Numeric (or letter) scores are a necessary evil in criticism today. Not a lot of people have the time or the desire to read 1500 word reviews of a game. “Just give me the score” is the mantra of many when reading reviews.

Out of this trend grew sites like metacritic.com and gamerankings.com, sites that take the aggregate scores from all major and some minor publications – Web based and otherwise, and create one uber-score. While these sites clearly hold value – instead of reading one, two or even three reviews, one has access to at least 20 different scores - do they do more harm than good?

I check metacritic.com a few times a day. Check how scores of my favorite titles are doing, what new titles are up and what sites X, Y, Z had to say about a new release. I know I am not alone. Whether it is film, literature, music or video games, before consumers decide to put money and time into their chosen form of entertainment, they want to know how “good” it is.



In regard to video game criticism, nothing has hurt the medium more than aggregate sites. They boil game reviews down to their most basic element and throw out the actual writing (save for a 1-2 sentence blurb).

Video games are the most affected by scores for a few reasons. The time investment in video games is only (maybe) rivaled by books. A game can take anywhere from a few hours to upwards of 40 to complete – not to mention extra features and multiple times dying. That’s a lot of time - I for one am not about to drop $59.99 on a game that gets poor reviews.

If you spend $10 to see a bad action flick with a couple of buddies on a Friday night, it is a fine way to spend an evening. But if that movie was $60, lasted for 12 hours and had no multiplayer? No thanks.

The audience for video game scores is also somewhat at fault. They are among the most savvy and opinionated entertainment consumers. This is obviously a good thing, but can also be problematic. An example is the saying, “I won’t buy a game unless it gets *score*.” We’ve all done it, and whether we actually adhere to it or not is beside the point.



A personal example of that phenomenon is the game Assassin’s Creed. I was extremely excited for this game to come out. I had been following it for a while and only got more excited the more videos leaked and previews I saw. Then it came out. To say the reviews were mixed is being kind. From “disappointing and repetitive” to “joins the guild as the best sandbox game created to date,” it became harder and harder for me to justify dropping $60 on it.

Had I only been privy to the IGN or Gamepro reviews (77 and 100, respectively) like in the past, I may have bought the game. Would I have been disappointed and short $60? I don’t know. My guess is yes. But maybe I would have loved it, flaws and all. The reality is I can’t buy every game I am excited for.

The point is the aggregate scores (more so the mixed comments but) steered me away from a game that I had actually circled on my calendar. Now before everyone says “You should have just bought it, screw reviews!” remember I am not rich - $60 is a lot of money and with so many great titles, I only want to spend on the best. It’s a difficult decision to make.

Another factor video games are affected by more is the hype machine. Games are announced months, sometimes years, in advance. This gives the consumer time to get lathered up talking about it, speculating about content and tracking screen shots and videos.

The music industry suffers from this too. MP3’s leak very early quite often and are readily available. An upcoming record from a popular group can become very hyped (Radiohead, Arcade Fire from just last year). But music is cheap (see: free) and you can actually go on a bands myspace and listen to the songs before making a decision to buy it. Sure, you can rent games - but that is, again, not free.

The sad truth is too many a game review takes the hype into account, pointing out all the things we were promised months ago and how they’re now absent. Look at a game like Fable. It was supposed to be the next greatest game ever. And when it fell short of lofty, impossible standards, it was punished. Was it a great game? Not really. But it wasn’t nearly as disappointing as many reviews would have you believe. Maybe Assassin’s Creed is the same…

The final point is the convoluted and varied scoring system video game sites use. Movies generally roll with the five-star system - it’s almost universally agreed upon. Video game scores, on the other hand, are all over the place. Letter grades, 100 point scales, ten point scales, but with decimals to the tenth – it’s ridiculous. What the hell is the difference between a 8.1 and an 8.3?



It is a huge task to ask every publication to standardize their scoring system, but that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the need for aggregate sites. Whether it’s a five star scale or a simple “rent it, buy it, skip it” system, anything universal would be better than the mess that exists now.

Score aggregate sites are here to stay. They provide a valuable service to the informed consumer. But it is very disappointing to see their efficiency stifle some of the great writing that goes on in the world of video game journalism. In a perfect world no review would have scores - it would just be what the writer wrote. Imagine that.