Review Scores

The topic of review scores seems to be getting more and more heated - to the point where journalists on Twitter sometimes even argue about the difference between 8.9 and 9.0, and many discussions about reviews seem to revolve more about the score at the end than the content in the review.

So...what do you think a review should consist of, score-wise? There are many different ways it could be done: Out of 100, out of 10, out of 5, Buy/Rent/Pass, Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down, scoring multiple sections alongside a final review or having no score at all?

I don't think there is any one perfect system for this, but it would be interesting to know what you want.

There's also another thing about reviews becoming outdated: games now change. In the past, a game is completed, put on a cartridge/disk and that was it. The game was 100% finished. You could review it and that was it.

But now, games get patches, and not just for bugs. For example, Burnout Paradise added a significant amount of free content and you have smaller things like Sonic Lost World adding non-motion controls for most Wisps and adding 100 rings = one life (two common complains about the game).

And then you have MMOs, which can change a lot. If you look at Star Trek Online reviews, they'll talk about a fairly empty experience, because that's what the game was at launch. It's now so much more than that, with extra gameplay and management added, all the missions have been redone along with loads added. The reviews of the game are completely invalid now.

So...shouldn't reviews get updates, too? Even if it's just one or two paragraphs explaining the changes or fixes along with an updates score (if applicable).

I figure that a 5 star rating system works well enough. More distinction than that is not really needed.

As for the post-release fixes, content and DLC... I'm thinking that, should those exist, they should be easy to learn about. Review sites should see their reviews updated when it happens, I think, but I wonder how feasible it is.

I like the .5 scale out of 10 or the 1 to 100 scale.

As for updating reviews, I don't know, it's up to the individual reviewers themselves if they want to do it as it's extra work. Does Metacritic take account of updated reviews? At the same time I kind of think tough $H1T if the publisher couldn't wait for the game to be finished properly in the first place before releasing it.

I like the .5 scale out of 10 or the 1 to 100 scale.

Like there's any meaningful difference between an 87 and an 88.

Like there's any meaningful difference between an 87 and an 88.

I know, I think it's just the nostalgia of picking up the gaming magazines.

I actually kind of like Kotaku's review system that states the pluses and minuses of the game and comes at the end with a "should you play this?".

But having a simple text based review still doesn't alleviate the problems with reviews these days. We have reviewers in channels with far too many links to the video gaming world and are easily swayed. Even ignoring this problem, we have channels that exaggerate every review but so many people use them and look to them that it's becoming the norm.

Too many idiots take the numbers/stars seriously, and many people love to aggravate those idiots with those numbers to spread doom and gloom.

Whole values between 0-10 is reasonable, if only to gauge the reviewer's overall enjoyment. Any more than that and it starts to be a bit pointless.

I figure that a 5 star rating system works well enough. More distinction than that is not really needed.

 

As for the post-release fixes, content and DLC... I'm thinking that, should those exist, they should be easy to learn about. Review sites should see their reviews updated when it happens, I think, but I wonder how feasible it is.

I've always hated a 5 star scale it doesn't give enough between scores....So if 3/5 is an average game, an above average game gets 4/5 which is only 1 point of a "perfect" score and is the same league as game that wasn't quite a 5/5 but comes damn close. 10/10's are held in with that higher regard I feel as nearly titles can be 8/9's rather than being in the 5/6/7 range that I guess a 3or4/5.

As for no review scores a site has to have such a distinct voice that is joy for people to read and that readers can engage with for it to work. Otherwise why are people reading your reviews over a well written review that also attributes a score to a game as a form of summary.

I do not agree with reviews being updated post game. Run features or other editorial pieces to reflect changes in games, or you know actually do some journalism and find out what's going on rather than just belittling developers. It's open to abuse sites like Polygon clearly alter scores and use them as clickbait when they take points off, yet when they re-review a game and add points back it won't make their front page or see every one of their staff tweeting about it.

I've always hated a 5 star scale it doesn't give enough between scores....So if 3/5 is an average game, an above average game gets 4/5 which is only 1 point of a "perfect" score and is the same league as game that wasn't quite a 5/5 but comes damn close. 10/10's are held in with that higher regard I feel as nearly titles can be 8/9's rather than being in the 5/6/7 range that I guess a 3or4/5.

Not quite. 1/5 is bad, 2/5 is average, 3/5 is above average, 4/5 is pretty good, 5/5 is reserved for the excellent. Sure, the last one doesn't have the weight of a 10/10, but it is the review itself that should make it clear if the game is, in fact, as good as a 10/10 implies.

Furthermore, the only distinction that below average games need is "Mediocre" and "Bad". This scale reflects that.

Anyway, I just thought I should elaborate.

Not quite. 1/5 is bad, 2/5 is average, 3/5 is above average, 4/5 is pretty good, 5/5 is reserved for the excellent. Sure, the last one doesn't have the weight of a 10/10, but it is the review itself that should make it clear if the game is, in fact, as good as a 10/10 implies.

 

Furthermore, the only distinction that below average games need is "Mediocre" and "Bad". This scale reflects that.

 

Anyway, I just thought I should elaborate.

But then there is little distinction between average and bad...it works both ways I just don't think a scale of 1 is enough to show that difference. For example are below average and bad the same thing....if not there is no number to reflect that.

I actually like the "buy,rent,don't bother" way. The content in the review therefore automatically becomes more important.

I actually prefer the "out of 100" scoring system. The most important aspect for whoever is reviewing the game has a definition of what the scoe bands actually mean (I.e., is 50 an 'average' game or is '70' deemed average). I understand that there's minimal difference between a 71 and a 72. Weirdly, I've always imagined that the difference between a 92 and 93 say, is bigger than 52 and 53. When a game scores over 80 or 90 it becomes much tougher to distinguish whether one game is more fun than another.

It's more about trusting the reviewer. Magazines such as Edge and Famitsu have great reputations for the honesty and accuracy of their reviews, and being especially good at understanding how many enjoyment the average gamer will get from a game. I used to read N64 Magazine and found their review scores tended to mirror my own enjoyment, whereas I couldn't trust the old Nintendo Official Magazine, which struggled with giving games (especially Nintendo /Rare games) less than 90 (here's looking at you Starfox Adventures).

I'm not a fan of re-reviewing games following additional content, as I'd rather it was all out at the beginning. Saying that, I do appreciate that DLC is commonplace so there should be a way of identifying if a game has actually been improved following DLC, bug fixes, etc.

Not quite. 1/5 is bad, 2/5 is average, 3/5 is above average, 4/5 is pretty good, 5/5 is reserved for the excellent.

I would say that's only half true. The way I see it is:

1/5 - 0-20%

2/5 - 21-40%

3/5 - 41-60%

4/5 - 61-80%

5/5 - 81-100%

So a 3/5 is up to interpretation. The margin is just too tight.

I would say that's only half true. The way I see it is:

1/5 - 0-20%

2/5 - 21-40%

3/5 - 41-60%

4/5 - 61-80%

5/5 - 81-100%

 

So a 3/5 is up to interpretation. The margin is just too tight.

Yep I agree.