Thoughts on review scoring systems...

[Evo]

Alright everyone, I am running a poll on The Reticule asking people how they like reviews to be scored/rated etc. I have always found this an interesting topic since I started getting involved in games writing, personally I'm not a fan of the traditional scores out of 10 or 100, or even A-F systems. I feel people often just read to the end of the review, look at the score and make a snap judgement.

Anyway, please comment here and on The Reticule, interested to hear what you guys think

 

[Dynasty]

Out of 10 for me.

decimal point helps I guess, no game is perfect, unless you're on IGN where Uncharted seems to get a perfect score every time. 10 for graphics on Uncharted 3? Oh come on.

Learnt one thing though; never worry about the score. It's a 10th of the review. READ THE REVIEW. Or watch the review, which in some sites, is almost someone just reading lines from the written review, which sucks.

We're a world obsessed with reviews. Big Brother, X Factor, Amazon, toasters you bought on ebay, holidays you went on.

Love Michael Mcintyre, completely agree with his views on reviews. It's quite pathetic really. Shame about the shit quality.

 

[morgs]

I can do without ratings completely. They have never influenced my decision to play a game and I don't think they ever will. In most cases I find my opinion differs quite a bit from that of the reviewer.

Also, Michael Macintyre is an annoying twat.

 

[15357]

I always read reviews to the end, but the score does help me get a good idea of what to expect since it acts as a summary.

 

[Stormy]

LoL! All the more funny Because I live in Hove and totally get the hole brighton and hove thing

 

[ríomhaire]

I prefer a summary of points and a comparison to other games. My prefered system would probably just categorize games together with the ones they're most similar to and list them from favourite to least. Scores are too arbitrary.

Something like:

• Company of Heroes
• Command & Conquer 3 = Dawn of War = Starcraft 2
• Universe at War = Supreme Commander
• Red Alert 3
• Halo Wars

(Note this list doesn't represent my opinions, I haven't even played some of those games, it's just an example)


And a quick summary of the best and worst points about the game.

 

[Dinnesch]

I prefer 1-100 for the score, although I hardly ever rely on scores(numbers), as I have a high tolerance for some poorly done things in games(eg voice acting, sound, bugs up to an extent).
Being the lazy **** I am, I also like to have a short list of the pros/cons like Gamespot has(although I often disagree with GS, I like the summaries).

 

[DEATHMASTER]

100 pt system is fine with me. Helps when there's a shitton of reviews and you want an average like on metacritic.

 

[Shakermaker]

I prefer no rating, like the WITs on RPS.

 

[Bob_Marley]

The only thing I'd like to see is that if they're going to use a scale they should actually damn well use it. These days seemingly a 1-100 scale is actually a 70-100 scale and 1-10 is 7-10. This is not right. On a 1 to 10 scale 1 is bad, 5 is average and 10 is perfection. 7/10 or 70% should not be the damn baseline for middling to poor games.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Basically agreed with Bob. I don't really mind the use of numerical scales. At the end of the day, any reader who accepts a number as the be-all-and-end-all without reading the actual review is never likely to be bludgeoned into reading a review if you take the scores away. But it's when they become arbitrary or distorted that they get a bit silly. And they do lead to a lack of flexibility, as there are an increasing number of games these days where you have to say "it's super interesting, but if you don't like x, you'll hate it..."

 

[Higlac]

I like 1-10 subscores on individual elements of the game with a 1-100 overall score. Multiplayer sections of the game should be judged separately from the singleplayer segments.

 

[Ennui]

I like the 100 point system, but I do see your point where that can be harmful because people don't read the whole review. It doesn't bother me to not see any numerical score at all, just a qualitative review.

 

[Stigmata]

I prefer it without the score, but with a longer summary than just The Reticle's own rating phrase. Something like PC Gamer or IGN's score summaries without the numbers.

 

[Evo]

The only thing I'd like to see is that if they're going to use a scale they should actually damn well use it. These days seemingly a 1-100 scale is actually a 70-100 scale and 1-10 is 7-10. This is not right. On a 1 to 10 scale 1 is bad, 5 is average and 10 is perfection. 7/10 or 70% should not be the damn baseline for middling to poor games.

Yeah that is a major gripe of mine, if you are going to use a scale, then use it properly. The 7/10 system really irks me, often there are some really enjoyable games in that range which get ignored. Makes me cry :'(

 

[Viperidae]

No score. And for the love of god, don't be fooled into thinking averages like metacritic are objective.

 

[hool10]

I like to come to a conclusion on multiple reviews. Personally I like the A-F system but the problem is most people go C. What does that mean? Is it like "meh I'm C" or "I'm a C+". The 100 point system is essentially the same but people really don't care if say BF3 gets 93 and COD3 gets 90. Big point difference there, OH NOES! I pretty much treat game scores the same way as grades.

• A games are really great. Big studio's like Activision, Valve, etc.
• B most often times I will play more than A games and are keepers. Sometimes your Indie dev or some crazy new dev like the Batman: Arkham Asylum people.
• C is a gamble and might be an ok game to play. Usually your Pop Cap, Indie, casual game company.

Anything like a C- or below don't even get. Don't say it's ok for X situation because when you start doing that, your making excuses just like you did with your last report card!

 

[StardogChampion]

I rarely read through an entire review, so I prefer the scoring out of a 100 split into categories like Gameplay/Graphics/etc, with a few sentences in each then the overall score.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

100 scale reviews are simply the most satisfying to me. I see the number and I want to read the author's justification for it. Particularly when it's in the high nineties or below 40.

And like the above poster I like to see 1/2 sentence breakdowns of specific elements of the game. Or at least a 'final thoughts' type statement. Those are fun.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I was JUST having this discussion with a friend who works at Gamestop today. We are both of the mindset that the scores themselves don't matter at all. How many times have I read what sounded like a crap reviewonly to find out that the game got a 7 out of 10?? Ridiculous. Reading reviews that sound absolutely perfect and then end with an 8 out of 10 are equally as irksome. What everyone has to remember (but rarely, if ever, does) is that all reviews are subjective, like it or not. They are written by one person who has come to that point in their life with baggage unique to them, esp. in terms of gaming, so to think that any review could be completely objective is naive in the extreme. I want reviewers to bring up plot holes; I want them to tell me if a game is buggy or has a slow framerate. These are things that no one can deny, but when it comes to just about everything else, that is where opinion comes in and that should never be scored for obvious reasons. Of course, even with all of this said, scores will always be around thanks to marketing and advertising because plenty of studies have been shown to prove that the ROI for having high review scores and other accolades on the marketing materials and packaging is much higher than when all of that is absent. It's all about money once again and it's getting really old for me.

 

[sinkoman]

I always thought the 1-10 system was pretty decent. For me though, the number isn't so much final decision maker in whether or not i'm going to buy a game, but rather a means of deciding whether or not i'll even read the review, which in turn decides whether or not i'll get a game.

 

[Sliver]

It's nice to say that no score system is the best, but you don't get readers that way. My personal favorite is the Giant Bomb 5 stars scoring system. Honestly, whats the difference between a game that got a 8.7 and one that got a 8.8?

 

[Wanted Bob]

100 point system to be honest. Obviously I don't think a score is a good way to judge the quality of a game, but it tends to be a short and easy way to sum up your overall feelings on a game as a whole. When its just a bunch of paragraphs focussing on different aspects of the game, its difficult to see how they all come together in the big picture. Some games will be better than the sum of its parts, others might have the opposite issue.

 

[Escaep]

I like 1-10 subscores on individual elements of the game with a 1-100 overall score. Multiplayer sections of the game should be judged separately from the singleplayer segments.

I prefer this way as well. A score for graphics, sounds, "acting," AI, multiplayer, etc. Then all of that combined gives you an overall game score.

 

[PvtRyan]

When you think about it, it's rather silly to use numbers to describe something that's not measurable or objectively quantifiable.

I would go for no rating or a like/dislike or buy/don't buy system because that reflects the subjectivity of the matter. It really doesn't tell me much when someone rates a game a 90. If you're really positive about a game, I should be able to tell from the text of the review. Tell me about your experiences in the game, give me war stories, give me anecdotes. If you were to give an RTS game a 90, I would conclude I need to buy it from that score. Is that correct? Dunno, maybe I don't like RTS games at all. If instead you told me about this time that the AI gave you an ass whooping by being really smart and you managed an awesome comeback, then I might instead say "yeah! That's exactly what I'm looking for!" or "meh, that doesn't excite me at all, not my kinda game I guess".