Are Video Game Reviews Broken?

[BreakABone]

I don't know if we've had a thread like this before, but this recent article by Jim Sterling really bought the attention to them once more.

http://www.gamefront.com/gears-of-war-3-perfect-review-scores-by-divine-right/

The general idea is that the video game review scale, is a really small scale. While it tends to exist from 1-10, for the most part, it is usually between 7-10 (70-100) and he points out the flack he got for giving Gears 3 an 8, even though that is a really respectable score.

Thoughts on this? Any reviews/reviewers you tend to stick with? Reason? Any sites you avoid?

[magus113]

I generally avoid IGN. If I take any opinions from reviews at all it's usually from GameTrailers, and Joystiq, but sometimes I just like to try it out for myself, because it's all really in how I take it..not how someone else does.

[gekko]

I am going to completely ignore the question you asked and say this:

What is it with Twitter that causes people to forget all about professionalism?

[Vampyr]

I just read Giant Bomb reviews. It's on a 5 star basis which makes a lot of sense. They rate games all over that scale.

[Typhoid]

I've always figured the reason every game (from a major developer) gets a 6-7 (out of 10) if it's a bad game is because if reviewers shit all over a game - even if it's bad - that company will be less likely to send that review company more free games to review. It's a catch 22. If you honestly call a game shitty, and you're a credible reviewer, that company probably won't eagerly hand over their next game to you. Obviously some probably would. But it's a fine line on both sides.


I've never ever ever ever paid attention to game ratings, though. They do nothing to tell you about the actual game considering it's entirely subjective to the handful of people reviewing it - none of which are you. And in the game playing and enjoying experience, what matters to you is the only thing that's important.

I've had countless fun hours playing shittily reviewed games - because games tend to not just be rated out of 5 or 10. They're rated out of 5 or 10 on a grading curve that encompasses all games that are like it.

An average game (of ____ genre) would get an (let's say) 8. Unless a game that was similar was released recently. Then you can't just rate the new game out of 10. You're really rating it out of whatever the most similar game got. "Well it'd get an 8, but _____ got an 8.5, and this is nowhere near that, so we'll HAVE to give it a 6.5 or 7."
Which in the grand scheme of things means absolutely nothing.

Now, clearly there are comparable things for certain game types. Racing games and FPS games are pretty easily reviewable on top of each other. You can definitely compare Bad Company2 to CoD. But to compare an RPG for the Wii to a (different) RPG for the PC/PS3/360 doesn't make much sense, but that's sort of what they have to do.

I view it like being in different leagues. The New York Yankess, good team. Great team. Let's give them a 9 out of 10. Not perfect, but damn good. Now let's take a minor league baseball team. Let's go with the Hickville Poopshooters. Now the Hickville Poopshooters could possibly be the best minor league team. So they'd get an 8 or 9 out of 10. However, in the grand scheme of baseball they would hardly even show up on the scale considering the likes of the Yankees. You can't give the Poopshooters an 8 if you gave the Yankees a 9, despite the fact they're in different leagues and will never play against eachother. So now you give the Poopshooters a 3 out of 10, because while they're good, they're not Yankee good. But this would probably upset the people of Hickville who are sitting there thinking "Hey, we're not even in the same LEAGUE as the Yankees, so why should we be compared to them? We're good in our own right." To which reviewers would say "Baseball is baseball".

Everything I said was probably in the OP's link, but that just shows I read nothing.


Edit: I don't mean to make it seem like I think games don't get shitty reviews. they do all the time. But reviewers seem to be afraid of giving a truthful review to a bad game if that game is from a large developer - unless the game is offensively bad. I just typically find that the reviews by the general populace after the game is released is by far better, and more reliable than a handful of companies who get sent the games for free saying how good or bad it is.

[Ginkasa]

Reviews don't mean much to me. If I want a game I'll generally get it regardless. I read reviews more to find out more about what's in a game than how good the game is.

The only time I'm swayed either for or against buying a game is if the general consensus (press and public) says its good/bad. I don't hinge it on what or a few particular websites.

[Angrist]

Hm reviewing Wii games is difficult. Graphics for example: would a 10 be for the best possible on the Wii, or the best possible on whatever console? THen Wii games would never score higher than a 7.
So I know a lot of gaming sites rate stuff based on what's realistic on that platform. And I think that's fair.

Also speaking of graphics... what exactly are you rating? The technical aspects? That way Wii Sports should probably get a 2 for graphics. But when you look at how good something is on the eye... Wii Sports can suddenly get an 8 for graphics. It just looks fun.

Anyway... do I care about review ratings... Sometimes. There are some games which I just know I'm going to like (Zelda, Starcraft/Warcraft, Mario platformers...). But when I want to try something new, I'll read reviews and I'll also pay attention to the ratings. Only when I think the bad rating was giving for the wrong reasons will I try a game.

[KillerGremlin]

Yup.

I don't know what it is...I'm not a statistician. It's broken math and a broken game industry where reviewers are tied too closely (AKA in bed) with developers. Before I even proceed I just want to point out that this mother fucker only spent 15 hours playing the game before dishing out an 8/10. What the fucking hell, right? Until you have beat the game, decided on its impact to the industry, determined its replay value, etc., it is PETTY to even try to give a game a score. This is an industry problem. Games are not movies. Hell, music is not movies. Movies are the only medium that really benefit from rapid digestion, and doesn't necessarily warrant repeat viewings to rate. Furthermore, a movie's true brilliance is often written about in hindsight many years later. Many movies that received rave reviews would go on to become serious genre-benders or would leave a big imprint in Hollywood. Some movies that received poor reviews would go on to become genre-benders and leave a big imprint in Hollywood.

The point is movies can be rated using rapid reaction and short digestion periods. Games cannot.

The whole concept of rushing out a game review is only beneficial to the developer. If you can't see that you are a moron and deserve to part with your money. There's a reason IGN cranks out a score the day of the game's release: SO PEOPLE WILL BUY IT. Don't even try to pretend that the reviewers and the game developers aren't jacking each other off.

If you want an accurate, normal-ish distribution of game reviews, go read Amazon.com. These are user reviewers that typically represent a game accurately. The downside to this is that you often need to wait several months after the game is released to get a really accurate sense of what to expect.

The problem, I think, is that we use percentages from 0 to 100% or scores from 1 to 10. If you look at the US school system, we give scores like:
A 90-100
B 80-89
C 70-79
D 65-69
F 0-64

Look where the largest range of points is located: 0-64 is failing. Whereas 80-100 are A and B scores, or really really good.

I'm not really sure of the methodology behind the US grading system, I assume it tries to create some sort of normal distribution where most people get Cs, and some people get Bs and Ds, and very few people get As and Fs. And in order to meet this distribution the points are distributed as such where a 70-79 is average.

So here is this system that everyone in this country is raised on where a 70% or 80% is just average or okay, so anything that is good or really good should be a 90% or 100%. So we run into the obvious dilemma:

There's a lot of good games, they should all get 80%, 90% or 100%

or

We need to change the industry-reviewer standards so that a 60% or 70% is the new good, and 80%, 90% and 100% are reserved for those top-notch titles like OoT or Half-Life 2

or

Do away with this ridiculous 1-10 or 0-100% system and roll with a new system. I think doing a 1-5 scale would be good.

1 = Really shitty game. Not just shitty gameplay, but glitches and bugs.

2 = Really underwhelming. Game has serious flaws.

3 = Average. Does everything the genre is supposed to, but doesn't go above and beyond. May not have a ton of replay value, isn't changing the industry.

4 = This is a game is an impressive example of the genre. Has polished gameplay, might replay again. You would be doing okay buying this game.

5 = Top of the class. This is THAT ONE GAME that you will be talking about 10 years from now. This is a genre-changer, so innovative you have to replay it just to see stuff you missed.

With this system, the reviewer in BaB's article would probably give the game a 3 or a 4. And then the reviewer would have to write up a review that supports that decision. And people would have to actually read the review. But this isn't beneficial to the industry or the game developers. Also, in an ideal world, the review for the game wouldn't come out until a few months later to see whether or not the replay value, multiplayer, and online gameplay held up. It's a lot more work to write and read a review that uses a scale of 1-5 vs. a review that just shits out a percentage value that everyone in America is comfy with.

You could also use letter scores
A = Genre changer (OoT, Half-Life, GTA3, etc.)
B = Genre over-achiever (Vice City, Halo 2, etc.)
C = Genre average
D = Genre Sub-par
F = Abortion

It's the same, ordinal, 1-5 scale. The only problem is people immediately associate a percentage score with a letter grade.

I haven't read a single IGN/Gamespot/Big Media review since the Gamecube Generation. IGN can go fuck itself. The reviews are absolute bullshit and are completely contrived. I prefer Amazon, Yahtzee, or editorials by Joe-averages like me. In fact, I figured Youtube would do away with IGN by now. You can go check out video reviews by normal gamers on video sites, you can read opinions about games on social news sites like Reddit, and you have massive shopping sites with reviews like Amazon.com and *cringe* even Walmart or Best Buy.

And when someone eventually writes an empirical, educational book on video gaming (and they will because it has happened with Cinema and Music), I promise you they will point out how sites like IGN contributed to the orgy of sequels and rehash titles that plague the industry. It's just a huge circle jerk, and the two people who win are the game developers, and the nerdy game reviewers who get to play the title before everyone else.

Isn't that the incentive to review video games, to be first? Everyone else gets shafted, unless you're wise to the giant flaws in IGN's rating system.

[Professor S]

Broken? Not any more broken than anyone's opinion can be.

All reviews can be reduced to the opinion of one person, regardless than what "scientific" method is used. It's always best to read the article and evaluate the reviewers taste in games and then judge whether or not you felt the praise or criticism to be based on fair comparisons/judgements.

If I need a quick and dirty review, I use metacritic. If I want to see a number I want to know how the majority of reviewers rated it, not just one.

[KillerGremlin]

Broken? Not any more broken than anyone's opinion can be.

All reviews can be reduced to the opinion of one person, regardless than what "scientific" method is used. It's always best to read the article and evaluate the reviewers taste in games and then judge whether or not you felt the praise or criticism to be based on fair comparisons/judgements.

If I need a quick and dirty review, I use metacritic. If I want to see a number I want to know how the majority of reviewers rated it, not just one.

Here's the thing: it would seem that one person's opinion is swayed by perception. It sounds like from the article that BaB linked to that there is a lot of hazing within the network of early adopters from other reviewers, and more disturbingly, from developers themselves.

It seems like developers have created a privilege system where they give reviewers games in advance, with one small caveat: the review needs to be positive.

It's gray area when reviewers write a review out of fear, or when the looming shadow of the developer is standing over them. The solution would be simple: IGN could simply turn down the early review copies of the game. But IGN doesn't need to do that. All they need to do is create a review scale where they don't get penalized for rating a game accordingly.

The point of finding a scientific or streamlined review system isn't to challenge the fact that a game review comes down to the opinion of one person. We all know reviews are 100% subjective, I think Typhoid hit that point well enough. The point of revamping the way games are scored might help reduce confusion and simplify things. And it would remain ambiguous too.

I dunno, that's just my feeling on the issue.

I enjoy meta-websites. Rottentomates is awesome, but you need to know how to use it. If a movie gets a 75%, it simply means that a majority of the critics liked the movie. From there you need to go and read individual critic reviews, and see how they scored the movie. I have a handful of movie critics who I fall back on, so I get a feel for how the general population feels about the movie, and then I read specific reviews.

[Vampyr]

Hm reviewing Wii games is difficult. Graphics for example: would a 10 be for the best possible on the Wii, or the best possible on whatever console? THen Wii games would never score higher than a 7.
So I know a lot of gaming sites rate stuff based on what's realistic on that platform. And I think that's fair.

Also speaking of graphics... what exactly are you rating? The technical aspects? That way Wii Sports should probably get a 2 for graphics. But when you look at how good something is on the eye... Wii Sports can suddenly get an 8 for graphics. It just looks fun.

Anyway... do I care about review ratings... Sometimes. There are some games which I just know I'm going to like (Zelda, Starcraft/Warcraft, Mario platformers...). But when I want to try something new, I'll read reviews and I'll also pay attention to the ratings. Only when I think the bad rating was giving for the wrong reasons will I try a game.

It's my opinion that Wii games should almost always get low scores on graphics, unless they are very artistically unique.

They shouldn't get a free pass because Nintendo flaked out on HD.

[gekko]

I find it a bit odd that the same posts trying to argue that there is bribery between the media and publishers are the ones which are against corporate news outlets (IGN, etc.). You actually have the logic backwards. Places like IGN have very strict policies on these types of practices. Certainly there isn't quite the level of journalistic integrity you would find working at 60 Minutes, but it's a very serious business.

[KillerGremlin]

I find it a bit odd that the same posts trying to argue that there is bribery between the media and publishers are the ones which are against corporate news outlets (IGN, etc.). You actually have the logic backwards. Places like IGN have very strict policies on these types of practices. Certainly there isn't quite the level of journalistic integrity you would find working at 60 Minutes, but it's a very serious business.

Does IGN not do early reviews at the behest of the publisher?

I'd trust major gaming sites more if not for stories like the famous Kane & Lynche debacle back at Gamespot, so color me skeptical. Also, I would say 60 Minutes and any major news outlet is about as credible as a Tijuana asshole. You want to give it several look-overs and make sure it doesn't wink back at you before you dive in. Any mainstream news source comes with a series of baggage inherent to being a mainstream news source.

[Angrist]

It's my opinion that Wii games should almost always get low scores on graphics, unless they are very artistically unique.

They shouldn't get a free pass because Nintendo flaked out on HD.But still, look at Metroid Prime 3, Zelda Twilight Princess, Monster Hunter 3 and Super Mario Galaxy. Technically they'd get a 6 or so: low res, too few polygons. But when you take a step back and only pay attention to how it looks to you.... they suddenly get an 8 or better.

[gekko]

Certainly the publisher provides the journalists with the copies of the game before it's released, but it's not with any agreement that the game will receive a high score. Reviews are advertisement, and almost certainly ensure when the game releases there's an article on the front page of every site featuring it. Sure a good review is always what they want, but this is video games, not politics. It's not ALL corrupt.

Yes, there is certainly a relationship there. IGN would be nothing if it couldn't get the news from publishers, but IGN is also the largest gaming site on the web, and publishers want their game on the front page. Larger sites like IGN have strict policies to prevent any possible issues. IGN has policies against journalists receiving gifts from publishers, and the journalists are also deliberately not told about advertisement deals. For example, the journalist reviewing Gears 3 isn't allowed to know that the advertising department was planning to give Gears 3 the full-page ad this week because it might influence the score. If the game for a 5/10, that ad would still have gone up.

Now there are certainly examples of corruption in the past, but that kind of thing can easily kill a journalist's career and severely damage the reputation of a company. For a fan site or blog, that means nothing. For a site like IGN, those guys (some trained journalists, some not) are making a living doing that job, so that's a huge risk. Also it's a big risk to News Corp. if they get caught. There's famous stories of this kind of thing happening to companies as big as CBS (with the famous Wigand story), so I'm not saying it's out of the question. However, it's certainly not the norm.

[Typhoid]

It's my opinion that Wii games should almost always get low scores on graphics, unless they are very artistically unique.

They shouldn't get a free pass because Nintendo flaked out on HD.

But how is it fair to compare a Wii game to a PS3/360 game?

All of those download games (like Braid etc) don't get low scores [if/when reviewed] because they have bad graphics. If anything the graphics usually (from what I've seen) are a forgotten factor which is trumped by "fun".

I'm not one to say that Raffi is as good as The Beatles - but I don't think it would be fair to compare the musical stylings of Raffi to that of The Beatles simply because they both make music.

[Vampyr]

But how is it fair to compare a Wii game to a PS3/360 game?

All of those download games (like Braid etc) don't get low scores [if/when reviewed] because they have bad graphics. If anything the graphics usually (from what I've seen) are a forgotten factor which is trumped by "fun".

I'm not one to say that Raffi is as good as The Beatles - but I don't think it would be fair to compare the musical stylings of Raffi to that of The Beatles simply because they both make music.

Braid is a fantastic looking game. The artistic values are high, and it's in HD.

If it were a Wii game, it would look blurry and be full of jaggies. If it had been released on 360 and the Wii, the Wii version should get a lower score because of that.

To give them the same score would be to say to the consumer "These are two equal products, in every category", which just isn't true.

[Angrist]

But you're never saying that in your review. What you're saying is "these are the differences, but based on what the console is capable of, this is the score."

[Typhoid]

To give them the same score would be to say to the consumer "These are two equal products, in every category", which just isn't true.


I didn't mean to insinuate that 1 game for multiple platforms should get the same score regardless, I'm saying that the Wii version (or any version of any game) shouldn't get docked marks because of a version (or a like game, for that matter) for a different console.

To say "This game is good, but it's better on (system)" isn't a review. Or to say "This got a 9 on the 360, but I'll give the Wii version a 7 because the graphics are worse" is flawed to begin with because it's entirely irrelevant to the game itself. It should be compared to other games for the same system, not the same game for other systems, or other games for other systems. If I'm reviewing a country singer, I'm not comparing it to jazz-fusion. I'm comparing that country singer to other country singers, or to that specific country singers previous endeavors.

Now, to jump ahead here; say that country singer also released a jazz-fusion album. I still wouldn't compare the two to each other because they're not comparable, despite both being music. Sure, you can compare them - but the comparison wouldn't be accurate to begin with, not to mention highly subjective. Which is a whole other can of donkeys.

But you're never saying that in your review. What you're saying is "these are the differences, but based on what the console is capable of, this is the score."

I completely agree.

[Vampyr]

I didn't mean to insinuate that 1 game for multiple platforms should get the same score regardless, I'm saying that the Wii version (or any version of any game) shouldn't get docked marks because of a version (or a like game, for that matter) for a different console.

To say "This game is good, but it's better on (system)" isn't a review. Or to say "This got a 9 on the 360, but I'll give the Wii version a 7 because the graphics are worse" is flawed to begin with because it's entirely irrelevant to the game itself. It should be compared to other games for the same system, not the same game for other systems, or other games for other systems. If I'm reviewing a country singer, I'm not comparing it to jazz-fusion. I'm comparing that country singer to other country singers, or to that specific country singers previous endeavors.

Now, to jump ahead here; say that country singer also released a jazz-fusion album. I still wouldn't compare the two to each other because they're not comparable, despite both being music. Sure, you can compare them - but the comparison wouldn't be accurate to begin with, not to mention highly subjective. Which is a whole other can of donkeys.



I completely agree.

That analogy doesn't make any sense. A better analogy is to say "I'm going to review this country singer's album, but I'm only going to compare each song to other songs on the album, instead of taking all the other country album's into consideration."

Sure, you can say one song is better than another on the album, but would it be fair to give a song on the album a 10/10 just because it's better than every other song on the album, even if the singer doesn't do some things as well as another singer?

Reviews only serve one purpose: making a recommendation to a consumer on whether they should purchase a game or not. If a game is released for the Wii and the 360, and is exactly the same in every regard except for the fact it isn't in HD on the Wii, and is blurry with a lot of jaggies, then the reviewer HAS to recommend the superior version to the consumer - and by doing so the reviewer has to give the higher score to the non-Wii game.

If the game is only released on the Wii, then the artistic value of the graphics have to be taken into account. Sometimes that might be enough to bump the score up, but more often or not the reviewer is going to have to dock some points because this Wii FPS doesn't look as good as other FPS's right now, or this Wii RPG doesn't look as good as other RPG's out right now. The whole point of a review and the points on it are to make a recommendation to a buyer.

But this is one of the main reasons I like Giant Bomb reviews. They don't break things down into categories like graphics or gameplay. It has one rating out of five stars, and those stars of all encompassing. Depending on the game, graphics might not even factor into the star rating.

[Typhoid]

The reason I think it's retarded to compare a game to other versions of itself is because they're not interchangeable with each other. It's not like an attachment for your car where you can just get a different looking cupholder if the one you got doesn't suit your needs. It's an entirely different form of media you need to play the two/three/four different versions of the game that has a multi-hundred dollar difference that is solely hinged on a handful of people saying "Well, we've got some jaggies here."

[Vampyr]

The reason I think it's retarded to compare a game to other versions of itself is because they're not interchangeable with each other. It's not like an attachment for your car where you can just get a different looking cupholder if the one you got doesn't suit your needs. It's an entirely different form of media you need to play the two/three/four different versions of the game that has a multi-hundred dollar difference that is solely hinged on a handful of people saying "Well, we've got some jaggies here."

How are they different? Other than the fact that you may have to waggle a controller on the Wii version, they are interchangeable.

[KillerGremlin]

One criticism of No One Lives Forever on the Playstation 2 was that it removed the Quick Save feature present on the PC.

I can't recall, nor do I give a shit to look it up, which site had such a differential in score....but I think it was Gamespot. The PC version of NOLF received something like a 9/10 and GOTY recognition, and the PS2 version got a 4/10 or something and was deemed unplayable. The absence of Quick Save makes certain parts of the game excruciatingly difficult. I believe the Quick Save limitation may have had something to do with the console vs. PC tech limitations...so to interject between this debate:

What do you (Vampyr/Typhoid) think about this example?

[Angrist]

How are they different? Other than the fact that you may have to waggle a controller on the Wii version, they are interchangeable.So I can put a 360 disc in my Wii and I'll play the 360 version? Awesome!
Oh wait, I can't. And I don't have a 360. So Wii is my only option and I'm content with that. I don't expect HD graphics and I don't want to read in every review how the graphics get a 4 for not being HD.

But this is one of the main reasons I like Giant Bomb reviews. They don't break things down into categories like graphics or gameplay. It has one rating out of five stars, and those stars of all encompassing. Depending on the game, graphics might not even factor into the star rating.Oh so you do agree with us.

KG, if no other PS2 shooter had a quick save function and No One Lives Forever was a great game, it's pathetic it received a 4.

If however the PC game was ONLY good because of the quick save function... then yeah give the score that it deserves.

[KillerGremlin]

KG, if no other PS2 shooter had a quick save function and No One Lives Forever was a great game, it's pathetic it received a 4.

If however the PC game was ONLY good because of the quick save function... then yeah give the score that it deserves.

Well, in complete contradiction to my post above yours, and for science:

In the end, everything that's good about The Operative: No One Lives Forever is simply overshadowed by the frustration you are subjected to without having a quick save. The game may feature intelligent humor and great voice acting, but you'll never know or care after playing the game for five to six hours and only ending up 10 percent of the way through. The one exception may be if you enjoy playing a first-person shooter with the auto-aim turned on, since the game does include it, and it makes playing through the levels considerably easier. Either way, the bottom line is that you should definitely rent this one if you're interested in it. If you're just looking for a good first-person shooter for the PlayStation 2, you should try Half-Life or Red Faction instead.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/operativenoonelivesforever/review.html?tag=summary%3Bread-review

Whatever minor problems or shortcomings there are in No One Lives Forever are dwarfed by the technical expertise and sheer creativity that went into it. The fact is that Monolith Productions has finally delivered an undeniably superlative action game.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/operativenoonelivesforever/review.html

I'm not sure if the PS2 Version of Half-Life and Red Faction had a quick save feature or just auto saved. I do know that Half-Life had pretty frequent save spots automatically, and I think Red Faction did too. If not, Red Faction was pretty tolerable in terms of difficulty.

The issue with NOLF is that there were security camera levels, and in some of those levels being spotted meant GAME OVER. You would have to restart the level. Quick Save would let you bypass certain difficult areas.

I can recall a few levels in Halo 2 on Legendary that were an absolute BITCH to get through because they were soooooo fucking long. I wanted to throw my controller through the TV by hour 3 or 4 of a single level. The Library on Halo 1 was pretty long on Legendary, I think I spent 2-4 hours rolling through that on my first solo run through....so I appreciate auto save.

I know features aren't the same as graphics, but they sort of are. So I'm curious what you all think. :p

[TheSlyMoogle]

8/10 is honestly probably where the game should sit considering that it's basically gears 1&2 with a new paint job.

Won't stop it from being fun.

Also am I the only one who checks metacritic?

I generally follow user reviews over any other review and I like to read a lot of them.

[Typhoid]

I can't recall, nor do I give a shit to look it up, which site had such a differential in score....but I think it was Gamespot. The PC version of NOLF received something like a 9/10 and GOTY recognition, and the PS2 version got a 4/10 or something and was deemed unplayable. The absence of Quick Save makes certain parts of the game excruciatingly difficult. I believe the Quick Save limitation may have had something to do with the console vs. PC tech limitations...so to interject between this debate:



Considering one game got a lower score because of an actual gameplay difference (less save points change the game, lower graphics do not) I'd say it's justified. As long as one game doesn't lose a score because of aesthetics, I'm okay with that because there are actual differences in the game.


Also am I the only one who checks metacritic?

I generally follow user reviews over any other review and I like to read a lot of them.

I personally actually don't seek reviews. I watch a show on TV about game reviews, but I only watch it to see new games, and for their talk and evaluation of the content - not to see the score they give it at the end of that review. I basically just do a quick skim over online reviews for major bugs and how long the games are, then I just judge based on what I've seen what I'd give the game by either rating it a "purchase" or a "Fuck this shit."

[BreakABone]

Not to point fingers, but I think the discussion with Angrist, Vamp and Typhoid exhibits the problem I have with reviews (and this does extend beyond video games), but you folks are arguing the technicalities of the numerical system/score, but at the end of the day its an arbitrary number.

And I think too many people focus on the score (which was part of the article I linked to), more so then the actual content provided in a review.

I don't care if a game gets a 5 or 10 in graphics, I assume somewhere in the written word, someone will explain how it negatively effects the experience or not, and that's more important.

Anyhow, I will say that there are some shady practices in the game industry, but part of it deals with the fact that the gaming press acts as glorified PR reps, and that's because you need that coverage for hits and for money. So its a vicious cycle where you want to keep them happy so that they keep you happy.

[Typhoid]

but you folks are arguing the technicalities of the numerical system/score, but at the end of the day its an arbitrary number.

I'm just articulating my point very poorly.
Wii games should only be scored against Wii games (as with all other systems). Therefore a Wii game that gets an 8 isn't on par with a PS3 game that gets an 8 - because (in my mind) they shouldn't be rated on the grand scheme of "video games", rather what system the game is for; if the game is for multiple systems, review them separately.


But I agree with everything else; the scale is broken, not enough people read the content, and the whole system is just a long, slow circle-jerk.

[BreakABone]

It's my opinion that Wii games should almost always get low scores on graphics, unless they are very artistically unique.

They shouldn't get a free pass because Nintendo flaked out on HD.

I wonder how many people would take me seriously if I said this:

It's my opinion that Xbox 360 games should almost always get low scores on graphics, unless they are very artistically unique.

They shouldn't get a free pass because Microsoft flaked out on 3D.

I mean it sounds almost as absurd to me.

The problem is, and you kind of covered this, when its a game on multiple consoles, graphics sometime factor into the score.

And in general, you will see that reflected in Wii scores
Star Wars, Call of Duty, WWE games, all score lower on the Wii than their HD counter parts. But as you figured, very little crossover between HD games and Wii games.

And the ones that kind of rely on HD graphics and advanced AI generally don't make it because of that.

Anyhow, another mini-rant, but one this reminded me of.

Is I loathe the idea of comparing review scores, which again always happens, but to save myself the time, just gonna quote myself.

Why is it then, the first thing that happens when a video game review is posted is searching for other reviews either from the website/publication, the reviewer or similar genres. And usually without doing anything more than looking at the final score, we begin to have all sorts of rants and raves fill up the internet.
“I can’t believe they gave game A a 10 in graphics, but game B only a 9.9 it looks so much better.”
“Really Game B has a better story than Game A? I don’t think so!”
“I can’t believe they say Game A is the best game on the console, but it scored lower than Game B!”
Those are just blanket statement, though I would be lying if I did say they weren’t based on actual comments I read in regards to games released in the past year! The fact of the matter is game reviewing doesn’t exist in a bubble. What was a 10 2 months ago, may not be considered a 10 today. Hell, what was a 10 last week may not be considered a 10 this week. That’s how fast things change. New games, new ideas, new levels are achieved at a rapid pace. There’s no way to get a uniformed system that allows for a clear progression of quality because honestly it doesn’t exist.

Even taking games from the same series may yield wildly different results. Perhaps, the 2nd game did something remarkable, but in the 2 years between sequels has become commonplace or maybe it builds on the strength of the last game without really adding anything new to the formula. Do you grade it up because it is just as good as the last one but doesn’t really re-invent the wheel or do you grade it down because it plays it safe?

End of the day, because I realize this is getting long-winded, there’s no way to compare review scores. Even if you were to line up perfectly and get the same reviewer, reviewing the same genre, on the same platform and released the same day there’s no way to say that Game A is better than Game B based on a score. And that’s all I want gamers to take away from this, stop bitching and moaning about your soon to be favorite game not getting the respect it deserves based on a random number!

[Angrist]

Not to point fingers, but I think the discussion with Angrist, Vamp and Typhoid exhibits the problem I have with reviews (and this does extend beyond video games), but you folks are arguing the technicalities of the numerical system/score, but at the end of the day its an arbitrary number.

And I think too many people focus on the score (which was part of the article I linked to), more so then the actual content provided in a review.

I don't care if a game gets a 5 or 10 in graphics, I assume somewhere in the written word, someone will explain how it negatively effects the experience or not, and that's more important.

Anyhow, I will say that there are some shady practices in the game industry, but part of it deals with the fact that the gaming press acts as glorified PR reps, and that's because you need that coverage for hits and for money. So its a vicious cycle where you want to keep them happy so that they keep you happy.
All I read of that was "5 or 10". :p