Eurogamer has dropped review scores

[Orange Joe]

What do you think of this? Should all the big sites in the industry follow this behavior too?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...-review-scores

I think it's a good choice. People often confuse a 3 out of 5 as a bad score instead of a decent game.

[Edge-]

More detailed the review is, as in points, more info you can get about buying or not buying. So big NO to this dumbing down.

Actually, it's the other way around. It's providing a very generic "buy/wait/don't buy" recommendation, but requires the reader to actually read the review to figure out what that means. Why should they buy/wait/don't buy the game? Well, they need to understand the full context.

Scores are too easy to look at and ignore the actual meat of the review, not to mention the fact that they're extremely inconsistent in terms of what scores actually mean. Some sites score based on the US grading scale, where a score in the 7/70's is "average" and anything at or below a 5/50 is bad, with others using the full scale and using 5/50 for average. So a 7 from one sight may not be anywhere close to the same as a 7 from another, and the only way to tell would be to read their respective reviews.

[Dhrizzle]

Polygon does that and it...kinda works. The problem is that Metacritic (which is unduly important to many publishers) only posts the first score. So, for example, with Sim City (2014), you would see Polygon giving it a score of I believe 9/10. When in reality, within 2 days of launch, when they were playing in a live environment and not on private media test servers, the dropped the score to 4/10 due to the fact that the game was horribly broken.

Even then, for many games with long tails and years of DLC/updates (especially MMO's), it's damn hard to keep someone, especially the same person, working on the game and updating the review with each bug fix patch or DLC.

Following on from their newish policy of updating review scores, Polygon are going to start flagging some reviews as "provisional", presumably to allow for any bugs or on-line problems that may be fixed in the first few weeks after release.

The "provisional" reviews won't go in to Metacritic until the flag is removed which I guess is a step in a better direction, but I'd prefer them to follow Kotaku and EuroGamer with no scores at all (though at least Polygon's review scores mean more than an arbitrary number according to their policy, it's still meaningless without reading the review for context).

http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2...ews-on-polygon

[ParanoiD84]

I think it's great, i know some make games to score high on metacritics like CA with Rome 2.

[Dhrizzle]

Actually, it's the other way around. It's providing a very generic "buy/wait/don't buy" recommendation, but requires the reader to actually read the review to figure out what that means. Why should they buy/wait/don't buy the game? Well, they need to understand the full context.

Scores are too easy to look at and ignore the actual meat of the review, not to mention the fact that they're extremely inconsistent in terms of what scores actually mean. Some sites score based on the US grading scale, where a score in the 7/70's is "average" and anything at or below a 5/50 is bad, with others using the full scale and using 5/50 for average. So a 7 from one sight may not be anywhere close to the same as a 7 from another, and the only way to tell would be to read their respective reviews.

I've brought this up in the GG thread before, but there was a huge shit-storm between Amiga Power (magazine) and Team 17 (developer) over their policy of giving average games 50% rather than the 75% that publishers expected.

[Cakka]

On one hand I feel like there's a lack of information in this scoring system. The difference between "avoid" (don't play at all) and "recommended" (we lie this game so you should play it) is pretty high. What if there's a game that's not worth $60 but when it goes down to like $20 it turns into a recommended?

That said, I think scoring systems before weren't that useful anyway.

Well if you had actually even read the bolded lines in the op you would know that they aren't necessarily going to give any those "badges" to the game being reviewed. So basically their new scale is avoid > nothing > recommended > essential.

[Afrospinach]

So, basically, they are replacing a 10 point system with a 3 point system. I guess it is needed for the math challenged out there?

I think anything more than a 5 point system for anything other than an aggregate is basically horseshit, nothing to do with math just what makes a 7 and an 8? usually because you like this thing more than something else you gave a 7 etc. Hate-Dislike-Ambivalent-Like-Love it is about the best anyone can do in a vacuum on a great day imo anything more is going to require rather intensive comparisons and is going to change a lot from day to day and you won't really come out with anything more meaningful in a number. You really want info - read the review or watch a lets play vid.

[Remilia]

I think not having the three conclusion would be better.
For the conclusion, just list what they found was great, not so great and what not. Let the reader decide if it's worth it.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Arbitary scoring is bullshit. This is step to right direction.

This in every way. Assigning numbers to a game as form of review doesn't work; a '8' can mean different things to different people, and creates the overall impression that "Oh! I have only a little bit of money. Obvious I'd want to buy the game with a '9' over the one with the '8.5'" etc etc. Also, numbers at the end just result in people skipping to the bottom without even actually reading it.

[Edge-]

Following on from their newish policy of updating review scores, Polygon are going to start flagging some reviews as "provisional", presumably to allow for any bugs or on-line problems that may be fixed in the first few weeks after release.

The "provisional" reviews won't go in to Metacritic until the flag is removed which I guess is a step in a better direction, but I'd prefer them to follow Kotaku and EuroGamer with no scores at all (though at least Polygon's review scores mean more than an arbitrary number according to their policy, it's still meaningless without reading the review for context).

http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2...ews-on-polygon

Forgot about that, it's a good start. But even then, I still have major issues with how they score things. Giving D3 a 9/10 even with its massive login issues at launch while dropping SimCity to a 4/10. I get that they couldn't update the D3 review because "they didn't have the tech" (bullshit excuse), but it was reviewed in a live environment and they barely made more than a paragraph mention of the login troubles where they mostly dismissed them. SimCity, though? Would it have been only reviewed in the live environment they apparently would have given it the 4/10 they did, and they dedicated a huge chunk of the update to calling out the login troubles.

That's just more of my gripe with them and how their reviews system works in practice, because I do think it's far superior to most other sites review systems on a concept basis.

[ImpTaimer]

More and more review sites jumping the "we're not actually dropping review scores, we're just changing the perception of it." because they're both cowards and terrible at their job for suggesting to get rid of it and change it.

When I see a "professional" review of a game I look at their scoring process and then why they gave ups/downs/etc. I don't look at a score as face value. Zero or perfect scores can never be trusted. If there's no score system it's a rant. Having a score with no context also makes it a rant.

It's just more under-the-rug GamerGate crap. They just want to sweep the present and bury the past away so it doesn't disrupt the twisted future they envision.

Call me when gaming "journalists" grow a spine, maybe then they'll start growing some talent.

I'll give an example of a proper fucking scoring system for a video game:

Can you play it? (If "yes" +1 and resume, if "no" -5 and explain then halt, if "sometimes" +0.5 and explain then resume)
Do the controls disrupt the gameplay? (If yes -1, if no +1, if sometimes +0.5) Why?
Does the story/content disrupt the gameplay? (If yes -1, if no +1, if sometimes +0.5) Why?
Do the graphics disrupt the gameplay? (If yes -1, if no +1, if sometimes +0.5) Why?
Does the sound disrupt the gameplay? (If yes -1, if no +1, if sometimes +0.5) Why?

There you go, the tried and true Out-of-5 scoring system that's been used for decades that greedy shills and stupid hipsters have misconstrued more openly as of late.

Wanna know how to make it Out-of-10 for shock value? Give it 5 additional irrelevant personal bias points to plus or minus. "Women are objectified? -5 points!" "Too expensive! -5 points!".

Remember kids, perfect scores don't mean the game is GOAT, it just means it passed someome's test. Are you GOAT because you got a 100% on your essay about what you did over summer vacation?

[ro9ue]

Totalbiscuit has been saying that for years. IMO hes better than any large scale games press. He's way ahead of the curve and the traditional media is running to catch up.

[ImpTaimer]

Totalbiscuit has been saying that for years. IMO hes better than any large scale games press. He's way ahead of the curve and the traditional media is running to catch up.

He's not ahead of anything, he's just not conforming. He's sticking to Journalism 101 and became too big to fail so why change it? Plus he's British/European so not subjected to the same crap US gaming journalists are. Angry Joe does the same thing essentially but he's small time and gets flack all the time.

Publishers can't muscle Europeans the same way they can muscle Americans. It's a sad fact.

Totalbiscuit got big the same way PewDiePie got big. "Amnesty".

[Calfredd]

He's not ahead of anything, he's just not conforming. He's sticking to Journalism 101 and became too big to fail so why change it? Plus he's British/European so not subjected to the same crap US gaming journalists are. Angry Joe does the same thing essentially but he's small time and gets flack all the time.

Publishers can't muscle Europeans the same way they can muscle Americans. It's a sad fact.

Totalbiscuit got big the same way PewDiePie got big. "Amnesty".

He's living in the US right now though.

[Edge-]

He's not ahead of anything, he's just not conforming. He's sticking to Journalism 101 and became too big to fail so why change it? Plus he's British/European so not subjected to the same crap US gaming journalists are. Angry Joe does the same thing essentially but he's small time and gets flack all the time.

Publishers can't muscle Europeans the same way they can muscle Americans. It's a sad fact.

Totalbiscuit got big the same way PewDiePie got big. "Amnesty".

Erm, sauce for the comments about US vs. EU media? I've worked with both and there's not too much difference overall, just smaller cultural things and the fact that European media suck at keeping embargoes : P

I mean, the more salient point is that he's not traditional media. He's part of new media, just as folks like Angry Joe and Pewdiepie are, and they are handled differently because they're new media. They don't have websites with editorial teams, they make videos on YouTube for the most part.

They also don't call themselves journalists or pretend to be one.

TB and Pewdiepie (who I can't stand) got big on their own talents. TB by providing some interesting/insightful commentary in his videos that people found value in, and Pewdiepie because he entertained people.

[Xargoth6634]

I like a 5 or 10 point system, it allows for more detailed placement on a scale. I feel like this new system is very limited, with only a few categories. But hey, I don't read eurogamer anyway, so they can do what they want. =)

[icedwarrior]

I'll give an example of a proper fucking scoring system for a video game:


There you go, the tried and true Out-of-5 scoring system that's been used for decades that greedy shills and stupid hipsters have misconstrued more openly as of late.

That sounds terrible to me. So a functional game inherently gets 5/5? A game that flows well gets a 5/5? (What do you mean by 'disrupt'?) Moreover, some things are simply more important than others; can you really argue that sound is equal to story or gameplay? Perhaps on a few games, but it's certainly not true on most games.

Look, reviews are subjective. I don't particularly care if a review is 4/5, 8/10, buy or not, or whatever criteria they use. A scoring system is, for me, a very quick indicator of quality, but it is by no means a large influence on my decision to purchase a game or not. Perhaps I'm just the rare person that actually reads all of the review, I don't know.

And in regards to the talk about money, I find it to be relevant. Important? Maybe not, but I find the price of a game definitely shapes my perception on if I should get it or not. For example, Gone Home; I wouldn't have liked a game that gave me 2 hours of content for $20. However, I got the game for $5. 2 hours for $5 is much better.

[Arbs]

Anything that makes Metacritic less relevant gets a thumbs up from me.

Agreed, what ever makes it less relevant is good.

[Deleted]

so majora's mask is only recommended. interesting.

[ddsad2212]

I completely agree, the score system meant nothing anyway. Basically if a game worked and was half decent it started out with a base of about 7 which ofc should mean above average as opposed to completely average. Also it takes influence away from metacritic so good move

- - - Updated - - -

More detailed the review is, as in points, more info you can get about buying or not buying. So big NO to this dumbing down.

But the score is basically used as a way to skip the detail view and instead get a quick and simple yes or no to buying it so why not just make the score a yes or no answer? If you wanted the detailed info you'd actually read the review and if youread the reviews this change will be meaningless to you as the score was not an important part of it all things considered assuming it was consistent with the message of the review