surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
CaptainBus
mrandydixon
rexwolf2
AwesomeExMachina
JT Murphy
Corduroy Turtle
Andrew Kauz
Nihil
Ali D
SuperMonk4Ever
ImMatureTony
falsenipple
Handy
LawofThermalDynamics
Eprahim
SteezyXL
Sexualchocolate (PS3)
VenusInFurs
Byronic Man
garethxxgod
GoofierBrute
Wolfy-Boey
Malik
Sean Daisy
Keelut2012
Batthink
ManWithNoName
Caiters
Elsa
JT Murphy
Although this is only with the caveat that the reader must take the review score into consideration with the review's text. One can't function without the other, and to be honest you're pretty much using the number as a metric to weigh the author's confidence and not much more else.
I'm cool with the score being seemingly arbitrary, and I don't see a dire need to get into math or anything beyond that. If there were actual, standardized grading systems for entertainment, I'd be very worried that we weren't working for creativity's sake, but rather as craftsmen of some low sort.
Although this is only with the caveat that the reader must take the review score into consideration with the review's text. One can't function without the other, and to be honest you're pretty much using the number as a metric to weigh the author's confidence and not much more else.
I'm cool with the score being seemingly arbitrary, and I don't see a dire need to get into math or anything beyond that. If there were actual, standardized grading systems for entertainment, I'd be very worried that we weren't working for creativity's sake, but rather as craftsmen of some low sort.
Not voting.
Are scores really a problem? I mean, do they detract from review or impede it in some way? Seeing that score at the end is a nice recap of the review. Why get rid of it?
Are scores really a problem? I mean, do they detract from review or impede it in some way? Seeing that score at the end is a nice recap of the review. Why get rid of it?
MURPHY... though technically I agree with what Turtle said much more. I'm a little surprised that nobody brought up the business end of review scores. From what I understand, most reviewers get pre-release copies if they actually give a score, which then gets amassed by places like Metacritic (where the overall scores can legitimately influence game sales and even stock trends). Scores are also used in game advertising "10/10 from Destructoid! Flawless Victory" ... yeah, yeah... same as the movie industry. The thing is that scores provide feedback not just to gamers, but also it seems that they are important to the financial end of the industry. I don't know that reviewers would even get pre-release copies if they didn't actually contribute to the whole overall meta-scoring thing (though they might, but it seems then that they are just a blogger not a reviewer).
MURPHY -- review scores receive a lot of flak in the gaming industry, but I feel they remain relevant. I feel confident enough to judge a game simply by its review scores -- I have no qualms with following the mainstream if the mainstream has been fair in its various critiques and formulated a reasoned argument for or against any given game.
TURTLE
Great debates on both sides, though!
To touch on Elsa's point about scores used in advertising, while there's no doubt seeing a "10/10!" on a box could definitely sway a consumer, wouldn't the words "This Game Kicks Ass!" or even just "Perfect!" do pretty much the same thing?
Just a thought :)
Great debates on both sides, though!
To touch on Elsa's point about scores used in advertising, while there's no doubt seeing a "10/10!" on a box could definitely sway a consumer, wouldn't the words "This Game Kicks Ass!" or even just "Perfect!" do pretty much the same thing?
Just a thought :)
TURTLE.
I don't think "casuals" (hate to use that term.) look at review scores for the most part. That's why shovelware sells pretty good. ie. Carnival Games.
I don't think "casuals" (hate to use that term.) look at review scores for the most part. That's why shovelware sells pretty good. ie. Carnival Games.
@Andy:
At least to me, it seems as you are looking at the review score backwards. You should first look at the review itself, what it is saying, the tone of it, and generally how strongly it can convey the author's opinion along with, at least until you can prove otherwise, valid critique of the game and its working. It's not about using that number to judge the game alone, but rather to weight the words of the reviewer and further emphasize how strongly they feel about that game.
Sure, you can hazard a guess on your own about how they feel from their review, but sometimes a reviewer can hate a game and still give it a better than middling review score on merits that weren't fully clarified in their review, which might confuse some, but if anything critique leads to hyperbole. People want to know the hooks more than anything else, and it can lead to sloppy, incendiary reviews that, which while being fun to read, don't fully express the reviewer's stance on the game.
Personal preference above all else is the prime consideration for all means of recommendation in entertainment, but that isn't to say that a review can't help you better understand the reviewer and just how fluid their open is to yours. Again, you need to consider the review score more as a reflection upon the review and the reviewer, and not what is being reviewed. Let the words tell you about what is being reviewed.
At least to me, it seems as you are looking at the review score backwards. You should first look at the review itself, what it is saying, the tone of it, and generally how strongly it can convey the author's opinion along with, at least until you can prove otherwise, valid critique of the game and its working. It's not about using that number to judge the game alone, but rather to weight the words of the reviewer and further emphasize how strongly they feel about that game.
Sure, you can hazard a guess on your own about how they feel from their review, but sometimes a reviewer can hate a game and still give it a better than middling review score on merits that weren't fully clarified in their review, which might confuse some, but if anything critique leads to hyperbole. People want to know the hooks more than anything else, and it can lead to sloppy, incendiary reviews that, which while being fun to read, don't fully express the reviewer's stance on the game.
Personal preference above all else is the prime consideration for all means of recommendation in entertainment, but that isn't to say that a review can't help you better understand the reviewer and just how fluid their open is to yours. Again, you need to consider the review score more as a reflection upon the review and the reviewer, and not what is being reviewed. Let the words tell you about what is being reviewed.
TURTLE. How many people out there didn't play a game because of the score? Brains fixate on scores and it stops the person from trying a new experience solely because a number they have given worth isn't high enough. The score is meaningless to me. The thoughts and opinions of the reviewer resonate with me much more than any number they give the game. I need the words, the way the game made the person feel and a number can give me the most basic notion of approval/disapproval of a game but I won't know why.
@Elsa, you bring up a great point with metacritic. I know that some companies offer incentives for games that get a certain score and comapanies rise and fall on that score but I think that's placing too much emphasis and power on one aspect of reviews and the industry. As for the game advertising, you could take a sentence from a review and make it into a solid sound byte.
@Elsa, you bring up a great point with metacritic. I know that some companies offer incentives for games that get a certain score and comapanies rise and fall on that score but I think that's placing too much emphasis and power on one aspect of reviews and the industry. As for the game advertising, you could take a sentence from a review and make it into a solid sound byte.
@falsenipple
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, but from then on you seem to be saying that review scores are necessary simply because some reviewers aren't capable at expressing themselves fully with their words, and thus a score is needed in order to settle any potential debate based on the quality of the text.
I'm not at all interested in abolishing review scores, but as to the question of their necessity (as the debate asks), I'm not so sure. A talented reviewer should be able to convey his or her opinion using nothing but words, in my opinion, and too often a score is stamped on the end as a stand-in for weak supporting text.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, but from then on you seem to be saying that review scores are necessary simply because some reviewers aren't capable at expressing themselves fully with their words, and thus a score is needed in order to settle any potential debate based on the quality of the text.
I'm not at all interested in abolishing review scores, but as to the question of their necessity (as the debate asks), I'm not so sure. A talented reviewer should be able to convey his or her opinion using nothing but words, in my opinion, and too often a score is stamped on the end as a stand-in for weak supporting text.
@Andy:
A lot of reviewers aren't capable of expressing themselves fully with their words. A review score isn't exactly necessary to figure that out, but it can be immediately telling, whereas dumping money out on a game that was unevenly reviewed will do the same, but often to one's regret. Let's not assume that we are all dealing with talented reviewers. Let's assume that we are dealing with each of them as a new and fresh person. You may think that your own knowledge of the review material is good enough to work with, but trust me in the end you will want that score.
A lot of reviewers aren't capable of expressing themselves fully with their words. A review score isn't exactly necessary to figure that out, but it can be immediately telling, whereas dumping money out on a game that was unevenly reviewed will do the same, but often to one's regret. Let's not assume that we are all dealing with talented reviewers. Let's assume that we are dealing with each of them as a new and fresh person. You may think that your own knowledge of the review material is good enough to work with, but trust me in the end you will want that score.
@falsenipple
Could be, and like I said, I'm not advocating for the abolishment of numbers altogether. I just personally appreciate a quality review without a number at the end a lot more than a shitty review with one.
Could be, and like I said, I'm not advocating for the abolishment of numbers altogether. I just personally appreciate a quality review without a number at the end a lot more than a shitty review with one.
TURTLE.
I think most people in the gaming community are educated buyers and will go through multiple resources to decide whether or not a game would be entertaining for them. A score is not necessary if you are aware of what the pros and cons of a game are by actually reading about it.
I think most people in the gaming community are educated buyers and will go through multiple resources to decide whether or not a game would be entertaining for them. A score is not necessary if you are aware of what the pros and cons of a game are by actually reading about it.
@falsenipple - Unless you've had a change of heart, your original vote needs to be in all caps, otherwise it won't end up getting counted. :)
MURPHY
Review scores themselves aren't terrible. It's near-impossible to stay in the know on the quality of every game for every console I own and review scores help make sifting through them a lot easier when I have money to burn. The body of the review is still the most important aspect but the score gives a ballpark idea of how the reviewer felt. I'll generally read more than one review about a game before I purchase it and the review scores allow me to easily identify who had high praise for the game and who did not like it. From there, you can read both contrasting reviews and get a better idea of what the game is like.
Without review scores, downloading games off iTunes becomes a game within itself to find the quality titles at the very least.
Review scores themselves aren't terrible. It's near-impossible to stay in the know on the quality of every game for every console I own and review scores help make sifting through them a lot easier when I have money to burn. The body of the review is still the most important aspect but the score gives a ballpark idea of how the reviewer felt. I'll generally read more than one review about a game before I purchase it and the review scores allow me to easily identify who had high praise for the game and who did not like it. From there, you can read both contrasting reviews and get a better idea of what the game is like.
Without review scores, downloading games off iTunes becomes a game within itself to find the quality titles at the very least.
Films use them, so why can't games? Books use them, so why can't games? Music use them, so why can't games?
Like most people, I first see the score, then decided if it's worth my time reading the review.
Like most people, I first see the score, then decided if it's worth my time reading the review.
TURTLE - I feel like a lot of people go straight for the score and never read the review itself. After said person see's the score they may go back and "skim" the article to see if there is anything that catches their eye. If there were no score more people may actually sit down and read what made the game so good, why the reviewer didn't like this or that.
In my opinion an actual score takes away so much from the review and that sucks for the reviewer who put so much time in to not only playing the game all the way through but then taking the time to put his or her thoughts on paper (or the web, you get what I mean).
In my opinion an actual score takes away so much from the review and that sucks for the reviewer who put so much time in to not only playing the game all the way through but then taking the time to put his or her thoughts on paper (or the web, you get what I mean).
TURTLE
Generally, review scores don't affect my purchase of a game. When it's a game I know I'm going to enjoy of course I'll buy it, but if it's a title I'm on the fence about I'll definitely check to see the reviews and base my decision on others experience with it. The number at the end has little to no effect on me.
I usually use scores on Metacritic, for instance, to tell others what the reception of certain games have been getting, especially if I have yet to play the title myself.
Another great debate guys.
Generally, review scores don't affect my purchase of a game. When it's a game I know I'm going to enjoy of course I'll buy it, but if it's a title I'm on the fence about I'll definitely check to see the reviews and base my decision on others experience with it. The number at the end has little to no effect on me.
I usually use scores on Metacritic, for instance, to tell others what the reception of certain games have been getting, especially if I have yet to play the title myself.
Another great debate guys.
Turtle...Murphy had a great lead with his debate, but ultimately it didn't convince me they were needed.
MURPHY - I think that the scores do more good to the clueless new casuals that come into the market for gaming, and while it doesn't really help true gamers such as us, the score is a good way to balance out a review's tone and how its explained to give you an idea if the review was being overly negative, too loving, or just plain has no idea what they are talking about either way. Being able to have a matching score to a written review isn't that hard so it helps to weed out the complete morons of game reviews or fanboys with an agenda.
Corduroy Turtle
I think scores scare players aways from games that they might actually like. Case and point for me was Earth Defense Forces 2017. I think overall the game got horrible reviews, but for me the game is everything I needed. I call it "video game" the video game because it is just so cheesy it is good.
The other thing that troubles me about scores is that they are mainly done for the publishing companies. We have all heard the news of studios now blacklisting websites that don't give their games a certain score.
Last point what turtle already said is that scores are based off one persons ideas. If they don't like first person shooters and they have to play one for a review, it won't come out the same score as someone who is in love with first person shooters. Not every site has the same exact scoring system as well. DeathSpank is a title that I think that got under rated because people were angry that there was no online co-op. What if you don't care about online? The thing is you will never be able to see that in any scoring system.
Great Debate on both sides though.
I think scores scare players aways from games that they might actually like. Case and point for me was Earth Defense Forces 2017. I think overall the game got horrible reviews, but for me the game is everything I needed. I call it "video game" the video game because it is just so cheesy it is good.
The other thing that troubles me about scores is that they are mainly done for the publishing companies. We have all heard the news of studios now blacklisting websites that don't give their games a certain score.
Last point what turtle already said is that scores are based off one persons ideas. If they don't like first person shooters and they have to play one for a review, it won't come out the same score as someone who is in love with first person shooters. Not every site has the same exact scoring system as well. DeathSpank is a title that I think that got under rated because people were angry that there was no online co-op. What if you don't care about online? The thing is you will never be able to see that in any scoring system.
Great Debate on both sides though.
TURTLE
One review reflect one's opinion, and that's it.
"You don't know what you're taking about, it's a 9, not a 6." \shitstorm
All because of a number.
One review reflect one's opinion, and that's it.
"You don't know what you're taking about, it's a 9, not a 6." \shitstorm
All because of a number.
TURTLE; scores are for grading when there is a definitive right and wrong,correct and incorrect, not an opinion....in a videogame a 50 for tom may be a 90 for suzie, a 100 for jane may be a 70 for john..they are too subjective and should be done away with entirely in this industry..
@VenusInFurs
"Like most people, I first see the score, then decided if it's worth my time reading the review."
Do most people really do this? (Poll time.)
"Like most people, I first see the score, then decided if it's worth my time reading the review."
Do most people really do this? (Poll time.)
I too work gaming retail and I've found that review scores are a garbage means of convincing anyone to play anything. From your own quotes "Just give me a game that has flying in it" is the example of a customer's mentality.
Now MY customers aren't that rude, but the point is that people typically already know what they're looking for. People know what interests them and they will pick the game that aligns with their interests whether or not you say that a game is a 7/10 or an 8/10.
Number scores are ultimately a way of saying "Oh no, you shouldn't buy that. You should buy this." You'll find people are happier ignoring you, because when they do they'll come back and go "Hey, I really liked that game!" despite the fact that you snubbed it.
Numbers aren't as important as content, and the average consumer you're talking about needs a game summary more than a number score. For a person who truly is indecisive a number score will not help them. They will jump into the game on the assurance of the high rating and it does not actually affect whether or not they'll enjoy the game.
Their personal values will decide whether or not they like a game and reviewers need to learn the term "Different folks, different strokes" and learn how to write for a broad audience in itself.
Now MY customers aren't that rude, but the point is that people typically already know what they're looking for. People know what interests them and they will pick the game that aligns with their interests whether or not you say that a game is a 7/10 or an 8/10.
Number scores are ultimately a way of saying "Oh no, you shouldn't buy that. You should buy this." You'll find people are happier ignoring you, because when they do they'll come back and go "Hey, I really liked that game!" despite the fact that you snubbed it.
Numbers aren't as important as content, and the average consumer you're talking about needs a game summary more than a number score. For a person who truly is indecisive a number score will not help them. They will jump into the game on the assurance of the high rating and it does not actually affect whether or not they'll enjoy the game.
Their personal values will decide whether or not they like a game and reviewers need to learn the term "Different folks, different strokes" and learn how to write for a broad audience in itself.
MURPHY
The meat of any review should always be in the text but a score is just the cost of doing business. The majority of us are a lazy bunch, and checking a single digit score will always be faster than reading a full page beautifully written review. Those numbers may be silly and sometimes entirely nonsensical but its what we'll take away from them.
In a perfect world i would side with the turtle but when you have an industry which both spends and gains so much money, this really becomes a numbers game, especially the bigger the numbers are.
The meat of any review should always be in the text but a score is just the cost of doing business. The majority of us are a lazy bunch, and checking a single digit score will always be faster than reading a full page beautifully written review. Those numbers may be silly and sometimes entirely nonsensical but its what we'll take away from them.
In a perfect world i would side with the turtle but when you have an industry which both spends and gains so much money, this really becomes a numbers game, especially the bigger the numbers are.
JT Murphy
The topic is a little vague and radical. Of course scores are not necessary, but they're damn useful in several situations. I can't see myself on one side but I'd have to side more with Murphys point, even though I agree equally with Turtle.
The topic is a little vague and radical. Of course scores are not necessary, but they're damn useful in several situations. I can't see myself on one side but I'd have to side more with Murphys point, even though I agree equally with Turtle.
TURTLE
Murphy's argument just doesn't convince me that scores are necessary. I loved Corduroy Turtle's short reviews that didn't have a 'score' in them (the 'buy it' or 'avoid it' thing). A reviewer does not 'need' a score to get noticed either, despite the easy to understand number or star system. There have been plenty of times when reviews have been quoted without referring to a number.
Most problems with score systems are there because people compare current games and movies to earlier reviews. The best games out there in the 90's wouldn't be reviewed as well today, so people bitch about why X game today could be a four star when Y game back in the day got five stars. People that see review scores as a collection to be compared on a level playing field are wrong. It is more of a, "This is what score it got when the game came out on a certain date." So I would argue that scores can be confusing to certain people too.
Murphy's argument just doesn't convince me that scores are necessary. I loved Corduroy Turtle's short reviews that didn't have a 'score' in them (the 'buy it' or 'avoid it' thing). A reviewer does not 'need' a score to get noticed either, despite the easy to understand number or star system. There have been plenty of times when reviews have been quoted without referring to a number.
Most problems with score systems are there because people compare current games and movies to earlier reviews. The best games out there in the 90's wouldn't be reviewed as well today, so people bitch about why X game today could be a four star when Y game back in the day got five stars. People that see review scores as a collection to be compared on a level playing field are wrong. It is more of a, "This is what score it got when the game came out on a certain date." So I would argue that scores can be confusing to certain people too.
TURTLE
Let me dig up a few things from the past. This is over four years old now, and there's a second part. What Burch says is pretty true. A lot of people see games even 6/10 and below as avoid-as-plague shitty games. Does everyone? No, but as stated, we are being marginalized, and it's everyone else who has come to accept this. Why? We've all been in school, and my school system didn't use the ten-point scale. To get an A, you had to score a 95 or higher; B an 88 or higher, C 80, D 70, and 69 and below were automatic failing grades. The ten-point scale wasn't much more forgiving (59 and below were F), but this mentality is engraved in people's minds. This naturally carries over to review scores, and even if you don't use the even 10 or 100 points, people will attempt to quantify your score in a way they can comprehend. 3.5/5 stars? 70%. 70% is a D-, IT MUST SUCK.
This review (rather, the comments in it) hurt my faith in this community. Sure, frontpage people and all but so many cries of "HE HATES A GAME IN A GENRE I LOVE THEREFORE HIS OPINION DOESN'T COUNT" is heartbreaking for someone who likes this place. I know Sterling gets a lot of shit for scoring games low, but people bandwagon the hell out of it because it's to memetic proportions now. The kicker is that the full scale was used in this case, as well as Sterling's reviews.
Now, I remember people way long ago saying that if a game was 40/40 on Famitsu, then it was pure gold. The very first was Ocarina of Time, and since then there have been just 15 in total. Nintendogs is one of them. Look at the near-40s here. Modern Warfare 2 got a 39/40. MW2. Which is a part of a genre I had no idea the Japanese even cared about.
There is also the issue of people being bought out for their scores or being fired for not having the opinion the publisher wanted/paid for. Tell me, how is that even fair for the consumer? I know people who buy 10/10 games despite the fact they A) have never played a game in the series or B) it's not in a genre they even like. What.
And then there's Metacritic. Sure, they link to the reviews and all, but now you have all the scores in one place--why do you even need to look at the text now? Half-Life 2 is the Best Game Ever because it has what, a 96 aggregate? That's good, but tell me what that means. "Uh, the graphics are good and...uh, you can like, shoot things..." Fantabulous. I'm one of the few people who read the review texts because a score tells me nothing pertaining to what I want to know about the game. I can't quantify whether or not a 70% is good or not, especially since I would probably score it differently. I'd drop scores altogether, but then people would be unable to buy anything what with being unable to read for five minutes.
I am afraid of a future where the review text is abolished altogether, and with something like Metacritic and the mentality that comes with it, I'm afraid we're almost there. Then again, this is the culture where people get shitty even if you give the game a perfect score, so what do I know.
Let me dig up a few things from the past. This is over four years old now, and there's a second part. What Burch says is pretty true. A lot of people see games even 6/10 and below as avoid-as-plague shitty games. Does everyone? No, but as stated, we are being marginalized, and it's everyone else who has come to accept this. Why? We've all been in school, and my school system didn't use the ten-point scale. To get an A, you had to score a 95 or higher; B an 88 or higher, C 80, D 70, and 69 and below were automatic failing grades. The ten-point scale wasn't much more forgiving (59 and below were F), but this mentality is engraved in people's minds. This naturally carries over to review scores, and even if you don't use the even 10 or 100 points, people will attempt to quantify your score in a way they can comprehend. 3.5/5 stars? 70%. 70% is a D-, IT MUST SUCK.
This review (rather, the comments in it) hurt my faith in this community. Sure, frontpage people and all but so many cries of "HE HATES A GAME IN A GENRE I LOVE THEREFORE HIS OPINION DOESN'T COUNT" is heartbreaking for someone who likes this place. I know Sterling gets a lot of shit for scoring games low, but people bandwagon the hell out of it because it's to memetic proportions now. The kicker is that the full scale was used in this case, as well as Sterling's reviews.
Now, I remember people way long ago saying that if a game was 40/40 on Famitsu, then it was pure gold. The very first was Ocarina of Time, and since then there have been just 15 in total. Nintendogs is one of them. Look at the near-40s here. Modern Warfare 2 got a 39/40. MW2. Which is a part of a genre I had no idea the Japanese even cared about.
There is also the issue of people being bought out for their scores or being fired for not having the opinion the publisher wanted/paid for. Tell me, how is that even fair for the consumer? I know people who buy 10/10 games despite the fact they A) have never played a game in the series or B) it's not in a genre they even like. What.
And then there's Metacritic. Sure, they link to the reviews and all, but now you have all the scores in one place--why do you even need to look at the text now? Half-Life 2 is the Best Game Ever because it has what, a 96 aggregate? That's good, but tell me what that means. "Uh, the graphics are good and...uh, you can like, shoot things..." Fantabulous. I'm one of the few people who read the review texts because a score tells me nothing pertaining to what I want to know about the game. I can't quantify whether or not a 70% is good or not, especially since I would probably score it differently. I'd drop scores altogether, but then people would be unable to buy anything what with being unable to read for five minutes.
I am afraid of a future where the review text is abolished altogether, and with something like Metacritic and the mentality that comes with it, I'm afraid we're almost there. Then again, this is the culture where people get shitty even if you give the game a perfect score, so what do I know.
'Scores' only encourage the dumbing down of an already dumbed down discussion. No one has yet to mention that video game reviewers openly admit to difficulty reviewing games because they must always have to frame it into some arbitrary number to summarize what they mostly failed to articulate in the viewer. If they were forced to eliminate scores then they would be forced to hedge their bets on actual critical thought that discusses the game. Scary idea indeed.
TURTLE
I have nothing against scores in and of themselves, but they cause unnecessary controversy. Very rarely do you read about how a movie's review average is sending fans into a frothing rage. Yet with video games, stuff like that are news headlines.
Another point is that numbers are usually unreliable. Jim Sterling obviously didn't like Assassin's Creed II and gave it a 4.5. Now when Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood came out, Dtoid gave it a 9.5. Why is that? is the game really 5 points better than AC2? Or did someone else review it? as it turns out, Nick actually reviewed Brotherhood. But what did Jim think of it? Did he hate it just as much as AC2? Did he agree with Nick? Who knows. But when the casual lurker looks at these two scores, he/she is not getting the whole story and therefore, unreliable info.
I have nothing against scores in and of themselves, but they cause unnecessary controversy. Very rarely do you read about how a movie's review average is sending fans into a frothing rage. Yet with video games, stuff like that are news headlines.
Another point is that numbers are usually unreliable. Jim Sterling obviously didn't like Assassin's Creed II and gave it a 4.5. Now when Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood came out, Dtoid gave it a 9.5. Why is that? is the game really 5 points better than AC2? Or did someone else review it? as it turns out, Nick actually reviewed Brotherhood. But what did Jim think of it? Did he hate it just as much as AC2? Did he agree with Nick? Who knows. But when the casual lurker looks at these two scores, he/she is not getting the whole story and therefore, unreliable info.
TURTLE
Why Turtle? Because while I think scores are a very useful addition to a review, they are not NECESSARY. Reviews are typically fairly free-form, and like many critiques, are free to posit a representation of quality if they desire, but there is no hard-and-fast requirement that they do so.
That being said, I don`t think they`re complete hogwash. Simply reading the score and not the review *is* a disservice to the reader, but it`s one that is **self-inflicted** (and not the reviewers fault).
What I personally like best is a short summary of the high and low points of the game at the end. Again, not necessary and certainly not a replacement for the review, but a nice extra.
Why Turtle? Because while I think scores are a very useful addition to a review, they are not NECESSARY. Reviews are typically fairly free-form, and like many critiques, are free to posit a representation of quality if they desire, but there is no hard-and-fast requirement that they do so.
That being said, I don`t think they`re complete hogwash. Simply reading the score and not the review *is* a disservice to the reader, but it`s one that is **self-inflicted** (and not the reviewers fault).
What I personally like best is a short summary of the high and low points of the game at the end. Again, not necessary and certainly not a replacement for the review, but a nice extra.
MURPHY -- Not because of what was said, but because sites like Metacritic exist. They aren't going away any time soon. If sites like Dtoid and others want to exist, they need traffic. It's a fact that if a website gets its reviews posted to places like Metacritic, they're going to get more traffic. But to have your reivew on Metacritic you need a score.
I think people should read a wide variety of reviews--actually read the words. That's where you'll pick up on some of the game's nuances. You can't just skip to the bottom to look at the score. That defeats the purpose. The score isn't the essence of the review, but they are necessary for gaming websites to continue to exist.
I think people should read a wide variety of reviews--actually read the words. That's where you'll pick up on some of the game's nuances. You can't just skip to the bottom to look at the score. That defeats the purpose. The score isn't the essence of the review, but they are necessary for gaming websites to continue to exist.
MURPHY
I don't have time to read every review ever. They're awful long. And I'd rather be playing games. Generally if it's a game I've never heard of, it takes a 9 or something on the bottom of the page to get my attention. And then I'll read the review. That said, many of my favourite games got very mixed reviews and I discovered them perhaps through praise in the review text or in post-release articles or blogs, despite the score. I've been playing more and more games like Fragile Dreams that got low scores but recommendations nonetheless for being something rather special.
Ideally I think review scores could embrace their subjectivity even more. Perhaps the scale should be from the reviewer wouldn't buy it to the reviewer would definitely buy it, rather than from bad to flawless. My #1 favourite game of all-time isn't flawless. My #2 is (IMO). I just didn't like it quite as much. It's not quite as special. Should it score higher? Or should a perfect 10 simply be the highest possible recommendation from the reviewer. Part of what I love about Destructoid is that they can say a game is very flawed but still recommend a purchase, and you learn to figure out and take into account the personalities and varying tastes of the reviewers. The Flower Sun and Rain review is incredible, but still it got a 3/10 because of all the flaws that had to be considered. Fuck those flaws. The score should be a reflection of the reviewers opinion that we may get a rough idea of how it stacks up to other games according to the reviewer. The text can cover the flaws. And the text can cover how a lower-scoring game may be virtually flawless despite not ultimately being very special.
I don't have time to read every review ever. They're awful long. And I'd rather be playing games. Generally if it's a game I've never heard of, it takes a 9 or something on the bottom of the page to get my attention. And then I'll read the review. That said, many of my favourite games got very mixed reviews and I discovered them perhaps through praise in the review text or in post-release articles or blogs, despite the score. I've been playing more and more games like Fragile Dreams that got low scores but recommendations nonetheless for being something rather special.
Ideally I think review scores could embrace their subjectivity even more. Perhaps the scale should be from the reviewer wouldn't buy it to the reviewer would definitely buy it, rather than from bad to flawless. My #1 favourite game of all-time isn't flawless. My #2 is (IMO). I just didn't like it quite as much. It's not quite as special. Should it score higher? Or should a perfect 10 simply be the highest possible recommendation from the reviewer. Part of what I love about Destructoid is that they can say a game is very flawed but still recommend a purchase, and you learn to figure out and take into account the personalities and varying tastes of the reviewers. The Flower Sun and Rain review is incredible, but still it got a 3/10 because of all the flaws that had to be considered. Fuck those flaws. The score should be a reflection of the reviewers opinion that we may get a rough idea of how it stacks up to other games according to the reviewer. The text can cover the flaws. And the text can cover how a lower-scoring game may be virtually flawless despite not ultimately being very special.
I am honestly torn between the two sides - both make very legitimate points. Review scores are important because they keep a standard by which games may be compared with at a glance, but the scores themselves may not reflect the actual quality of the game. What I would prefer instead of review scores would be a short, ~10 word sentence briefly summing up the game, although that's almost impossible to switch to from the "review score" standard we've set already.
MURPHY
While I always read the review first for games that I've been following, I don't want to have to read a lengthy review to know if a game that's off my radar is worth my time. Does that mean I blindly follow review scores? No. Do I obsessively follow the coverage of every single game on the market? No. So, for the games that I don't follow, but am curious about, the score serves as an extremely handy indicator of whether or not I should bother reading the review and researching the game. 999 is a great example of this. I'd never heard of it but saw that Tony (I believe) posted a review. I opened the article and saw that he gave it a 10. That made me pay attention and read his review, do my research, and ultimately pick up one of the best written games of the past couple of years. Does that make me lazy? I don't think so, but feel free to disagree.
While I always read the review first for games that I've been following, I don't want to have to read a lengthy review to know if a game that's off my radar is worth my time. Does that mean I blindly follow review scores? No. Do I obsessively follow the coverage of every single game on the market? No. So, for the games that I don't follow, but am curious about, the score serves as an extremely handy indicator of whether or not I should bother reading the review and researching the game. 999 is a great example of this. I'd never heard of it but saw that Tony (I believe) posted a review. I opened the article and saw that he gave it a 10. That made me pay attention and read his review, do my research, and ultimately pick up one of the best written games of the past couple of years. Does that make me lazy? I don't think so, but feel free to disagree.
Unless it is something that is truly flawless, no piece of media should ever be given a perfect score and associated with the definition of the word 'perfect' ever.
Also, for people arguing the semantics of the word "necessary", I don't think that's what this debate is about. Obviously scores are not "necessary", but if we go down that rabbit hole, neither are reviews, reviewers, or videogame blogs. This debate seems to be about whether or not we would prefer for reviews to be accompanied by scores.
@Bibbly
Then why have perfect scores? 9 just becomes the new 10.
@Bibbly
Then why have perfect scores? 9 just becomes the new 10.
TURTLE.
I can't help but take issue with Murphy's use of the term "enthusiast gaming press" and then go on to use the exact opposite audience as evidence. The kind of person who'll ask for "Hockey for Xbox" isn't the kind of person who'll jump on IGN for a review. That said, Murphy's talking about more than just the state of affairs we have now, and as gaming expands, perhaps that will change.
But let's say, hypothetically, that all reviewers ceased to use scores, and replaced them with a short, bottom-line summary, much like the excerpts Gamespot puts at the top of their reviews, or the paragraph cut-outs Dtoid uses for monthly review recaps. The consumer base would likely be that much more knowledgable. The quick-and-dirty, bottom-line applications of scores still exist, but in a more accurate and relevant manner. Perfect world, anyway.
Also, Debatoid: Perhaps we should modify the voting a little bit. The rules say to vote based on your opinion of the proposition, rather than your opinion of the statements made. Yet we vote by debater's name, which implies exactly the opposite. Something to think about.
I can't help but take issue with Murphy's use of the term "enthusiast gaming press" and then go on to use the exact opposite audience as evidence. The kind of person who'll ask for "Hockey for Xbox" isn't the kind of person who'll jump on IGN for a review. That said, Murphy's talking about more than just the state of affairs we have now, and as gaming expands, perhaps that will change.
But let's say, hypothetically, that all reviewers ceased to use scores, and replaced them with a short, bottom-line summary, much like the excerpts Gamespot puts at the top of their reviews, or the paragraph cut-outs Dtoid uses for monthly review recaps. The consumer base would likely be that much more knowledgable. The quick-and-dirty, bottom-line applications of scores still exist, but in a more accurate and relevant manner. Perfect world, anyway.
Also, Debatoid: Perhaps we should modify the voting a little bit. The rules say to vote based on your opinion of the proposition, rather than your opinion of the statements made. Yet we vote by debater's name, which implies exactly the opposite. Something to think about.
@Roager a valid question on the voting process.
Ultimately your opinion is the most important aspect of the Debatoid comments as I like to see the debate stretch beyond the statements. The voting does ask you to select a champion from your side of the proposition, that is true, but in order to do this you must agree more with this person than the other anyway, so I see no great conflict and it helps to make sure that those voting have read the statements and considered the framework of the debate.
Ultimately your opinion is the most important aspect of the Debatoid comments as I like to see the debate stretch beyond the statements. The voting does ask you to select a champion from your side of the proposition, that is true, but in order to do this you must agree more with this person than the other anyway, so I see no great conflict and it helps to make sure that those voting have read the statements and considered the framework of the debate.
TURTLE
I was writing more of a novel I was working on then stumbled upon this debate. Scores aren't necessary to games. In fact I think scored reviews are worse than actual reviews, as most people will simply want to see a pretty number rather than read what the reviewer put his or her time into. I've seen games get "perfect" scores that should honestly be avoided at all costs. Although no games are horrible or bad, its up to the consumer to decide if it is worth their money or not, as every game, despite what you may think of it, will be enjoyed by another. Yes, even shovelware games will be enjoyed by a child.
Think about that when someone does a numbered review. Can you honestly put a number on memories and fun? Can you?
I was writing more of a novel I was working on then stumbled upon this debate. Scores aren't necessary to games. In fact I think scored reviews are worse than actual reviews, as most people will simply want to see a pretty number rather than read what the reviewer put his or her time into. I've seen games get "perfect" scores that should honestly be avoided at all costs. Although no games are horrible or bad, its up to the consumer to decide if it is worth their money or not, as every game, despite what you may think of it, will be enjoyed by another. Yes, even shovelware games will be enjoyed by a child.
Think about that when someone does a numbered review. Can you honestly put a number on memories and fun? Can you?
MURPHY -- I like science. I like numbers to represent how someone felt about a game. Otherwise I couldn't skim anything -- I'd actually have to READ for once (and reading is for losers as we all know). But for seriously now, how am I to compare one person's review to another without numbers? Reviewers wrote a lot of contradictory statements that would confuse me without numbers to back up what they're trying to say. I couldn't imagine hotels, movies, books, what have you without rating systems, and the same goes for video games.
