Eurogamer has dropped review scores

[edmorte]

At least they are taking a position, not hiding in 7.8s? Wtf is a 7.8? 5.6? etc...

Be a man and say it, out and loud, i liked it, but will ignore like always these bought reviews until EA and Ubisoft get an avoid.

[cFortyfive]

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?

Schnaufte.
Anyways is eurogamer even still relevant ?

[Astalnar]

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?

It is much better. The score itself was not very telling, and was there only for the lazy ones. While the three marks still allow the lazy people do as they please they are not as confusing as a 7 or 8. I say confusing because every site did it on their own and what was 7 for somebody wouldn't be 5 for someone else. And I am not talking about just different tastes here. With recommended, essential, and avoid you know exactly in which category the game by the opinion of the author of the article belongs. If it is recommended, which I hazard a guess most good games would end as, means that the game is good but not something so spectacular to write home about. If the game is marked essential, it means that the author finds the game to be something spectacular, something that should not be missed, something to write home about. And if it is marked with Avoid, it means the game is either bad, broken or both. In which case it is best to avoid it.

Now as we know everyone has their own special taste, and if a reviewer marks the game as bad, or in Eurogamer's case with "Avoid" because it doesn't feature a cat protagonist, then that is the author's decision, and while I could disagree with it vehemently, it is upon the reviewer and the site s/he is writing for to decide what is the criterion for a good game.

Also, whatever throws a wrench into Metacritic is a good tihng in my opinion.

[Deleted]

so 1-4 avoid, 5-9 recommended, 10 essential.. i just dont see why they need to have a 3 point system when avoid or recommended was enough.

[Edge-]

so 1-4 avoid, 5-9 recommended, 10 essential.. i just dont see why they need to have a 3 point system when avoid or recommended was enough.

You're associating numbers with a system designed to devalue and remove numbers. The whole point of this system is to give the loosest "score" to the game possible to encourage people to read why it got said score. That there's not a ton of value in the "score", but in the content of the review itself.

[stross01]

Video Games aren't art lol

Is this a real statement?

They're closer to art than 'modern art'.

[Deleted]

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

This.

I would personally prefer a ''Should you buy it?'' scoring system: Definitely if the game is good, maybe if you're especially interested in the game or am willing to overlook flaws, and no if a game is terrible. I think lots of people overlook hidden gems because they're discouraged by that 7 or that 65 rating.

[Deleted]

You're associating numbers with a system designed to devalue and remove numbers. The whole point of this system is to give the loosest "score" to the game possible to encourage people to read why it got said score. That there's not a ton of value in the "score", but in the content of the review itself.

having an essential rating for only the "best" games which i believe was only its 10/10 games is kinda going against what they wanted to replace.

[Holtzmann]

Mona Lisa - 6,5/10
"You're gonna need more than a pretty smile to impress nowadays."
PC Artist

Pride and Prejudice - 2/5 Stars
"Too long, too much prejudice, not enough pride, but Mr. Darcy was pretty cool. Buy it if you find a cheap e-book copy on Amazon."
Readaku

Beethoven's 9th Symphony - 95%
"Very catchy! You're gonna be humming it all day!"
Giantsong


That's the kind of mental image that comes to mind when I see folks defending numerical review scores for games.

[Mosotti]

I shit on all them "review" sites. I only trust independent sources, that don't have the add for the game above the "review"

[Edge-]

having an essential rating for only the "best" games which i believe was only its 10/10 games is kinda going against what they wanted to replace.

There's your problem. They give no indication that a game receiving "essential" is analogous to a game being scored 10/10. A game receiving that rating could do so for a variety of reasons, including excellence in a very specific set of categories but not overall excellence.

That's a reader perception issue, not an issue of what they intend with their new system.

I shit on all them "review" sites. I only trust independent sources, that don't have the add for the game above the "review"

Brotip: Ad departments and editorial usually never interact with each other, and writers are often encouraged to run adblock on their own sites so that they cannot see who is advertising. What ads are placed are usually unknown to the editorial staff, but are timed by the ad department (usually the ad purchasers from the developers/publishers) to line up with major announcements or launches.

[May90]

I think this is how scores should work in the first place. One person objectively cannot rate a game out of 10, there is just too many variables to consider. Moreover, some people score games on emotions, not on their actual qualities - like on Metacritic some games get 0/10 from some users with a comment like "OMG GAEM SUXX". I think people just need to choose between "liked", "didn't like" and "neutral", and then, by assuming "liked" = 10, "didn't like" = 0 and "neutral" = 5, the true score out of 10 should be given.

Also, I would really like for some moderation to be present on user review lists. Again, on Metacritic some "reviews" are obviously either trolling or just totally dumb and useless, or sometimes there are also "reviews" that make it clear that the reviewer hasn't even played the game. I would like for such reviews to be hidden (but you can open them if you want) and excluded from the overall ranking.

[Bluesftw]

cant say i ever red that , so i'll continue to not give a fuck.

[Holtzmann]

There's your problem. They give no indication that a game receiving "essential" is analogous to a game being scored 10/10. A game receiving that rating could do so for a variety of reasons, including excellence in a very specific set of categories but not overall excellence.

That's a reader perception issue, not an issue of what they intend with their new system.

Hell, just look at the old XCOM game: UFO Defense. That game is considered to be one of the greatest PC gaming classics out there. Absolutely essential if you like turn-based strategy/tactics games at all. Yet it's a massively flawed game in terms of both design ("let's make a fortune selling laser cannons to everyone and forget about funding!") and bugs (every single difficulty defaults to "easy", the sequel inverted that bug). UFO Defense would be an essential game, but there would be no way in hell you could give it a 10/10 score, or even an 8/10, based on its issues alone.

[Deleted]

Mona Lisa - 6,5/10
"You're gonna need more than a pretty smile to impress nowadays."
PC Artist

Pride and Prejudice - 2/5 Stars
"Too long, too much prejudice, not enough pride, but Mr. Darcy was pretty cool. Buy it if you find a cheap e-book copy on Amazon."
Readaku

Beethoven's 9th Symphony - 95%
"Very catchy! You're gonna be humming it all day!"
Giantsong


That's the kind of mental image that comes to mind when I see folks defending numerical review scores for games.

instead you get an avoid, recommended or essential

[Speaker]

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?

The reason is because many companies pay, or "incentivize", these websites to give them good reviews to up their scores on metacritic. And it just gives the whole industry of reviewers a bad name. They are probably making this decision to show that they don't agree with idea of a "metacritic", and to show that their reviews are unbiased. Now whether or not their reviews truly are unbiased is to be determined.

[Deleted]

There's your problem. They give no indication that a game receiving "essential" is analogous to a game being scored 10/10. A game receiving that rating could do so for a variety of reasons, including excellence in a very specific set of categories but not overall excellence.

That's a reader perception issue, not an issue of what they intend with their new system.
.

actually they did...



woah dave got a 9/10 and looking into it assetto corsa also got 9/10

[Fencers]

Hell, just look at the old XCOM game: UFO Defense. That game is considered to be one of the greatest PC gaming classics out there. Absolutely essential if you like turn-based strategy/tactics games at all. Yet it's a massively flawed game in terms of both design ("let's make a fortune selling laser cannons to everyone and forget about funding!") and bugs (every single difficulty defaults to "easy", the sequel inverted that bug). UFO Defense would be an essential game, but there would be no way in hell you could give it a 10/10 score, or even an 8/10, based on its issues alone.

If one's 1-10 rating system denoted 10/10 as "perfect" or otherwise flawless, sure one might not give the original Xcom such a score. However, rarely are sliding scale rating systems made such that the top rating indicates flawless.

Also games are judged and reviewed, typically, on gameplay. Nothing else. Absolutely nothing else is relevant to the evaluation of a video game other than the gameplay. Technical issues, difficulty, exploits, stability, etc- all of this is irrelevant to the one and only aspect of the medium which makes vg a distinct medium apart from other media; gameplay.

In all likelihood the original Xcom would still be a "10/10" despite it's flaws under most modern review systems which are not consumer-centric.

[kail]

Also games are judged and reviewed, typically, on gameplay. Nothing else.

Might want to change that to "should". I often see reviews were music, art, story, dialogue and some other factors are included in video game reviews. Stability as well since it affects how the game plays for the reviewer and most people buying the game. Some people enjoy games beyond simply the gameplay.

[icedwarrior]

Also games are judged and reviewed, typically, on gameplay. Nothing else. Absolutely nothing else is relevant to the evaluation of a video game other than the gameplay. Technical issues, difficulty, exploits, stability, etc- all of this is irrelevant to the one and only aspect of the medium which makes vg a distinct medium apart from other media; gameplay.

You're saying story is completely irrelevant? I strongly disagree.