Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware that it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.
A couple months ago, I would have never considered writing a feature about how review scores work. First off, I rarely review games for this site, and, secondly -- and most importantly -- I have no interest in getting involved in the never-ending, exhaustingly fruitless argument over why certain games are scored a certain way.
But over the holiday break, something changed. As I started reading the comments on some of Destructoid’s more recent reviews -- specifically Assassin’s Creed II and VVVVVV -- I felt the need to throw in my two cents.
You see, there is one particular issue that is bothering me that I think a lot people genuinely may not understand. Of course, this has nothing to do with people’s opinions on how a videogame is scored. If you love a game and it gets a low score, it makes sense to respectfully disagree with the review. This feature is not about telling anyone that they are wrong for feeling the way they do.
No, this feature involves comparing one review to another -- a misconception that is starting to infect the comments of almost every review that is posted on this site.
Hit the jump for a simple solution to solve everyone’s review score woes. Let’s all hold hands and read together.
Honestly, I can keep this rather short:
Review scores are not meant to be compared to each other.
Simple as that.
If a game on this Web site gets a 9.0 and another gets a 7.0, it doesn’t mean the game that gets a 9.0 is altogether better than the game that was scored a 7.0.
Before rushing to the comments and letting me know what I am saying makes no sense, let’s go over how a numerical score is calculated in a review to begin with.
Each review and its respective numerical score (between 1 and 10) is based on the quality of that particular game. If a game gets a 5.0, it is completely average. More specifically (and this is super important!), giving a game a 5.0 means that the game being reviewed could, technically, be about five points better if certain things were improved. In more mathematical terms, this means the game is living up to 50% of its potential.
Think about a game you really love or hate. Now, mathematically, think about how much better that game could be. If it couldn’t be better in any obvious way, well, that game should get a 10 (or, at the very least, close to one). If the game you are thinking of could be significantly improved, think about how much and score it accordingly. Could it be three points better? Six points? In relation to what it is setting out to accomplish, how much of the game is successful? 30%? 85%? 100%? Boom. There’s your score.
But let’s move on from that -- we could debate what a “5.0” really means for days. That’s not what this article is really about.
The point of this article is to not dissect review scores; it’s to dissuade everyone to not compare them with each other. It may sound simple and obvious, but it is unbelievably important.
With a lot of reviews, people look at a numerical score and surprisingly refuse to think about what that score actually means. It’s just “OMG [GAME A] GOT AN 8.0 AND [GAME B] GOT A 9.0! DESTRUCTOID THINKS [GAME B] IS BETTER! FAIL!”
Let’s use the “5.0” example once more. If a game gets this average review, the score only applies to that game. Meaning: if the inevitable Assassin’s Creed III gets a 5.0, it means that particular game could easily improve things to make it five points better (be it graphics, gameplay, etc.).
Conversely, if another game -- an indie game, for example -- gets a high 9.0, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is a better game than Assassin’s Creed III. It doesn’t mean that at all, actually! All it means is the indie game is so good it could only make enough improvements to score it one point higher.
In no way does it mean the indie game is exactly four points better than Assassin’s Creed III (whatever that would even mean).
Review scores are meant to reflect the quality of a particular game. They are not meant to be compared to each other in any way. If a game gets a 7.0, that game got a 7.0. If another game gets a 2.0, that game was scored a 2.0. In a normal review world, a game that gets a 6.0 could or could not be “better” than a game that gets an 8.0. Unless the reviewer specifically states, “[Game A] is better than [Game B],” there is no way to tell which game is better based on the review scores alone. Again, each review exists in its own individual world and should be read and understood accordingly.
Personally, if I were to review Dead Rising for the Xbox 360, I would probably give it around a 6.0, due to some serious problems I had with the game’s controls and certain design choices. The game could have easily been four points better if Capcom changed some key things about it. Easily four points better. On the other hand, I would (and did!) give Planet Puzzle League for the Nintendo DS a 9.5, as it is near-perfect in the kind of game it sets out to be. It could have only been, at the most, a half a point higher with some small, merely cosmetic (*cough* friend code *cough*), changes.
But ... if someone were to ask me what game I like better, I would easily choose Dead Rising. I love that game, despite some of the problems I have with it.
Let’s use a popular ongoing series as another great example of all this.
The Madden series.
Every year a new game in the Madden series comes out that is almost identical to the one before it. Say in 1995, Madden ’95 was ranked a 9.0 for being one of the greatest football videogames ever made.
Obviously over the years the Madden games have improved in various ways -- more features, better graphics, improved simulation. Between 1995 and now -- if reviews were meant to be compared -- how could you do better than a 9.0 year after year after year? Answer: You can’t!
That’s why each game is judged on its own quality, with no intentions that its review will be compared to another. If one Madden gets a 9.0 and another gets a 7.5, that doesn’t mean the 9.0 iteration is better. It only means that the 9.0 game lives up to 90% of its potential, as opposed to its colleague’s 75%.
If a chef prepared a plate of brussel sprouts that 9 out of 10 brussel sprout experts adored and another plate of chocolate cupcakes that only 5 out of 10 dessert experts loved, you can bet your ass I will still be asking for more of those average chocolate cupcakes, while ignoring the plate of almost perfectly prepared vegetables. Why? BECAUSE A 5.0 CUPCAKE WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER THAN A 9.0 BRUSSEL SPROUT!
Okay, I admit that was the worst analogy of all time, but hopefully you get an idea of the point I am trying to get across: Review scores should never, ever be compared.
In no way am I calling anyone out for not agreeing with the reviews we do here. Like I mentioned before, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we respect and adore the Destructoid community more than you will ever know.
Just remember this little insignificant feature the next time you want to scream “Destructoid thinks this game is better than that game! Confirmed!”
What you are saying really doesn’t make any sense.
<3
Contest:
4:00 PM on 01.15.2010
| 
(also, you lay out articles really well.)
EVER.
Also, at the end of the day a score is a reviewers opinion. im sure we all have a game that we really enjoy which got slated by critics
Fucking right!
Good read BTW.
AMIDOINGITWRITE!?
So yeah, that's me.
Not all reviewers are the same and some are more critical on games than others. Which is why I think overall people should look up multiple reviews so they get different viewpoints on it. As a whole that should be what you base your decision on opposed to just one person's opinion of it.
i personally find that its all about the gameplay videos. A well trained gamer can spot bad gameplay a mile off
sorry, i just liked the slightly chaotic writing i usually have as well
Thing is, destructoid does scoring (hehe, ahem) like you said, i hope everyone will remember that. But a lot of other sites|magazines or whatever there is, which reviews games, they may actually have some "unified game score", and comparing can be done. but then again, i'm loaded with beer now and say that grass is yellow
i love cheese
A well written review with a conclusion that not recommend, recommend or highly recommend. That would be perfect.
Have you seen the "Forget It/Demo It/Buy It!" images at the bottom of DToid reviews?
Let's say my score is devided by 1. Graphics. 2. Gameplay.
I give game (A) a 10 in graphics and a 1 in gameplay it will average a 5. Vice versa with game (B) (10 in gameplay and 1 in graphics) and it will average 5 aswell.
I would say that the game with the better gameplay is better, but you can't really compare the two. So yeah, kinda pointless post I guess.
More evidence that the numering rating system is crap?
I get the problem with reviews, the only real quantifiable stats of a game (gameplay responsiveness, graphics, framerates, length) would constitute a fairly boring review, but everything else is subjective. I do understand as well how an 8.0 could be better than a 9.0 (perhaps the game is so great, you don't mind slightly wonky controls etc, but we marked it off anyway). And I can see how indie games or casual games could be graded on a different scale than traditional games (indie 8.0 does not equal traditional 8.0 etc), but if you are going to make the review scores so intangible, you are probably better off leaving them out completely.
Unfortunately, when something is posted as an 'editorial,' like your article is, that lies in direct opposition to the claim your article makes.
Seriously!? I hear this argument a lot but let me just say. If you don't see how on a scale of 1-10 5, the number directly between the two, being the middle makes more sense than having 7 you need help. Yes it's different in schools but no one said we were supposed to be grading like in schools.
"The point of this article is to not dissect review scores"
So keep it simple then. a 9 is better than a 5. always.
p.s. the cake/ brussel sprout analogy only works if your comparing two different foods (games)to each other(which is a little stupid I admit). But if you were to see a cake that had 9/10 satisfied customers and a cake that had 5/10... tell me what one you would pick.
But the scores is still there. Why?
Well written article Chad! Now do something about your cocaine addiction and give us RetroforceGo back! >:(
@Archwright
http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-reviews-the-official-guide-54570.phtml
There was another one by Jim Sterling I believe.
At least it's made a believer out of me. I always thought while scores should be compared they should be able to be compared. It think this argument overshadows mine though. Congrats.
I point to the game Ar Tonelico II for example. I despise that game, however certain parts of it are really very good. The graphics are nice and niche and colorful, the music is...eh...I guess, but the gameplay was a steaming pile of donkey poo. It was so bad that I scored the game a 4/10 because a certain other website only lets you review in numerical score, where as I normally do a buy/rent/skip format. Now granted 3 of the 4 major review points of the game were fine (graphics, sound, control) but the gameplay was such a big issue that when pressed for a score, I honestly gave it what I thought it deserved. Of course it doesn't stop the fan boys from flaming me on the message boards. Not that I really care what people who like playing a game where girls leveling up involves taking a bath together.
I get what you are saying, but the point of the analogy was to prove two different videogames are not the same. Meaning: comparing two cupcakes to each other is not accurate. Puzzle games (cupcakes) should be reviewed differently than an epic RPG (brussel sprouts). True, the meaning of the 1-10 scale stays the same (1 is terrible, 10 is amazing), but if the puzzle game has much "simpler" components than the huge RPG, does that mean it can't get a 10? If the RPG has better graphics, a better story, and better technology, that doesn't automatically make it better than the puzzle game.
If the puzzle game is a perfect puzzle game, as simple as it is, it still warrants a high score.
If the RPG is great, but far from perfect, it should earn an appropriate score (7,8). That doesn't mean the RPG is a worse game, though.
Make sense? :)
I guess I am just trying to get people to not see two COMPLETLY different games, compare their scores, and assume which one is "better" based on scores alone. It doesn't make any sense!
Man, this is not "simple" at all. Haha. :)
There also seems to be growing evidence for me that there is little actual reward for making excellent games.
An excellent game once experienced seems to really invalidate the rest of the product line available on the platform.
I feel hesitant to suggest we are all rational consumers and that 'Perfect information' (HD video, large game screens, demos, accurate reviews and marketing) available to all people who sought to play only excellent games would really decrease game sales.
In my case however, it seems the more I know the less I want to buy, because I consistently feel developers do not even attempt to deliver quality that stresses the capacity of the platform.
A simple example would be infinity ward gimping their game to 600p for both platforms.
munkee: "i personally find that its all about the gameplay videos. A well trained gamer can spot bad gameplay a mile off"
Also, this.
As for your analyzing the percentage of a game's success or lack thereof to determine its score, I think that's just ridiculous. How can you tell people not to compare game scores to one another, then ask them to determine a numerical percentage of how much more successful it can be?
I think our scoring system is in line with this article.
I am not saying we score our games wrong at all, or that we should change the way we evaluate individual games. If anything, I think we are more fair and realistic than most gaming sites out there! I just don't think people should compare all of our scores next to each other to determine which games are better than others.
That's what I was trying to say, at least. :)
I respect what you are saying, though. There may be some review inconsistencies every once and a while. That's hard to avoid. :)
The amount-of-potential perspective also makes a lot more sense than most others I've heard around here. I wish scores could be ditched altogether, but since they're here to stay I just wish more sites would use the entire damned scale.
I miss retroforcego...