to a 5 star system though, probably because movie reviews have used it for so long.

 

[Rayne870]

Mostly because bad games fall into death and obscurity, or never get released in the first place.

Of course, when they DO get out, they're very noticeable.

Seen that a few times and it's funny as hell. I usually end up picking up some of those games in the bargain bin for about 9 bucks a few months down the road just to see how bad they are.

 

[icame]

Much of the gaming press considers 7 to be average for some asinine reason. I assume that's why. Also I imagine on sites like IGN they won't get those phat advertisement dollars next time from a publisher if they bash one of their games to oblivion. Note trying to be a conspiracy theorist here, just saying.

 

[Blind Sight]

I disagree with the 'Zero Punctation' style method as well, largely because I find that Yahtzee gets too hung up on little things and then obviously exploits that for the sake of comedy. Not the best way to actually understand the game or what it entails.

Elamdri was saying that we should judge games on more qualitative bases rather than simply slapping a number on, not that we should tear all games completely apart by exploiting comedic potential.

I find Zero Punctation to lack this as well however. I probably should've explained my point a bit more, I do understand what he wants in a game review, I'm just replying that Zero Punctation is hardly a good example of this.

I choose Zero Punctuation because it's well known example, not because it's a perfect example. I do agree with you, although personally I think we could use to emphasize the negatives in reviews more. I think that's a result of our "constructive criticism" culture, were we view "Constructive Criticism" with emphasizing only the good points. No one learns when you are told what you did RIGHT.

Oh, without a doubt, legitimate criticism is absolutely vital. The problem comes when it's amped up with hyperbole. I mean, I enjoy an angry review for the sake of comedy, but I take criticism far more seriously when a reviewer rationally explains why something sucks, rather then just ranting and swearing. That's the constructive criticism you're referring to, and some gaming companies actually take it seriously. That's why I like Bioware so much, they actually read forum reviews and realize stuff like 'shit, most people thought the buggy in Mass Effect was horrible, scrap it'. I guarantee you Mass Effect 3 won't have planet scanning thanks to this.

Check out Bennett the Sage on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, his reviews are excellent.

 

[Elamdri]

Imagine a mainstream games site/magazine began using 5 to mean average, they'd start to become viewed as pessimistic. Fanboys would just dismiss the site based on games like HL2 getting a 7 or FFXIII getting a 4. 1-10 and 0-100% scales have become somewhat skewed because it's so entrenched in gamers minds that the status quo is 7-8 for average and 9-10 for great. People don't react the same way to a 5 star system though, probably because movie reviews have used it for so long.

Right, what I'm asking is how do you fix that? The point is that the system is fundamentally flawed because it overrates products.

The point of a review system based off a numerical qualification of quality is that it lets you immediately get a sense of proximately how good something is. If you are skewing those numbers, you have a fundamentally flawed system.

 

[Elamdri]

Oh, without a doubt, legitimate criticism is absolutely vital. The problem comes when it's amped up with hyperbole. I mean, I enjoy an angry review for the sake of comedy, but I take criticism far more seriously when a reviewer rationally explains why something sucks, rather then just ranting and swearing. That's the constructive criticism you're referring to, and some gaming companies actually take it seriously. That's why I like Bioware so much, they actually read forum reviews and realize stuff like 'shit, most people thought the buggy in Mass Effect was horrible, scrap it'. I guarantee you Mass Effect 3 won't have planet scanning thanks to this.

Check out Bennett the Sage on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, his reviews are excellent.

I totally get what you're saying and I agree. Also, I practically live on TGWTG.com

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Imagine a mainstream games site/magazine began using 5 to mean average, they'd start to become viewed as pessimistic. Fanboys would just dismiss the site based on games like HL2 getting a 7 or FFXIII getting a 4. 1-10 and 0-100% scales have become somewhat skewed because it's so entrenched in gamers minds that the status quo is 7-8 for average and 9-10 for great. People don't react the same way to a 5 star system though, probably because movie reviews have used it for so long.

Right, what I'm asking is how do you fix that? The point is that the system is fundamentally flawed because it overrates products.

The point of a review system based off a numerical qualification of quality is that it lets you immediately get a sense of proximately how good something is. If you are skewing those numbers, you have a fundamentally flawed system.

Like I said people won't react the same to a 5 star system, provided like me you always view 3 star as a 5/10. I'd play a three star game if it sounds good, but a 5/10 would make me think twice.

 

[Elamdri]

Much of the gaming press considers 7 to be average for some asinine reason. I assume that's why. Also I imagine on sites like IGN they won't get those phat advertisement dollars next time from a publisher if they bash one of their games to oblivion. Note trying to be a conspiracy theorist here, just saying.

Right, but the point I'm trying to make is that giving a game a six is mathematically NOT bashing a game. It's actually mathematically PRAISING a game.

 

[Elamdri]

Like I said people won't react the same to a 5 star system, provided like me you always view 3 star as a 5/10. I'd play a three star game if it sounds good, but a 5/10 would make me think twice.

I think you're right. But I wish we could fix the 1-10 system rather than abandon it.

 

[Rayne870]

Imagine a mainstream games site/magazine began using 5 to mean average, they'd start to become viewed as pessimistic. Fanboys would just dismiss the site based on games like HL2 getting a 7 or FFXIII getting a 4. 1-10 and 0-100% scales have become somewhat skewed because it's so entrenched in gamers minds that the status quo is 7-8 for average and 9-10 for great. People don't react the same way to a 5 star system though, probably because movie reviews have used it for so long.

Right, what I'm asking is how do you fix that? The point is that the system is fundamentally flawed because it overrates products.

The point of a review system based off a numerical qualification of quality is that it lets you immediately get a sense of proximately how good something is. If you are skewing those numbers, you have a fundamentally flawed system.

Can't really be fixed, just be aware of it and take it into consideration when you are checking out games.

 

[WolfEdge]

I think they take it from the grading scale where 70 = C = average. And just like most parents gamers want their games to get As or Bs because Cs aren't good enough for them. Any game that's 5 or below would simple be unplayable/failing.

This is the reason, I guarantee it. We're all still chasing that perfect score, as we're taught and conditioned from a very young age all the way to adulthood that anything below a 70% is simply unacceptable. This is just another example of how upbringing can have major impacts on how we emotionally view the world.

Depends on the site, but there's been people who were fired for rating a big budget game with a score lower then a 7 (I recall this happening to a reviewer over the first Kane and Lynch). There's also the problem of ad revenue for websites and magazines, I'm sure you'd alienate companies by giving them lousy grades. And then there's the whole 'subjective' element, a game you might think is absolute shit someone else will love, or at least give it a passing grade.

You're talking about a different (although equally valid and probably more important) problem. That problem is that publishers are paying reviewers to give their game an "Above Average" score when they don't deserve it. The problem I'm talking about is why we have an artificial average score.

If Kane and Lynch is Truly a below average game, then it should get a 4 or a 3. Not the 6 that got Jeff Gertsmann fired. In fact, if Kayne and Lynch really is a below average game, he was overrating it with a 6.

If this were only an issue in video games, maybe I'd agree with you. But the 70% average exists in just about every media that maintains a rating mechanism to determine success. For an interesting example, take a look at the ratings system on Newgrounds.com. It's an X/10 scoring system, just like everything else, but the average for something that's just ok or mediocre is STILL around a 7/10. If your theory was correct, and the average score of a video game was something artificial as determined by corporate executives and ad dollars, then Newgrounds' rating average should be closer to 5/10, as there isn't any pressure to inflate it. But it's average ISN'T 5/10, which leads me to believe the 7/10 average is more of an ingrained psychological effect.

 

[Ima842]

well i bring graphs!(no really graphs, but you know i wanted to use that frase)
http://i.imgur.com/OqSpE.jpg

 

[Elamdri]

For an interesting example, take a look at the ratings system on Newgrounds.com. It's an X/10 scoring system, just like everything else, but the average for something that's just ok or mediocre is STILL around a 7/10. If your theory was correct, and the average score of a video game was something artificial as determined by corporate executives and ad dollars, then Newgrounds' rating average should be closer to 5/10, as there isn't any pressure to inflate it. But it's average ISN'T 5/10, which leads me to believe the 7/10 average is more of an ingrained psychological effect.

I thought Newgrounds uses a 1-5 system.

 

[WolfEdge]

For an interesting example, take a look at the ratings system on Newgrounds.com. It's an X/10 scoring system, just like everything else, but the average for something that's just ok or mediocre is STILL around a 7/10. If your theory was correct, and the average score of a video game was something artificial as determined by corporate executives and ad dollars, then Newgrounds' rating average should be closer to 5/10, as there isn't any pressure to inflate it. But it's average ISN'T 5/10, which leads me to believe the 7/10 average is more of an ingrained psychological effect.

I thought Newgrounds uses a 1-5 system.

Newgrounds uses a weird combination of the two, wherein any given viewer can click on a value from "0" to "5" to give a score. But when a viewer who is also a mamber types up their review of the game or movie in question, they can give another score, one that's out of ten. It's this score that has the most relevance.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Teach reviewers math, first.

I think we should use set standards for game reviews. EG, if a game is really good, great campaign, solid multiplayer, you might review it a CoD4, or a Halo. If the story is epic, you might say its a Shadow of the Colossus good game. This doesn't have to tie into genre either. If its bad, you might say its Kayne and Lynch bad, or if the multiplayer has issues, its like Forza. And so on.