The Industry should just stop with scori ...

I mean seriously.....there is no way to differentiate with any objectivity the difference between a 9.3 or a 9.4, or even a 9.0 versus a 9.5. Especially nowadays with the seemingly added pressure from developers and publishers to try and somehow secure good scores for their games and the massive amounts of money tied into advertising into the same companies that do the review (man, what a catch 22) it just seems silly to give out scores anymore. It'll never happen because people love fighting over scores and love just looking at the scores and never actually reading the text. But I just think that the 0 to 10 scale and even the F to A+ scale like EGM just adopted are almost silly. What is the difference between an A- and and an A. You can't really point out objectively what that difference is, because in essence, video games are mostly a form of art. And how can you objectively grade it. The Industry should just stop with scori ...
NoThe Industry should just stop with scori ...
Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.
Scores are a projection of the games themselves as seen through the eyes of a person/group - an opinion.The positive about them is that they help to educate the consumer/gamer that wants to buy a game but unsure of how it is, it also helps to raise attention and critical acclaim for the game; the negative, well just look at System Wars.
a review should tell the consumer what they are buying, not what the reviewer feels about the game. Tell them the features, differences in versions (to past games if its a sequel and compared to different systems) and of course about bugs and glitches and such.
Well...I notice that with something like Rotten Tomatoes if a movie gets 50% on there I could either love it or hate it. That has nothing to do with video game reviews though I just thought I would throw that out there.I don't use Gamerankings or Metacritic to get some kind of clarity on what I think of a game. Especially this generation where reviews seem to be all over the place like never before. Sure there is still agreement in general about what games are good and what games are bad but as an experienced gamer I can usually tell that with minor inspection of a game.Anyway...you have to take everything with a grain of salt and if you really want a game and are undecided about it because of a review you should rent it or borrow it. As for ditching a scoring system and just going with a written review which I guess you are saying should be done...that would be OK with me.
[QUOTE=''JiveT'']Well...I notice that with something like Rotten Tomatoes if a movie gets 50% on there I could either love it or hate it. That has nothing to do with video game reviews though I just thought I would throw that out there.I don't use Gamerankings or Metacritic to get some kind of clarity on what I think of a game. Especially this generation where reviews seem to be all over the place like never before. Sure there is still agreement in general about what games are good and what games are bad but as an experienced gamer I can usually tell that with minor inspection of a game.Anyway...you have to take everything with a grain of salt and if you really want a game and are undecided about it because of a review you should rent it or borrow it. As for ditching a scoring system and just going with a written review which I guess you are saying should be done...that would be OK with me.[/QUOTE]



Well movies ratings and game ratings are different, there could be a movie that everyone hates and thinks it total crap, but you could love it. Same with games, but playing and watching are different. You could still love a game that gets bad reviews, but games are reviewed on gameplay, sound, graphics, etc. You probably don't understand what I'm trying to say, but whatever. I guess the way each are reviewed are different.
Well I tend to watch video review just to hear what they have to say. If they say stuff is bad that I like I dont assume its bad.
no
While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.
[QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.
[QUOTE=''PBSnipes'']While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.[/QUOTE] That's not a ''true'' 5 star system at all. A ''true'' 5 star system would give all great games worth playing -- NOT just instant classics -- a 5, and then scale down from there. Like GameSpy.The whole idea that only ''classics'' should get a full score is what started this whole problem with ''perfect scores = perfect games'' in the first place. It needs to be abolished, completely, and the whole industry needs to move away from the idea from numbered game ratings with more than ten increments.
[QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.[/QUOTE]



I'm not saying I don't consider games that get less than A reviews :| And I didn't say A games aren't bad either. Using your system I would say, a game that got mostly two thumbs up would generally be better than a game that got one thumb up.
[QUOTE=''-Montauk-''][QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''-Montauk-'']Generally, a game that universally scores AA-AAA will be better than one that gets mostly A reviews.[/QUOTE] The fact that you don't even consider games below A shows that the current review scale (1 to 10) is too ''broad'' for video games.Personally, I prefer a system like Siskel %26 Ebert's ''Two Thumbs Up'' reviews. Is it a must-play? Two thumbs up. Will it only appeal to certain tastes, or does it have a few flaws? One thumb up. Is it not that enjoyable at all and only mediocre or worse? Two thumbs down.Simple, straightforward, and to the point. All other details are handled in the words of the review itself.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying I don't consider games that get less than A reviews :| And I didn't say A games aren't bad either. Using your system I would say, a game that got mostly two thumbs up would generally be better than a game that got one thumb up.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and that's all that's needed in a review system. ''Strongly recommended,'' ''recommended,'' and ''not recommended.'' This whole ''AAA/AA/A'' nonsense accomplishes nothing.
[QUOTE=''mjarantilla''][QUOTE=''PBSnipes'']While I agree with you, remember that in a good review system the score is supplementary to the text. It's the equivalent of a concluding paragraph, the reviewer liked X, but didn't like Y, and in the end they felt X-Y=Z, where Z is the score. I agree that the .X scales used by the majority of sources are ludicrous and should be replaced by something simpler, like a true 5-star system (true meaning one where only instant c.lassics like Portal and Ocarina of Time score 5/5), but those .X's are necessary. Not only are they of great use for drawing in viewers (8.8 anyone?) but the majority of reviewers seem incapable of describing why a game is good or bad, so they use the score to set a precedent. For example I doubt you could tell the difference between the majority of AA and AAA titles by reading the text without knowing the score. I would love for reviewers to simplify their scores, but they seem incapable of doing it.[/QUOTE] That's not a ''true'' 5 star system at all. A ''true'' 5 star system would give all great games worth playing -- NOT just instant classics -- a 5, and then scale down from there. Like GameSpy.The whole idea that only ''classics'' should get a full score is what started this whole problem with ''perfect scores = perfect games'' in the first place. It needs to be abolished, completely, and the whole industry needs to move away from the idea from numbered game ratings with more than ten increments.[/QUOTE] I agree. I was only using Portal and Ocarina of Time as examples since they are regarded by most to be exceptional games, rather than picking something controversial or unknown like Halo or Audiosurf (respectively). What I meant by ''instant classic'' is the game should be deserving of the score, rather than a source like IGN that seems to throw 9's at anything that entertains them for more than 12 consecutive seconds. An instant c.lassic doesn't have to be perfect, case in point (at least IMO) Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl.

i think that a good game score will give games good rep. but it doesnt necessary mean it will sell well. like look at okami that game most kick ass and most people who hav played it agree but the scales of that game wasnt has good as it should have been. plus there are alot of **** game magzines and sites that hand out good reviews like free candy. now that IS bull-****. im sure there are alot of dumb kids out there that get watever the hell they want and they think a good review= a good game. there are games that deserve better scores and some reviews that should just be labled s*** like kanye and lynch countless other ones
Yeah...um no...How about they come up with some better review rules? or how about instead of looking at just the score you read the actual review once in a while? let alone the fact most reviwers hardly get to play through 1/3rd of the game and only get to play through a small amount before review time is up.Alot of them put alot of good stuff in the review if you read it then you might find out the game is worthwhile but alot of people just wanna know if they should buy it and just look at the scores. there is no flaws with the review system the flaw is with the user, because all users have different opinions, and all users have different tastes.reviewers cant cater to every one.
I agree because it has become flawed. The reviewer will always have their opinion and for someone to use their score as a basis on whether to buy the game or not is stupid. Sure take this persons view of the game into consideration but people blindly go to the score only and thats the problem. If you take away the score they have to read and actually can gauge better if they will like the game or not. What I hate the most is the power publishers can have over the sites/mags. Exclusive preview/reviews are what alot of these places rely on to get more users and thus getting more advertising revenue. Pubslishers will not offer you the exclusive or even let u review before release in some cases if you dont play ball or have give their games lows scores in the past. The reviews you cannot trust the most are the sites where the game is plastered all over the site in advertisments around the time they review the game. Just look what happend here with kane and lynch and its hard for anyone not to bow down to the publishers to some degree since they literally pay alot of peoples wages in the industry.
[QUOTE=''MikeE21286'']I mean seriously.....there is no way to differentiate with any objectivity the difference between a 9.3 or a 9.4, or even a 9.0 versus a 9.5. Especially nowadays with the seemingly added pressure from developers and publishers to try and somehow secure good scores for their games and the massive amounts of money tied into advertising into the same companies that do the review (man, what a catch 22) it just seems silly to give out scores anymore. It'll never happen because people love fighting over scores and love just looking at the scores and never actually reading the text. But I just think that the 0 to 10 scale and even the F to A+ scale like EGM just adopted are almost silly. What is the difference between an A- and and an A. You can't really point out objectively what that difference is, because in essence, video games are mostly a form of art. And how can you objectively grade it. [/QUOTE]That only goes for console or multi-platform publications. Generally speaking, PC only magazines rate games substantially harder.
but then how will we measure sucess