# Reviews in the Media - Flawed and Inaccurate?



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

As a video gaming site, we have all seen reviews in the media trying to talk about the newest video game releases. This also applies to other mediums, such as films or books. As GBAtemp is a website focused on video gaming, I will stick with the video gaming field of media reviews. In terms of reviews for video games, several groups of reviewers pop up. You can get the honest, straight shooting reviewer, you can get the reviewer who may have liked the game but will purposefully botch the score for the website views, or you can get the reviewer who gives too high of a score when it was not warranted, leading some to believe that the reviewer was bribed. The reviewing industry is filled with 8/10 or 9/10 type scores, so my question is this: are these numbers still relevant? Is there an unofficial guideline that gamers should follow when choosing their games? Are media reviews themselves still relevant?​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​There is a lot of distrust towards media reviewers right now. It is a bit of a shame, although I only say this as I have been in these shoes for the past several years. More on that for another day, however. What surprises me is that there are people who call themselves reviewers, yet they provide completely botched review score numbers and claim that a popular and hyped title is terrible. One instance of this that has burned into my mind is the GameSpot review of _The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword_. This game, popular among most sites, received a score of 7.5/10, which by the "standard," was appalling for a Zelda game. Fans reacted with fierce negativity against McShea, of course, but McShea came out later and ended up defending his point of view. This, to me, is absolutely horrible to look at, and with reviews like this out in the wild it is clear that something needs to be changed, but what can be changed in the current system without radicalizing the entire system?​​One aspect of reviews that even has me questioning myself is the score number. I absolutely hate placing scores on reviews as the number is purely subjective, and does not have significant meaning to the overall context. Anyone that sees my recent reviews not posted in Review Center can see that I will include a "Should You Buy It" type of section. I do this to prevent the backlash that comes with placing a score. All in all, the number ends up fettering my own voice and leaves me to try and wrap my voice around the numbers, which on occasion will not match. Could it be a better solution to simply have a section of text that asks the user whether the game is good, based on presented evidence?​​The review score nicely opens the next issue, which is the number itself. What do these numbers even mean nowadays? What is the new standard? Games nowadays will receive on average an eight out of ten. Is the number eight considered the "new bad score?" It is rare to find anything in the media that goes lower than an eight unless the game is downright appalling. In regards to the number, what could it mean? Say, for instance, I scored a game at 9/10. Does that 9 compare against anything? Does it compare itself to another game in the same console? Does it work with the same franchise in mind? Does it simply exist to cater to its audience? These questions are constantly plaguing me whenever I place my own reviews out. With games becoming more like cinematic movies with flashy effects, is there a new standard of scoring that needs to be adopted? Should games even be graded nowadays with the current framework of story, music, gameplay, replayability, and functionality? Where does the line need to be drawn? What could be something new that can revamp media reviews and bring back the trust?​​Another issue is media bias. Media bias is present in some of these reviews, and it is evident when reading the meat of the review. In the media you can get a fantastic indie game that brings innovation out to the next level receiving a lousy score, and then you can get a game that is a hot seller time after time, completely losing its innovation, getting perfect scores by media sites and being declared innovative. A perfect example of this is the Kane and Lynch controversy, information courtesy of The Catboy. Is this reviewer being pressured by the developer to put out a false score? This could be possible, I have seen it happen myself. Most often, these threats come with the fact that should the reviewer place out a bad score, they will never receive review units or copies again. This paradox is something I would love to hear feedback from. Is it better to bow to the demands of a developer and place out a score that you do not agree with, so long as you receive your just reward? Or is it better to take the risk, going against the masses and placing out a review that is truthful? What could be done to remove these biases in writing? Could it be that the writer simply does not have experience reviewing games of a specific subtype?​​

_I find it interesting to find critics balking at RPGs being too grind-heavy..._​​Sometimes, in media reviews, reviewers are often inexperienced with writing about the specific game they are provided. A broad instance of this could be in the case of a reviewer who specializes in shooting games reviewing a role-playing game. In these cases, the role-playing game is criticized harshly on its fundamental elements, elements which clearly define the genre. I have seen reviews criticize role-playing games for being too heavy in terms of grinding. I find that instead of complaining about a fundamental aspect, could the reviewer establish a possible middle ground to present to the developers for future reference?
​So, there we have it. If you have followed me up until this point, that is awesome, and I am very thankful for that. If you are just tuning into the article, the basic outline is as follows: With video gaming reviews in the media - could they be changed? Some of the fundamental problems include scoring, the subjective meaning of the number itself, media biases, and inexperience within reviewing games of a specific genre. I also mentioned the paradox of bowing to the demands of the developer or being truthful about the product. I would love to hear feedback as to whether or not my points are valid, or whether I am missing something. Where could the system be improved, and better yet, what can be kept the same? I would love to be able to expand my own horizons as a reviewer of sorts to see how I can incorporate better tactics into my own articles in the future!​


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 9, 2013)

I think more money corruption ruined it, just look at the Kane & Lynch Gamespot controversy.
Which pretty much leans on the bias issue, since once a game company starts paying for ads on a reviewing site, it's almost expected that the game will get a high review, regardless of the content. Mixed with the fact that no one seems to focus on the reviews anymore, looking at game covers nowadays it's just plastered with the game stores and maybe like, "Wow, such game, so amazing!" but no real content, like they do with movies.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I think more money corruption ruined it, just look at the Kane & Lynch Gamespot controversy.
> Which pretty much leans on the bias issue, since once a game company starts paying for ads on a reviewing site, it's almost expected that the game will get a high review, regardless of the content. Mixed with the fact that no one seems to focus on the reviews anymore, looking at game covers nowadays it's just plastered with the game stores and maybe like, "Wow, such game, so amazing!" but no real content, like they do with movies.


 

Oh yikes, I never even read about the Kane and Lynch incident. I think I heard of it in an off hand conversation, but DAMN. That's interesting to see.

EDIT: Wait, what someone got FIRED from a poor review score? Wow, that's interesting and surprising, to say the least.  I hope to God that I never end up in a space like that. That's awful.


----------



## frogboy (Nov 9, 2013)

You always seem to write the most interesting articles.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

frogboy said:


> You always write the most interesting articles.


 

Thank you! You know, just a typical Friday night on the keyboard.... 

EDIT: Also, more seriously, you get a bunch of gamers who take things for granted. When I write these articles, I want to open a debate as wide as possible to make gamers take a second to rethink about an issue. It's also compliments like this that fuel my passion to continue writing, and for that I am very grateful.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Oh yikes, I never even read about the Kane and Lynch incident. I think I heard of it in an off hand conversation, but DAMN. That's interesting to see.
> 
> EDIT: Wait, what someone got FIRED from a poor review score? Wow, that's interesting and surprising, to say the least.  I hope to God that I never end up in a space like that. That's awful.


 
This the reason I don't trust most big gaming reviewing sites like Gamespot and IGN because I can't trust that their reviews are actually legit anymore. Once game sites start plastering ads for upcoming games, it means they already saw money for the game and the review, thus meaning they already show a bias for this game. It also means they can't afford to give the game a bad review because they could either lose that sponsor or end up like what happened on Gamespot.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> This the reason I don't trust most big gaming reviewing sites like Gamespot and IGN because I can't trust that their reviews are actually legit anymore. Once game sites start plastering ads for upcoming games, it means they already saw money for the game and the review, thus meaning they already show a bias for this game. It also means they can't afford to give the game a bad review because they could either lose that sponsor or end up like what happened on Gamespot.


 

That is definitely a very good point. Personally, when I am offered review samples that come with an additional payout, I will _never _accept it, and if I do choose to for whatever reason, I state very firmly in the review and to the developing party that my opinion was not swayed by the offered bonus cash. I think it's a disgusting practice to take in money, only to have the developer use that as a guillotine to garner positive praise. It definitely takes away from the "authenticity" of the review in question if money has been offered.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> That is definitely a very good point. Personally, when I am offered review samples that come with an additional payout, I will _never _accept it, and if I do choose to for whatever reason, I state very firmly in the review and to the developing party that my opinion was not swayed by the offered bonus cash. I think it's a disgusting practice to take in money, only to have the developer use that as a guillotine to garner positive praise.


 
It's really one thing to get paid for doing reviews as a job, like Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw does, it's another when someone is paid for the review. Although I glad to hear you don't allow such bias to control your reviews.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> It's really one thing to get paid for doing reviews as a job, like Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw does, it's another when someone is paid for the review. Although I glad to hear you don't allow such bias to control your reviews.


 

I've had my arms twisted by many a Chinese dealer, and the result is always the same. The usual empty threats of "We won't send you review units anymore," only for me to reply coldly, "that's fine, I can always find another." Which is irksome because it isn't even the fault of the reseller, as it is more of a manufacturing issue.  I'm absolutely against being paid for a review. I always tell my client that because it completely goes against the principles of honesty that I strive to uphold. That's kind of what a review is supposed to do, present a picture of sorts in an unbiased manner so that people can make decisions.


----------



## elunesgrace (Nov 9, 2013)

Good thread.

I believe we can say there are minor issues and fundamental issues.

Minor issues are things that I would call *differences of opinion* on the matter. These would include:

-Using a number to score a review
-Personality bias of the reviewer
-Subjectivity of the scoring
-etc

I call these minor because people will differ on this issue, and there are different sides to the discussion. Some might say we should have multiple reviewers, others will say one is enough and makes more sense to avoid info overload, etc.

What we should be concerned with are *fundamental issues that invalidate the whole review process itself*. These would be like:
-Monetary bribes
-External pressure from big companies
-Societal pressure from the community
-etc

These break the review because it defeats the purpose of 'reviewing a game.' What value is a review if it simply gives people what they already want (as if to validate their purchase) or if it is in a conflict of interest due to money or pressure.

Unfortunately this is* the cycle* of what happens:

*Stage 1:* Sincere gamer starts reviewing game
*Stage 2:* People like authenticity so he gets popular
*Stage 3:* Starts getting influential so publishers give him money and free games to review
*Stage 4:* He start turning his reviews into a money-maker
*Stage 5:* Tries an honest review and gets pressure from publishers if he negatively reviews them
*Stage 6:* Has to make a decision, usually chooses to sells out his review to keep his money-maker.

What's truly sad is that I think some of the people who make an outcry about this, if they were in the same position would probably sell-out as well. This shows a problem with society, and how they view money vs integrity. My aunt (PhD in immunology) used to tell me that when I go to the doctor not to trust the young ambitious doctor and instead trust the old doctor. Because the young guy probably just wants to make money, and the old guy likely has already fulfilled his ambitions and just wants to help people.

Anyways there you go!


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

elunesgrace said:


> Good thread.
> 
> I believe we can say there are minor issues and fundamental issues.
> 
> ...


 

Those are really good points, especially the fundamental issue division portion of your post. Thats kind of the driving force I was hoping to drive at here.  And I totally agree with the doctor portion. The young ones are a mixed bag.


----------



## Transdude1996 (Nov 9, 2013)

Sorry I didn't read through your opening post TC, I just saw a wall of text and my TL;DR function just turned on. So, sorry if I address some things you already stated.

IMO, it seems like reviews have become very skewed during the 7th Gen consoles and it looks like it may get even worse. Take a look at Jimquisition's Hate Out Of Ten and Dragon's Frown videos, and look at the backlash the Escapist and GameSpot recieved after not giving GTA V a 10/10. That's how bad things have gotten. And with the fact that a 5 year old can now access the internet, things are only going to get worse.

One of the modern problems I've seen happening these days is that nearly every reveiwer treats the rating scale like their still in school (anything below 60% is a fail, see Rooster Teeth's Game On PSA, and I know it's a parody). The problem with this is that, if a game receives a score lower than about 70%, it's considered a failure (E.G. Sonic games delisted if they have an average Metacritic score). The problem is that with the increase in this mindset is that people pass-over a lot of good games just because of their score. And the are a lot of good games out there that receive a 5 or a 4 as a rating. Personally, my solution to the problem was to create my own rating scale (10-8: the game is worth owning, 7-5: the game is worth looking into, 4-2: You can find better games but at least give it a try sometime, 1-0: Don't even bother).

As for the solution to gaming bias, I just try to find reviewers who I consider to be unbiased, or, at least, answer questions I want to ask about the game. Just saying, but I think that the most unbiased reviewer on the internet of CGR because all he really does is answer the simple question, "Is this game fun?". Even though I trust him a lot, I'm also subscribed to some other reviewers as well because, not only do I want a second opinion, but I also want to hear what are some problems with the game.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> Sorry I didn't read through your opening post TC, I just saw a wall of text and my TL;DR function just turned on. So, sorry if I address some things you already stated.
> 
> IMO, it seems like reviews have become very skewed during the 7th Gen consoles and it looks like it may get even worse. Take a look at Jimquisition's Hate Out Of Ten and Dragon's Frown videos, and look at the backlash the Escapist and GameSpot recieved after not giving GTA V a 10/10. That's how bad things have gotten. And with the fact that a 5 year old can now access the internet, things are only going to get worse.
> 
> ...


 

Heh, those are fair points. You hit a lot of repeats, but that really drove my point home! If you want the real meat, I did a TL;DR sorta thing in the last paragraph. I'm not obviously going to write, DURR THIS IS THE TLDR part, but hey, it's worded to know that the meat of the article can be quickly summarized.  Glad for the feedback either way. Most of my articles will appear to be text walls at times, but I try to make the content engaging to varying degrees of success. Your points solidify my argument, though, so kudos on that!  If you get the chance though, take a minute or fifty and give it a quick read! It may be fun!


----------



## Transdude1996 (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Heh, those are fair points. You hit a lot of repeats, but that really drove my point home! If you want the real meat, I did a TL;DR sorta thing in the last paragraph. I'm not obviously going to write, DURR THIS IS THE TLDR part, but hey, it's worded to know that the meat of the article can be quickly summarized.  Glad for the feedback either way. Most of my articles will appear to be text walls at times, but I try to make the content engaging to varying degrees of success. Your points solidify my argument, though, so kudos on that!  If you get the chance though, take a minute or fifty and give it a quick read! It may be fun!


 
Thanks for the reply, did a quick scan, and I'd like to talk about two points I didn't mention in my previous post, or see anyone else talk about at the moment.

The first is the inexperience in reviewing a specific genre. Technically, this door can swing both way when it comes to reviewers. The reason it can go both ways is because a reviewer my be tasked with reviewing a game for a genre that they haven't tried before, and they can either play the game and grow to hate it, or play it and fall in love with it within minutes. This aspect comes down to nothing but personal preference, which is why I like listening to some specific reviewers because I know their fans of a game genre, but, at the same time, they're also willing to try something new.

Though, inexperience in a specific genre is really bad when it comes to making professional reviews, which brings about my second point. Professional reviewers don't actually have a lot of time to really enjoy a game. They're basically tasked with getting a game, playing through it within 1 or 2 days, giving it a score and moving on. This is the main reason why games like Tomb Raider generally receive a high score than games like The Wonderful 101. Because reviewers are on the clock, they don't really have the time to learn how a game really works, they have to pick, beat it, and move on.

EDIT: One more point I just realized I didn't touch on. The whole idea on using reviews as the almighty Bible to whether a game was good or not. I believe I covered some of this in my previous points, but this will go into more detail. It seems like whenever someone sees a game receiving X/10, they immediately think that the game is that score despite what everyone else says. But, what people easily miss is that a review is the authors *opinion* on the game. Since I don't really want to type anymore, I think I'll just let The Big Picture take this one away (if I linked the right video that is).

EDITEDIT: Yep, link the right video.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> Thanks for the reply, did a quick scan, and I'd like to talk about two points I didn't mention in my previous post, or see anyone else talk about at the moment.
> 
> The first is the inexperience in reviewing a specific genre. Technically, this door can swing both way when it comes to reviewers. The reason it can go both ways is because a reviewer my be tasked with reviewing a game for a genre that they haven't tried before, and they can either play the game and grow to hate it, or play it and fall in love with it within minutes. This aspect comes down to nothing but personal preference, which is why I like listening to some specific reviewers because I know their fans of a game genre, but, at the same time, they're also willing to try something new.
> 
> ...


 

Ahh, I see where you're coming from here. Very interesting points, by the way. And reviewers being on the clock is a great point to add, something that I should probably consider adding to strengthen the overall argument here.  I think of reviews as guidelines of sorts, I'm not gonna follow it religiously, but I'm going to definitely use some of them as a source of, say, whether or not something was executed well. A review may be an opinion, but we never let it appear so in the review. If we do, we make it really sly.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 9, 2013)

*11/10 - "It's okay, I guess."*

I can't remember where exactly I found it, but there was an article discussing some of the problems inherent in video game "journalism" (there are no quotation marks big enough). One of the biggest problems is that there really aren't any video game "journalists" with actual degrees in journalism. The people with a passion for the field and a deep knowledge of integrity, accountability, etc. avoid the games industry like the plague. When you think about it, this makes a depressing amount of sense.

Journalism has produced men like Woodward and Bernstein. Gaming has the Doritos Pope.

Also, glad that I have an excuse to post this...



Spoiler


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> *11/10 - "It's okay, I guess."*
> 
> I can't remember where exactly I found it, but there was an article discussing some of the problems inherent in video game "journalism" (there are no quotation marks big enough). One of the biggest problems is that there really aren't any video game "journalists" with actual degrees in journalism. The people with a passion for the field and a deep knowledge of integrity, accountability, etc. avoid the games industry like the plague. When you think about it, this makes a depressing amount of sense.
> 
> Journalism has produced men like Woodward and Bernstein. Gaming has the Doritos Pope.


 

Oh man, link me if you find it. I'd love to give it a read.  And yeah, it makes perfect sense. ._.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 9, 2013)

Let's see...I voted for Media biases, inexperience in reviewing a specific genre, and the subjective value behind the score. In that order.

Media biases are by far the worst, and I'm glad it's leading this poll. With good reasons: gaming magazines get sponsored by game publishers, so it's just stupid to expect anything other than a bias towards these games. And since there are no standards for objectivity and a lot of things pretty much HAVE to be opinion, it's hard to catch anyone on a "wrong review" (the defense of 'what do you mean, wrong? It's my opinion, damnit!' always works). So even without controversies...do you really trust those guys? It's like having fox news news anchors telling you who to vote for. They're paid to say that...so they do. And of course they believe what they say: they were hired because of their bias towards these games in the first place.

The inexperience in reviewing a specific genre is a tough one. How do you review a game that isn't the first in its genre? Do you grade it based on their predecessors or by itself? And how many comparable games do you need to have played?
IMHO, this is something where game magazines and sites need to differentiate. Games like AC3 should have a wildly different score depending if it is your first game or whether you've experienced the previous ones (read: if it's totally different than the previous ones, it's stupid to expect everyone to like it the same). But rather than sites catering to the newcomers in the series or even genre, everyone seems to want to cover every ground.

And the subjective value...yeah. But we've got to be honest: all readers expect it. Of course you can't boil thousands of man-hours, gameplay, visuals, innovation, the entire experience and all that down to a single number. You can't compare an RTS to a FPS, but we want it nonetheless. It's a flaw that everyone endorses. Flawed as it may be...THAT will never change.



Gahars said:


> *11/10 - "It's okay, I guess."*
> 
> I can't remember where exactly I found it, but there was an article discussing some of the problems inherent in video game "journalism" (there are no quotation marks big enough). One of the biggest problems is that there really aren't any video game "journalists" with actual degrees in journalism. The people with a passion for the field and a deep knowledge of integrity, accountability, etc. avoid the games industry like the plague. When you think about it, this makes a depressing amount of sense.


I know Angry Joe did that at one point in his reviews. First he talked a bit (with arguments) on why the game was mediocre and bland, and then showed some review quotes (who were probably on the box as well). He couldn't figure out why those other sites did that, so he slapped this quote on it himself.


----------



## Another World (Nov 9, 2013)

it seems like these days bias in the media is just a tool to stir the pot. i always picture them picking their angle, good or bad, and then driving home those points with purpose. its really rare to find a reviewer who will hit on both points and then sum it up by leaving it open to the reader to make up their own mind. sadly, those type of reviews don't sell the product. there is also an inherent belief that everything must be force fed to the reader, something that causes even more problems.

i've experienced some of these issues first hand. i had one of my review scores changed by an editor due to their fear for the backlash that would follow. i've also been flat out told by one specific manufacturer that my honest review ruined their company and all chances of future sales. i had to go on the defensive in both instances to stand up for what i believe in, and what i wrote. this should never be the case. you shouldn't change the score of a review or the facts about a product. that bias kills your integrity and just leads consumes down the wrong path.

-another world


----------



## Deleted-188346 (Nov 9, 2013)

Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> As a video gaming site, we have all seen reviews in the media *trying* to talk about the newest video game releases.





What was stopping them from successfully talking about the newest video game releases?



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> This also applies to other mediums, such as films or books. As GBAtemp is a website focused on video gaming, I will stick with the video gaming field of media reviews. In terms of reviews for video games, several groups of reviewers pop up. You can get the honest, straight shooting reviewer, you can get the reviewer who may have liked the game but will purposefully botch the score for the website views, or you can get the reviewer who gives too high of a score when it was not warranted, leading some to believe that the reviewer was bribed. The reviewing industry is filled with 8/10 or 9/10 type scores, so my question is this: are these numbers still relevant? Is there an unofficial guideline that gamers should follow when choosing their games? Are media reviews themselves still relevant?





What defines the "honest, straight shooting reviewer", the "reviewer who may have liked the game but will purposefully botch the score for the website views", and the "reviewer who gives too high of a score when it was not warranted"? Aren't reviews simply opinions? Couldn't the honest, straight shooting reviewer deliver a review that appears to have the "traits" of the other reviewers you listed? I wouldn't categorize reviewers like this, there are many, many shades and variations of reviewers.



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> There is a lot of distrust towards media reviewers right now. It is a bit of a shame, although I only say this as I have been in these shoes for the past several years. More on that for another day, however. What surprises me is that there are people who call themselves reviewers, yet they provide completely botched review score numbers and claim that a popular and hyped title is terrible. One instance of this that has burned into my mind is the GameSpot review of _The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword_. This game, popular among most sites, received a score of 7.5/10, which by the "standard," was appalling for a Zelda game. Fans reacted with fierce negativity against McShea, of course, but McShea came out later and ended up defending his point of view. This, to me, is absolutely horrible to look at, and with reviews like this out in the wild it is clear that something needs to be changed, but what can be changed in the current system without radicalizing the entire system?





What needs to be changed? Shit, a reviewer can give a game a 7.5 if they want. Props to them if they back it up with further explanation too. Reviews are opinions. And *of course* there will be distrust against reviewers. Every single review will piss off a certain demographic. High score? You'll piss off the haters. Low score? You'll piss off the fans. Reviews, by nature, will constantly piss off every single type of gamer. Reviewers will never be loved.



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> One aspect of reviews that even has me questioning myself is the score number. I absolutely hate placing scores on reviews as the number is purely subjective, and does not have significant meaning to the overall context. Anyone that sees my recent reviews not posted in Review Center can see that I will include a "Should You Buy It" type of section. I do this to prevent the backlash that comes with placing a score. All in all, the number ends up fettering my own voice and leaves me to try and wrap my voice around the numbers, which on occasion will not match. Could it be a better solution to simply have a section of text that asks the user whether the game is good, based on presented evidence?





The numerical system works for a lot of reviewers, and for a lot of readers of reviews. It's a quick summary of the overall quality of the game. Granted, it has flaws, but it's widely adopted for a reason. Nothing is stopping other reviewers from adopting different summary techniques though.



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> The review score nicely opens the next issue, which is the number itself. What do these numbers even mean nowadays? What is the new standard? Games nowadays will receive on average an eight out of ten. Is the number eight considered the "new bad score?" It is rare to find anything in the media that goes lower than an eight unless the game is downright appalling. In regards to the number, what could it mean? Say, for instance, I scored a game at 9/10. Does that 9 compare against anything? Does it compare itself to another game in the same console? Does it work with the same franchise in mind? Does it simply exist to cater to its audience? These questions are constantly plaguing me whenever I place my own reviews out. With games becoming more like cinematic movies with flashy effects, is there a new standard of scoring that needs to be adopted? Should games even be graded nowadays with the current framework of story, music, gameplay, replayability, and functionality? Where does the line need to be drawn? What could be something new that can revamp media reviews and bring back the trust?​





Varies from website to website. There is no standard. You have to read a website/author a few times to get a feel for their grading logic.



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> Another issue is media bias. Media bias is present in some of these reviews, and it is evident when reading the meat of the review. In the media you can get a fantastic indie game that brings innovation out to the next level receiving a lousy score, and then you can get a game that is a hot seller time after time, completely losing its innovation, getting perfect scores by media sites and being declared innovative. A perfect example of this is the Kane and Lynch controversy, information courtesy of The Catboy. Is this reviewer being pressured by the developer to put out a false score? This could be possible, I have seen it happen myself. Most often, these threats come with the fact that should the reviewer place out a bad score, they will never receive review units or copies again. This paradox is something I would love to hear feedback from. Is it better to bow to the demands of a developer and place out a score that you do not agree with, so long as you receive your just reward? Or is it better to take the risk, going against the masses and placing out a review that is truthful? What could be done to remove these biases in writing? Could it be that the writer simply does not have experience reviewing games of a specific subtype?​





Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gerstmanngate was less about Eidos pressuring Gamespot for a particular score, but rather about Eidos having the power (due to their advertising contract with Gamespot) to coerce Gamespot into firing their editorial director over a bad review. I do agree, however, that there is a growing issue with blacklisting websites from review copies due to scores. Also, review embargoes are an additional issue.



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> Sometimes, in media reviews, reviewers are often inexperienced with writing about the specific game they are provided. A broad instance of this could be in the case of a reviewer who specializes in shooting games reviewing a role-playing game. In these cases, the role-playing game is criticized harshly on its fundamental elements, elements which clearly define the genre. I have seen reviews criticize role-playing games for being too heavy in terms of grinding. I find that instead of complaining about a fundamental aspect, could the reviewer establish a possible middle ground to present to the developers for future reference?





Grinding is not a fundamental aspect of RPG games, although it is a common element to them. There is such thing as too much grinding, or dull grinding. Criticism of this is not indicative that the reviewer is inexperienced with RPGs.



Spoiler






Ryukouki said:


> So, there we have it. If you have followed me up until this point, that is awesome, and I am very thankful for that. If you are just tuning into the article, the basic outline is as follows: With video gaming reviews in the media - could they be changed? Some of the fundamental problems include scoring, the subjective meaning of the number itself, media biases, and inexperience within reviewing games of a specific genre. I also mentioned the paradox of bowing to the demands of the developer or being truthful about the product. I would love to hear feedback as to whether or not my points are valid, or whether I am missing something. Where could the system be improved, and better yet, what can be kept the same? I would love to be able to expand my own horizons as a reviewer of sorts to see how I can incorporate better tactics into my own articles in the future!​





I don't think there's any realistic "change" you could make to the industry. If you think it's flawed, then you'll need to lead by example, as the industry is not a single entity that can be altered. Perhaps you could even ask the GBATemp community what style of reviewing they enjoy most? Hell, how about writing multiple short reviews for a game (with different approaches), and asking people for feedback? That could be fun.


----------



## Rayder (Nov 9, 2013)

I get the feeling that they don't play the whole game in a lot of cases.  They write their review based on only a couple hours of playing.  Like a review of their preview.

At any rate, I never read just ONE review for any game,  I read many.  I like to read the lowest ratings first,  it helps temper me against the glowing "gamegasm" reviews.  You start to see through the holes in the reviews as you go from low to high ratings.  Some of the things mentioned in low reviews aren't mentioned in high reviews, and vice versa. By using the low to high review method, I am rarely disappointed with a game I actually buy.  The diversity of the reviews gave me a much better idea of what I'm buying into than going from high to low.

But that's commercial reviews.  If I really want to know if a game is my type of game or not is to read GAMER reviews, go to forums dedicated to that game and read-around the site, and don't forget to carefully read the "support" section.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

Rayder said:


> I get the feeling that they don't play the whole game in a lot of cases. They write their review based on only a couple hours of playing. Like a review of their preview.
> 
> At any rate, I never read just ONE review for any game, I read many. I like to read the lowest ratings first, it helps temper me against the glowing "gamegasm" reviews. You start to see through the holes in the reviews as you go from low to high ratings. Some of the things mentioned in low reviews aren't mentioned in high reviews, and vice versa. By using the low to high review method, I am rarely disappointed with a game I actually buy. The diversity of the reviews gave me a much better idea of what I'm buying into than going from high to low.
> 
> But that's commercial reviews. If I really want to know if a game is my type of game or not is to read GAMER reviews, go to forums dedicated to that game and read-around the site, and don't forget to carefully read the "support" section.


 

Wow, here's a voice I haven't seen in a long time, good to see you posting, Rayder!  I definitely feel like reviewers don't get the entire game completed when they post it out, either. I think I do your low to high method, but I just don't have a name for it. But yeah, it works!


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 9, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I think more money corruption ruined it, just look at the Kane & Lynch Gamespot controversy.


 

Oh wow....and to think, I thought people on other sites saying things like "IGN gave a Nintendo game a low score because Nintendo's check didn't clear" were just causing trouble when in fact it could very well be true.


----------



## Mariko (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> One instance of this that has burned into my mind is the GameSpot review of _The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword_. This game, popular among most sites, received a score of 7.5/10, which by the "standard," was appalling for a Zelda game. Fans reacted with fierce negativity against McShea, of course, but McShea came out later and ended up defending his point of view. This, to me, is absolutely horrible to look at, and with reviews like this out in the wild it is clear that something needs to be changed (...)


 
At this point I stopped reading. Why wouldn't it be ok to give a 7.5 score to a Zelda game? You state that's "by the standard that score is appalling". If that's true, we might as well have automated scripts in place that rate every Zelda game between 9 and 10.

You can't expect every single reviewer to score a game in the exact same way, even if their reviews aren't subjective. This doesn't change the fact that I myself am not a fan of scores, since it's far too difficult to accurately convert all of the game's aspects into a number. Reviews shouldn't have scores at all, but then again, the majority of gamers only cares about the scores, not the justifications behind them. You often hear people complaining about a score, but you rarely hear someone argument against a certain point brought up in a review. Then again, since almost everything is subjective, what's the point? One person might consider a given gameplay aspect to be the best thing ever, while another might be sick and tired of it, since they've played far too many games utilizing similar or identical gameplay features.

Reviews are losing their relevance mainly due to the fact that gaming community is changing. We want scores, and we want them now. That's why things like Metacritic exist. I'm not surprised video reviews took off like they did, though they're still combined with a score.

As for developers and publishers trying to influence review scores, it's nothing new, and the Kane & Lynch example isn't the only one. Publishers will often submit suggestions and guidelines on how their game should be scored. This has been brought up on several occasions, but happens far more often. It's a "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine" type of deal. After all, both the developers and video game websites are trying to make money.

In the end, it all comes down to one's own judgement. I'm not going to miss out on a game simply because someone didn't like it. Games aren't that expensive these days, and if a game appears interesting enough, I want to check it out on my own. I've bought my share of games with bad reviews, and I don't regret it. Why? Because they weren't bad to me.


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2013)

Another good topic.  I think there are a number of problems when it comes to game reviews, especially with this past console generation.  It seems to me that games that get hyped big time wind up getting amazing scores and reviews regardless of how much they disappoint.  Somehow, GTA IV, for example, received a perfect 10/10 from IGN.  Perhaps the most disappointing game in the series since it went 3D (I'm not counting handheld, as I don't know if they sucked) managed to get a perfect score and win game of the year, and it was destined to happen before the game ever came out because of the hype that surrounded it.  AAA games are just expected to get 9s and 10s, so they do.  Personally, I'd like to see average game scores drop... a lot.  Whatever happened to the days when getting a 10/10 was nearly unheard of?  Getting one 10/10 in a generation was an achievement, now you expect to see three of them a year.  Have games really become that amazing?  Gaming media seems driven too much by hype, and hype seems through the roof these days thus game scores are through the roof.  

There's definitely the aspect of companies/reviewers getting paid off for reviews that you have to be mindful of, or punished for poor reviews, as evidenced by the Kane and Lynch fiasco.

Another issue I've seen is when a company has a reviewer doing a game that they will be pre-disposed to give a poor review.  I'll cite IGN giving Greg "the super Sony fanboy" Miller the task of reviewing ZombiU, a Nintendo exclusive launch title for the Wii U.  To nobody's surprise, the guy who slobbers over everything Sony does and bashes Nintendo gave the game a poor review (6.3, which by today's rating standards means you may as well take the disc out of the case and drop it directly into an incinerator) well below the average score the game received from other sites.  Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not trying to profess that the game was a masterpiece, but rather that it was given a review by a self-confessed Sony fanboy who loves to bash Nintendo and thus should not be expected to deliver an impartial review.

On the topic of impartiality, you have the question of whether the reviewer is right for the game, and to me it's actually a pretty complicated subject.  For example, a few months back after I had started trying to get myself into the JRPG genre, I started giving thoughts on my experiences with the games.  I'm relatively new to the genre (I'd played a couple in the past like Pokemon, and Mario RPG when they were new, and went back and played Chrono Trigger as I remembered a good friend of mine being high on that game when I was younger), so it was important to me that I prefaced my "reviews" by letting people know that I was pretty green to the genre, so they would be following me on a journey into the genre, rather than getting the opinion of somebody who lives and breathes JRPG.  I also had to make it clear in the beginning that I was not a fan of random encounters or grinding which were often staples of the genre.  Some may say that because of that, someone like me would have no business reviewing JRPGs with my limited experience and my disdain for certain tropes that the genre has seen a lot of.  But maybe instead, my outsider view will be more accessible to other greenhorns of the genre and I can help give them a place to start if they want to branch out.  That being said, I don't think someone like me should be reviewing those types of games on a big review site because scores actually matter there, and the scores seen by that many people should really be given by someone who represents the majority of the audience who is likely to want to play the game rather than an outsider.  I think an outsider type review is better off on an independent review site where people follow the reviewer and get to know how well they relate to the reviewer's opinions and thus have better idea of how a review translates to their own taste.

Overall, I think it's best to avoid big review sites if you want to get a legit review of a big game as they're all aboard the hype train.  Maybe you can find a smaller independent review site with a reviewer with whom you identify and you know you can trust or at least you understand how his opinions would relate to your enjoyment of a game.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> ​Games nowadays will receive on average an eight out of ten. Is the number eight considered the "new bad score?" It is rare to find anything in the media that goes lower than an eight unless the game is downright appalling.
> 
> ​


 

I dont think I agree with that, at least the sites I check have a wide range of scores (GS for example). I kind of like the review score, it tells me at a glance if I should even bother with the game, so when the game scores 7+ I read the review and do some research to see if the game deserves my time and money.
But for me, it has become harder and harder to have a go-to source for reading review. It used to be that I trusted GS reviews completely and very rarely I was disappointed but ever since the main guy (Jeff Gretsmann, Vinny Caravella, Brad Shoemaker and Alex Navaro who I think is one the best the reviewers around) left GS, it just turned to crap. The reviews became a place for people to just force their political and social views on people , reviews became widely contradictory and other stuff.

I never believed the conspiracy that sometimes the review are bought, but unfortunately I have seen more than enough examples that are really main me believe that. The prime example that comes to my mind is this:
http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-aliens-colonial-marines/#/
Who in their right mind can rate that game a 9?!
And lately one incident let me to lose all my respect for GS after 11 years of being a loyal fan: The 6 score for Batman Arkham Origins and and later, the 8 for COD:Ghosts. For Batman review all they did was moan that the game is too much like the other entries in the series and how the lack of the innovation has led to the game becoming stale...fast forward to the COD review and no where in the review they complained about the repetitiveness of the game. or when it came to the graphics, in which the game is seriously lacking, in a desperate attempt to find something, anything positive to say about the game they came up with this:
""
Or IGN for example, they are basically Nintendo fanboys and rate Nintendo games, ALWAYS, higher than other sites. They went as far as rating the Legend of Zelda: Windwaker HD higher than the original game on GC! They gave Skyward Sword a perfect 10!
Overall it has become harder and harder for us gamers to find a outlet we can trust to make our game buying decisions which is very sad...no wonder many pirate their games first to try them out and then decide on buying them.


----------



## reprep (Nov 9, 2013)

i completely stopped reading professional reviews for the reasons mentioned above. What i do is:

1) watch the gameplay videos on youtube (not the official trailers, or official gameplay blabla. real gameplay by amateur gamers)
2) read a few amateur game reviews. i usually read gamefaqs' user reviews and reading a few of them give me a fine idea.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Nov 9, 2013)

Are reviews flawed?

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, reviews are flawed.


----------



## T-hug (Nov 9, 2013)

The scoring is a huge problem and week after week we hear of big name developers bashing metacritic and even having their pay bonus based on how they average on metacritic after release. In some cases I've read of how games are developed just to check off review points.
Imo Kotaku have it right with the YES/NO review system, but even that is flawed when it comes to MP games at launch, which are often not working as they should day 1.

Then we have embargos which 99% of the time give the review to one huge site like IGN which will come a day early and never bash a game as they have the exclusive.
I also hate it when someone reviews a game and marks it down because they don't like the genre, like gamespots recent Batman Backgate review, the reviewer expected a port of the console game, that shouldn't even factor or be mentioned. Same with gametrailers review of Killzone Mercenary, they gave it a 7.7 but based that score on in being a FPS and comparable to console FPS. Imo it should be rated as a FPS on a handheld, because thats what it is!

I could talk about this all day but the only way things will change is if you don't go to the sites that are guilty of biased numeric review scores, which for a lot of people is the first port of call before buying a game.


----------



## Mariko (Nov 9, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> (...) the guy who slobbers over everything Sony does and bashes Nintendo gave the game a poor review (6.3, which by today's rating standards means you may as well take the disc out of the case and drop it directly into an incinerator)


 
That's another problem right there. If a score of 6.3, which by definition is above average on a 10 point scale, is considered too low to pick up a game, we might just as well not have scores at all, since people clearly have no idea how to operate within such scoring systems. If someone asks: "What do you think, is this game good, poor, playable?", and I answer with "it's not great, but definitely above the average", it effectively means it's a 6 ~ 7 point game. That's why expressing an opinion is much more effective than simply coming up with a number, especially today, when people aren't able to score games below 5 out of 10.


----------



## emigre (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> More on that for another day, however. What surprises me is that there are people who call themselves reviewers, yet they provide completely botched review score numbers and claim that a popular and hyped title is terrible. One instance of this that has burned into my mind is the GameSpot review of _The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword_. This game, popular among most sites, received a score of 7.5/10, which by the "standard," was appalling for a Zelda game. Fans reacted with fierce negativity against McShea, of course, but McShea came out later and ended up defending his point of view. This, to me, is absolutely horrible to look at, and with reviews like this out in the wild it is clear that something needs to be changed, but what can be changed in the current system without radicalizing the entire system?​


 

The Gamepot Skyward Sword debacle was just an utterly pathetic and embarrassing response from the fanbase. There's a few threads on this very forum which were just hilarious as fans were in uproar.


----------



## Issac (Nov 9, 2013)

I voted "others", because I actually feel that subjectivity is a good thing if done right. If someone reviews a game and personally doesn't like it, and comes with good explanations of WHY he doesn't like it; that's fine! Maybe I feel that his views are in the same vein as mine. Maybe I feel, "Hey, I actually like those things he dislikes, so maybe this game is for me anyway". Subjectivity isn't bad in itself.

However, in a review of The Last of Us (*Some high scoring game*) in a Swedish newspaper, the reviewer went full retard. The game got a 2/5 (*a really bad*) score, and the review only talked about how bad the game was, because it was sexist, because the main character wasn't female, that the female was just a side character. sexism sexism sexism! men are pigs! the men are portrayed as strong fighters, the women are portrayed as weak. sexism sexism bad game!

THAT is a bad review.

EDIT:

The Last of Us got 2/5 because it wasn't The Walking Dead.


----------



## Dragonlord (Nov 9, 2013)

Reviews are a joke. If reviewers don't give too high scores for crappy AAA games they don't get the early-review-releases any more so they praise garbage to keep this priviledge. I've not seen anymore since years an honest AAA game review which gives a mediocre or crappy games (and these are the norm since years now) the score it deserves. On the other hand if somebody gives a game the crappy score it deserves (as I do) then fanboys are send to down-rate them. Just a huge amount of joke and people too stupid to actually value "real" good games (granted it's a problem if you get next to no good games since years).


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 9, 2013)

Reviewers getting paid to review is pretty old news.
What saddens me is that they also review games and give it a bad score cause it doesn't have Multiplayer.
Some reviewer site did that to Bioshock Infinite.

I always say: "The best reviewer, is you"
COD is getting high reviews but I personally hate it.
Hello Kitty for the 3DS isn't even reviewed, yet I'm pretty sure I'd love it.
And Sheep for the GBA gets a 6.5 whilst I personally love it (also it's one of me fav games all time)

I never cared about review scores at all.
Early on I knew that to like a game, you should play it yourself and not play it based on what some wannabe gamer aka a reviewer gives it.


----------



## Dork (Nov 9, 2013)

There is no video game journalism, it's video game tabloids.


----------



## w!! (Nov 9, 2013)

I can see the bias of money being an issue...but business is business. I think that we have to remember that most reviewers have a tough job of reviewing a game with the most general gamer in mind. It is a fairly subjective issue, especially when a reviewer doesn't like a franchise or genre. 

I prefer to ignore the number score and actually read what the reviewer wrote. A lot more truth comes out there than in a simple number. But I agree with an earlier post, the best way to get a good honest review is to read "user comments" and make an educated decision by watching videos of the game play. I think all reviews should have comments enabled and that would ensure that overly good or bad reviews are called out by the community.  In the end, at least here in the US, renting it for a buck or two before buying is a great way to see if you personally like it.


----------



## Zeliga (Nov 9, 2013)

Sometimes the review scores suck, I swear. Did they ever play some GOOD games!


----------



## zachtheninja (Nov 9, 2013)

elunesgrace said:


> -Societal pressure from the community


I've seen this before. Reviewers afraid to criticize a massively popular game because of the community. I think this happens more than "bribed" reviews.


----------



## Hop2089 (Nov 9, 2013)

zachtheninja said:


> I've seen this before. Reviewers afraid to criticize a massively popular game because of the community. I think this happens more than "bribed" reviews.


 
It does, look how reviewers were treated when GTA V was reviewed and the reviewers didn't give it a 10. Bribed reviews are way more common in Japan than the US which is why I don't like Famitsu reviews.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 9, 2013)

Something else worth mentioning is the merit of reviewers. I mean, just compare reviewers for film and games. Film had people like Siskel and Ebert (whatever you may think of his opinion on other subjects). These were guys deeply versed in the art of filmmaking, with a passion for the art. They were able to make insightful analyses of films while keeping things accessible for a general audience; everyone, from the average joe to fellow film buffs, could appreciate what they had to say.

Gaming, though? Not even close. There's dirty money and tricks getting passed around, sure, but I think it's more than that. I feel like most game reviewers aren't really versed in the language of games the same way folks like Siskel and Ebert were versed in the language of cinema. These reviewers only scratch the surface and stop there. I also think we're being stunted by a weird, industry-wide inferiority complex. It feels like a lot of game reviewers are insecure about their profession, and so they try to justify gaming as a medium at every turn. Bioshock: Infinite? "It's the Citizen Kane of gaming, guys, you can take us seriously now!" Gone Home? "10/10, see, we're topical, really!" etc. etc.

You know game reviewing is downright farcical when Yahtzee is probably one of the best out there, and his "reviews" are made for comedy.

(Now, don't get me wrong - I know film reviewing has plenty of hacks all its own. Believe me, it does. Still, they seem to be quite the majority when it comes to game reviews.)

Also: Video Game "Journalism"


----------



## Shicky256 (Nov 9, 2013)

I remember watching a video about a month ago with a good point: Since review scores are arbitrary and vary by the individual, why does MetaCritic exist, and why do developers get fired/paid less for poor MetaCritic scores? This and the fact that MetaCritic doesn't allow for updates to the reviews mean that I don't read most reviews anymore. I just watch CGR! Mark just looks to see if a game is fun or not, and doesn't give it a score based on this.


----------



## gamefan5 (Nov 9, 2013)

frogboy said:


> You always seem to write the most interesting articles.


 
I know right?
*Ryukouki *is always writing some interesting articles and sparking some debates. kudos to u and keep it up. XD


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

Thanks guys  Keep the comments flowing!



Mariko said:


> At this point I stopped reading. Why wouldn't it be ok to give a 7.5 score to a Zelda game? You state that's "by the standard that score is appalling". If that's true, we might as well have automated scripts in place that rate every Zelda game between 9 and 10.
> 
> You can't expect every single reviewer to score a game in the exact same way, even if their reviews aren't subjective. This doesn't change the fact that I myself am not a fan of scores, since it's far too difficult to accurately convert all of the game's aspects into a number. Reviews shouldn't have scores at all, but then again, the majority of gamers only cares about the scores, not the justifications behind them. You often hear people complaining about a score, but you rarely hear someone argument against a certain point brought up in a review. Then again, since almost everything is subjective, what's the point? One person might consider a given gameplay aspect to be the best thing ever, while another might be sick and tired of it, since they've played far too many games utilizing similar or identical gameplay features.
> 
> ...


 
I should totally address the Skyward Sword point, as I feel I was a little off in the article. The reason why I was a bit irritated by the score was because the review itself was fundamentally flawed. There were plenty of factual mistakes in the review, and it essentially boiled down to the guy playing the game wrong. Very wrong. This could very much fall into the category of inexperience. The review is _valid_, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't by any means, but a lot of the criticisms were incorrect, and at this point have since been corrected. No score adjustments, however, which I find just a little bit odd.



aiat_gamer said:


> I dont think I agree with that, at least the sites I check have a wide range of scores (GS for example). I kind of like the review score, it tells me at a glance if I should even bother with the game, so when the game scores 7+ I read the review and do some research to see if the game deserves my time and money.
> But for me, it has become harder and harder to have a go-to source for reading review. It used to be that I trusted GS reviews completely and very rarely I was disappointed but ever since the main guy (Jeff Gretsmann, Vinny Caravella, Brad Shoemaker and Alex Navaro who I think is one the best the reviewers around) left GS, it just turned to crap. The reviews became a place for people to just force their political and social views on people , reviews became widely contradictory and other stuff.
> 
> I never believed the conspiracy that sometimes the review are bought, but unfortunately I have seen more than enough examples that are really main me believe that. The prime example that comes to my mind is this:
> ...




The review score tidbit was more of a broad offhand generalization, which may have ended up confusing you. I think it was definitely a little broad of me to say that.  But yeah, I totally hear you. I find that going to a bunch of review outlets lets me sum up the experience well enough as a sort of "Averaging" system.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

Crap, I ran out of space to address in the previous post, so I'll be doing a rare double post.



T-hug said:


> The scoring is a huge problem and week after week we hear of big name developers bashing metacritic and even having their pay bonus based on how they average on metacritic after release. In some cases I've read of how games are developed just to check off review points.
> Imo Kotaku have it right with the YES/NO review system, but even that is flawed when it comes to MP games at launch, which are often not working as they should day 1.
> 
> Then we have embargos which 99% of the time give the review to one huge site like IGN which will come a day early and never bash a game as they have the exclusive.
> ...


 
And people wonder why I hate giving numeric scores. One of the things I would like to change in the review center sometimes... 



Gahars said:


> Something else worth mentioning is the merit of reviewers. I mean, just compare reviewers for film and games. Film had people like Siskel and Ebert (whatever you may think of his opinion on other subjects). These were guys deeply versed in the art of filmmaking, with a passion for the art. They were able to make insightful analyses of films while keeping things accessible for a general audience; everyone, from the average joe to fellow film buffs, could appreciate what they had to say.
> 
> Gaming, though? Not even close. There's dirty money and tricks getting passed around, sure, but I think it's more than that. I feel like most game reviewers aren't really versed in the language of games the same way folks like Siskel and Ebert were versed in the language of cinema. These reviewers only scratch the surface and stop there. I also think we're being stunted by a weird, industry-wide inferiority complex. It feels like a lot of game reviewers are insecure about their profession, and so they try to justify gaming as a medium at every turn. Bioshock: Infinite? "It's the Citizen Kane of gaming, guys, you can take us seriously now!" Gone Home? "10/10, see, we're topical, really!" etc. etc.
> 
> ...


 
I sometimes wonder how Kotaku even gets some of its articles out. Page view journalism at its best. One of the reasons why I left my old gig and loved it here. I absolutely hated writing for the page counts. I get the freedom to write whenever I feel comfortable and I never have to worry about page counts, which is something that GBAtemp draws in droves considering its large user base.


----------



## sporkonomix (Nov 9, 2013)

I've blogged about this before. I eschewed review scores entirely and focused on the real reasons people read reviews: decision making. It's turned my reviews into more of a conversation than a bleak description with meaningless numbers attached to it. I don't get many visitors, but I'd like to think that my change in approach has helped a few people make better decisions.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 9, 2013)

I don't think so. Reviews are more of a guideline than anything else, and it has always been. It shouldn't affect whether you purchase a game or not. The main factor there should be how much the gameplay, genre, storyline, and such appeal to you personally. The best way to find out is to try a demo if there is one. Otherwise watch gameplay videos.
If the game has a terrible rating it's probably best to stay away, but as long as the review is at least decent you might enjoy it a lot more than the review would make it seem.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

sporkonomix said:


> I've blogged about this before. I eschewed review scores entirely and focused on the real reasons people read reviews: decision making. It's turned my reviews into more of a conversation than a bleak description with meaningless numbers attached to it. I don't get many visitors, but I'd like to think that my change in approach has helped a few people make better decisions.


 

I've actually done that system before as well in the form of a "Should you buy it" section. I find the number is an awful indicator and it makes me feel "restricted" like I'm being forced to tie my voice around the score I give.


----------



## sporkonomix (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> I've actually done that system before as well in the form of a "Should you buy it" section. I find the number is an awful indicator and it makes me feel "restricted" like I'm being forced to tie my voice around the score I give.


 
Yeah, I felt the same way; like I had to think of a score before I used my review to "defend" it instead of discussing the merits and faults of the game in question. Doing it in reverse didn't help, either. Overall I think scoring systems serve as an enabler of pissing contests and statistics instead of honest opinions on media.


----------



## sporkonomix (Nov 9, 2013)

The Real Jdbye said:


> I don't think so. Reviews are more of a guideline than anything else, and it has always been. It shouldn't affect whether you purchase a game or not. The main factor there should be how much the gameplay, genre, storyline, and such appeal to you personally. The best way to find out is to try a demo if there is one. Otherwise watch gameplay videos.
> If the game has a terrible rating it's probably best to stay away, but as long as the review is at least decent you might enjoy it a lot more than the review would make it seem.


 
Interesting that you say "It shouldn't affect whether you purchase a game", but contradict that with "if it has a terrible rating you should probably stay away from it". In that case, aren't the poor scores influencing one's hypothetical purchasing behavior?

It mostly depends on the review style, imo. I try to frame my final opinion with a specific taste, like "You'll probably like this game if you like X or Y game", or "If you're into X kind of game or enjoy Y concept, this game will be a good match for you", etc. It's pretty much impossible to form an absolute, concrete, objective opinion on something that is inseparably subjective and dependent upon taste.

You're right that nothing can match a demo and actually spending time with something, but that's not always practical or even possible. I also agree that reviews aren't something to be taken as gospel; it's just some person's opinion.


----------



## EgoTrip (Nov 9, 2013)

This is nothing new. It's been standard practice since the beginning of gaming really. Game companies offer reviewers an incentive to give them good reviews, get their games headlined. All too often the main game each month in old magazines was not the best that month had to offer yet it had the most coverage and highest score. Some games were never even reviewed properly, and were just rewordings of the game instructions.

Read up on stories of 8 and 16 bit developers, they all have stories to tell about how corrupt the people they worked for were, and obviously, still are. Some things will never change.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Nov 9, 2013)

*goes back to imfamous GameSpot Kane and Lynch conspiracy*

fucking flawed as fuck


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 9, 2013)

Mariko said:


> That's another problem right there. If a score of 6.3, which by definition is above average on a 10 point scale, is considered too low to pick up a game, we might just as well not have scores at all, since people clearly have no idea how to operate within such scoring systems. If someone asks: "What do you think, is this game good, poor, playable?", and I answer with "it's not great, but definitely above the average", it effectively means it's a 6 ~ 7 point game. That's why expressing an opinion is much more effective than simply coming up with a number, especially today, when people aren't able to score games below 5 out of 10.


 
I agree with you there.  Reviewers should make use of the full scale of review scores, but unfortunately with today's standards of review, a score that goes outside of that 7.5-10 range means "do not play".  If this were some independent reviewer, I'd give benefit of the doubt of how his grading scale worked (or if the reviewer bothered leaving us with closing thoughts and what kind of gamer might enjoy the game), but this is not one of those guys, and that's not how games get graded on IGN.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Nov 9, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> Some reviewer site did that to Bioshock Infinite.


 
Can you mention some examples? As far as I know that game got 8+ across!


----------



## Heran Bago (Nov 9, 2013)




----------



## DinohScene (Nov 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> Can you mention some examples? As far as I know that game got 8+ across!


 
Yar I been trying to find that article again but can't seem to find it.
Some reviewer gave it a lower grade cause it didn't had multiplayer.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Nov 9, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> Yar I been trying to find that article again but can't seem to find it.
> Some reviewer gave it a lower grade cause it didn't had multiplayer.


 
I am pretty sure that it must have been a pretty obscure review site. As far as I know everyone fell in love with that game, which is very strange to me considering how problematic that game was.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Nov 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Thanks guys  Keep the comments flowing!
> 
> 
> 
> I should totally address the Skyward Sword point, as I feel I was a little off in the article. The reason why I was a bit irritated by the score was because the review itself was fundamentally flawed. There were plenty of factual mistakes in the review, and it essentially boiled down to the guy playing the game wrong. Very wrong. This could very much fall into the category of inexperience. The review is _valid_, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't by any means, but a lot of the criticisms were incorrect, and at this point have since been corrected. No score adjustments, however, which I find just a little bit odd.


 

So you are saying the score was too low? How would have rate it?


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> I am pretty sure that it must have been a pretty obscure review site. As far as I know everyone fell in love with that game, which is very strange to me considering how problematic that game was.


 
Can't find it anymore unfortunately.

Game wasn't problematic at all.
Loved it from the moment it got leaked.
Well that and with previous BS installments.
<3 the Bioshock series <3


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> So you are saying the score was too low? How would have rate it?


 
That's a good question. His review was factually proven to be flawed at some point if I recall correctly. When I played it I thought the controls were a huge step up from the waggle era of Twilight Princess. If you play the game the way it is meant to be played (again, this ideal is dependent on a number of factors) it plays fantastic. If I had to give an on the spot score I would award it an 8.5, subjective to a number of factors that I account in an as-general-as-possible approach. This score is in comparison to other games in the Zelda franchise. It also is subjective to improvements over mechanisms that needed improvement from titles past. Some major strengths could include the stronger story, the unique puzzles, the strategy that is involved in fighting monsters. Some of the point deductions could be subject to the linearity that some gamers may have faced. Other issues could include the forced inclusion of Wii Motion Plus. I can go into the nitty gritty all day but I might as well write a full review on it.  

There really is no such thing as a decent "score" to apply, as it's so subjective it takes far too long to delve into the deep and nitty gritty. As a reviewer, it's difficult to apply an objective approach. There really is not a one size fits all model here. If I had to apply a "Thumbs up, thumbs down" approach, it'd get a thumbs up, but that's too broad. People may have hated the game, and I acknowledge those arguments as well for the whole Motion Plus thing.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 9, 2013)

sporkonomix said:


> Interesting that you say "It shouldn't affect whether you purchase a game", but contradict that with "if it has a terrible rating you should probably stay away from it". In that case, aren't the poor scores influencing one's hypothetical purchasing behavior?
> 
> It mostly depends on the review style, imo. I try to frame my final opinion with a specific taste, like "You'll probably like this game if you like X or Y game", or "If you're into X kind of game or enjoy Y concept, this game will be a good match for you", etc. It's pretty much impossible to form an absolute, concrete, objective opinion on something that is inseparably subjective and dependent upon taste.
> 
> You're right that nothing can match a demo and actually spending time with something, but that's not always practical or even possible. I also agree that reviews aren't something to be taken as gospel; it's just some person's opinion.


That is the only case where it should affect your decision. I just included it as a footnote.


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 10, 2013)

Reviews in the media are flawed and inaccurate, sure.  That's, well, a fundamental thing about reviews of an entertainment medium, isn't it, since it inherently is subjective.  I wouldn't say reviews "are on the decline" in any meaningful way, though.  By that, I mean, even if there's a short term problem with reviews now, I see it being "fixed" over time as people start to weight reviews less or certain reviewers/sources higher than others.  That's just the cyclical nature of things.  I mean, how many "gaming" review magazines have spawned and died over the last 30 years?

As for a complaint about the scoring system, well, it's the same with used game prices.  I mean, one would think demand would have enough of an effect that the price of a game would be a good indicator of the fun/entertainment/whatever of a game in a genre--as different genres should have different buy/sell patterns--, but for those who have bought even a few used games, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it there, either.  That doesn't make the price meaningless.  It just means it's silly to judge a game based on its price/cover. 

In any case, if I had to make a wild guess about the "decline of reviews"--a wild guess as I haven't begun to read enough reviews really every to make a judgment on the general quality of game reviews--, I'd take it as more the 'inexperienced" part being a factor as so many games enter the market, there's a glut of shovelware and a glut of new reviewers trying to push a lot of reviews of it through (to filter out the "good" from the "bad").

Oh, and a small guess, but the whole RPG grinding being a complaint?  Well, if you're a person trying to review several games, having to grind is a great way to make a game (a) feel monotonous--Pokemon, Animal Crossing, etc all do this too, but they at least try to color some of it with items or new monsters or whatever to it feels you're accomplishing something real instead of merely making stat X go up 15 points so you'll do 15*y points more damage per hit against the area boss--and (b) feel like it's holding you back from enjoying all those other games you've set out to review.  I mean, one can sort of presume that a reviewer by definition is in it for the experience of playing a lot of different games--sampling them, really--and not devoting 80+ hours per game. 

Just think of reviewers like doctors.  You can always go for a second opinion.  And in the end, it's our time so your choice on whether Pokemon really *is* a 10.0 or not.   Me?  I haven't tried out Pokemon and don't have much interest to, but that's because I'm too busy with a whole other set of games I want to play.  More power to people who love or hate Pokemon or the games I love or whatever.  And I'm sure I disagree strongly with a lot of people who love the games I hate or vice versa.

*tries to forget the Metroid: Other M plot*


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 10, 2013)

kuwanger said:


> Reviews in the media are flawed and inaccurate, sure. That's, well, a fundamental thing about reviews of an entertainment medium, isn't it, since it inherently is subjective. I wouldn't say reviews "are on the decline" in any meaningful way, though. By that, I mean, even if there's a short term problem with reviews now, I see it being "fixed" over time as people start to weight reviews less or certain reviewers/sources higher than others. That's just the cyclical nature of things. I mean, how many "gaming" review magazines have spawned and died over the last 30 years?
> 
> As for a complaint about the scoring system, well, it's the same with used game prices. I mean, one would think demand would have enough of an effect that the price of a game would be a good indicator of the fun/entertainment/whatever of a game in a genre--as different genres should have different buy/sell patterns--, but for those who have bought even a few used games, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it there, either. That doesn't make the price meaningless. It just means it's silly to judge a game based on its price/cover.
> 
> ...


 

Oh ho, you caught on! Used game prices was probably going to be the next article I was planning to discuss!


----------



## Transdude1996 (Nov 10, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Oh ho, you caught on! Used game prices was probably going to be the next article I was planning to discuss!


 
In my town, there's a local game store that sells used games for all consoles, even the Atari 2600 and the Virtual Boy. When I asked them about how they determine their prices, they told me that the price is determined by the rarity of the game.

If that's really true, then that means there's a lot of copies for F-Zero GX still floating around because I was able to get it for under $5 from them.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 10, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> In my town, there's a local game store that sells used games for all consoles, even the Atari 2600 and the Virtual Boy. When I asked them about how they determine their prices, they told me that the price is determined by the rarity of the game.
> 
> If that's really true, then that means there's a lot of copies for F-Zero GX still floating around because I was able to get it for under $5 from them.


 

LOL, my game store will take brand new games after release and then open them and sell as used. How do I know? The disk I get in return is spotless, the instruction manual has not a single crease or wrinkle, and it has that new game smell to it. .-.


----------



## pwsincd (Nov 10, 2013)

Dinoh is right , you personally are the reviwer and you should ignore alltogether the dumb scores from media biased reviewers. You tube videos , gamer comments , forum threads are my source for game reviews and from there ill make my mind up on wether ill be investing , unlike movies , ill use the imdb rating as a guide as to wether ill bother watching something .


----------



## aiat_gamer (Nov 10, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> That's a good question. His review was factually proven to be flawed at some point if I recall correctly. When I played it I thought the controls were a huge step up from the waggle era of Twilight Princess. If you play the game the way it is meant to be played (again, this ideal is dependent on a number of factors) it plays fantastic. If I had to give an on the spot score I would award it an 8.5, subjective to a number of factors that I account in an as-general-as-possible approach. This score is in comparison to other games in the Zelda franchise. It also is subjective to improvements over mechanisms that needed improvement from titles past. Some major strengths could include the stronger story, the unique puzzles, the strategy that is involved in fighting monsters. Some of the point deductions could be subject to the linearity that some gamers may have faced. Other issues could include the forced inclusion of Wii Motion Plus. I can go into the nitty gritty all day but I might as well write a full review on it.


 

I will be honest, I have not played Skyward Sword, but I did follow the reviews on it closely. Based on what I heard and read, seems like in retrospect, this game is a clear example of people being so excited that they just overlooked major flaws within the game. I read many instances that said the game suffered from poor pacing, getting repetitive and some control problems and also the fact that it holds hands to the point of tedium. 
This is what I find very problematic in reviews, the main example I can think of that I also have played is Bioshock: Infinite. Looking at the review, I can not believe how everyone just chose to overlook some serious problems with the game. I mean basically the gameplay in the game is deeply flawed, so much that it became a chore to actually finish the game! As I expected, people who look at the game objectively after the excitement wore off actually were able to see through the initial impressions and acknowledge the problems within the game. I have burned many time like this and that is the main reason I usually never buy games when they come out in the first month or so.


----------



## Cyan (Nov 10, 2013)

Ahh, so many long comments, I didn't read them all yet but I'll start posting what I've read and answered so far.



Puppy_Washer said:


> Hell, how about writing multiple short reviews for a game (with different approaches), and asking people for feedback? That could be fun.


 That's the idea I had when Costello asked what could be done to improved the score table of GBAtemp's review section. I thought it would be a good idea to allow multiple official reviewers score the same game, and each official reviewer having a list of their own games/genre score to let people know that they like the same genre as them. For example, if someone who never played jRPG before and are not a fan of this genre but liked the game he/she reviewed, then the reader who also don't like RPG may think it's interesting as a "starting game in the jRPG genre". And other official reviewers who are old school fan of jRPG may find that game dull and readers will know, based on their own preferences, which reviewer they want to follow.
That system was never made available to the review center, because it's based on a single reviewer system, and multiple readers comments. reviewers could make their own review in the comments, but it doesn't have the same impact as if it was fully integrated to the site (like tabs for each reviewer, and a reviewer's profile with game/console/preferences/backlog list, etc.)



grossaffe said:


> I also had to make it clear in the beginning that I was not a fan of random encounters or grinding which were often staples of the genre.  Some may say that because of that, someone like me would have no business reviewing JRPGs with my limited experience and my disdain for certain tropes that the genre has seen a lot of.  But maybe instead, my outsider view will be more accessible to other greenhorns of the genre and I can help give them a place to start if they want to branch out.


 I think this is what should be done on all reviews, it let's the reader know if you are a fervent fan of the genre, of the series, if you played all past games or not, etc.
Telling your backlog gaming is a good start in knowing if your review is biased or not, and to know if you based it on the past released games or if you are new to the genre. It gives more strength to your opinion, and readers should take that in account.
I'm currently trying new genres of video games, I was a fan of RPG and Adventure games only. But these games tend to be very long to complete and I miss time now that I'm working. So now I prefer short games, easy to complete, I'm open to new game genres and I try to read other gamer's opinion of the games (instead of official reviews) to know if they liked a game or dislike it, and why. I feel the gamers I know have a more impact and a proper opinion of a game, because I'm used to know which game they like.



grossaffe said:


> That being said, I don't think someone like me should be reviewing those types of games on a big review site because scores actually matter there, and the scores seen by that many people should really be given by someone who represents the majority of the audience who is likely to want to play the game rather than an outsider.


On the contrary. I think a website which want to cover more people as possible should take in account that there are "newbies" in each genre. Some people like to test new games. There are people beginning their Play-life, we are not all 30 years old with 20 years of gaming background !
To cover more people visiting the website, they should know if you wrote your reviews based on your heavy gaming past, or if you are also a newbie in that genre.

For example, and a very easy one :
You have to review a game you never expected to play : one of the "imagine" series, let's say "My Secret World by Imagine".
You probably won't be a fan of that game due to your own age, your own opinion on shovelware, etc.
But there are A LOT of "imagine" games in the series, which means they are a popular series out there, and a LOT of kids like theses games. If you review it, you will probably think the game is bad and give it a really bad note, but you didn't based your note on the real audience, which are the kids who are used to play these games and actually like what you disliked.
If someone who like these type of games review one of them, the score he/she will give will be more accurate and the reader who want to know if the game is good or bad will have more interest into reading that reviewer's opinion instead of yours. That's why I thought having multiple official reviewer's notes/opinions within a single game's review is better (for small or bigger website alike). Readers just have to know which reviewer has the most chance to provide a trusting, less biased, review for themselves.

A single reviewer system will always be biased because it won't cover every reader's opinions.
It's not biased for you, it's your own opinion, but it will be for readers with a different opinion than yours. you can't please everyone, even if you properly note the game without taking in account money or free games you might earn by lying on the score.


hmm, now I'll go read the thread again, so many replies I skipped!

Edit:
I think a review should also tell if the reviewer completed the game, or just played the first stage/mission/etc.
I would trust more a review if the reviewer completed the game and know what he is talking about.

About the notation, I don't take numbers for granted and I always test the games myself to make my own idea.
I would prefer a system based on comparison instead of a notation based on ... nothing?
When a reviewer gives a note, it's based on what? on other games he liked? on other same gen games? on his self enjoyment? A notation system needs to be based on a concrete value (what is 0, and is 10, etc.)
I think not giving a note at all, is better. it also force the readers to actually read the review and not only read the notes.


----------



## Ziko (Nov 10, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> Sorry I didn't read through your opening post TC, I just saw a wall of text and my TL;DR function just turned on. So, sorry if I address some things you already stated.
> 
> IMO, it seems like reviews have become very skewed during the 7th Gen consoles and it looks like it may get even worse. Take a look at Jimquisition's Hate Out Of Ten and Dragon's Frown videos, and look at the backlash the Escapist and GameSpot recieved after not giving GTA V a 10/10. That's how bad things have gotten. And with the fact that a 5 year old can now access the internet, things are only going to get worse.
> 
> ...


 
I use the old X-Play 5.5 score system because to me, it's the more easier and informative system. That's how I determine whether or not it's worth playing to me. Also, I look to the guys who've been in the business long enough and they tell me or some folks I know whether that game is worth buy or not. Guys like Adam Sessler and Tommy Tallarico who are movers and shakers in the industry. Then we get guys like AngryJoe who tend to ride on the coattails of people like them and they either botch the review or often give us misinformation about the product and well, that leads to problems later. I'm not trying to slander everybody but that's just how I determine things.



Rayder said:


> I get the feeling that they don't play the whole game in a lot of cases. They write their review based on only a couple hours of playing. Like a review of their preview.
> 
> At any rate, I never read just ONE review for any game, I read many. I like to read the lowest ratings first, it helps temper me against the glowing "gamegasm" reviews. You start to see through the holes in the reviews as you go from low to high ratings. Some of the things mentioned in low reviews aren't mentioned in high reviews, and vice versa. By using the low to high review method, I am rarely disappointed with a game I actually buy. The diversity of the reviews gave me a much better idea of what I'm buying into than going from high to low.
> 
> But that's commercial reviews. If I really want to know if a game is my type of game or not is to read GAMER reviews, go to forums dedicated to that game and read-around the site, and don't forget to carefully read the "support" section.


 
That's very true. Most of the major guys only play maybe 3-4 hours and then determine whether the game is garbage or not.



Hop2089 said:


> It does, look how reviewers were treated when GTA V was reviewed and the reviewers didn't give it a 10. Bribed reviews are way more common in Japan than the US which is why I don't like Famitsu reviews.


 
Famitsu is the king of bribery in Japan. In fact, they gave Medarot DS which is one of my all time favorite DS games, a freaking score of 7 compared to other games like Pokemon Black and White at that time. The excuse was not enough content to maintain a long playthrough of the game as well as a somewhat weak plot. Maybe this explains why 7 was so much better on the 3DS and in fact the events of DS don't even occur in the 3DS game. Nothing but an excuse to tell Natsume to get their shit together and boy they did.


----------



## Dunny (Nov 11, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Oh yikes, I never even read about the Kane and Lynch incident. I think I heard of it in an off hand conversation, but DAMN. That's interesting to see.
> 
> EDIT: Wait, what someone got FIRED from a poor review score? Wow, that's interesting and surprising, to say the least.  I hope to God that I never end up in a space like that. That's awful.


 

It's been going on for as long as game reviews have existed. I'm sure we all recall the tongue-in-cheek Crash! Parody "Unclear User" which was published when it was proven that a competitor was taking money for positive reviews - Crash! proved it, published their knowledge only to be taken to court and have it all covered up. Every single issue of Crash! still for sale was recalled and destroyed, simply because a software house had more money than the reviewer.

It's sad, but you can't trust any reviews at all, and never have been able to.

D.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 11, 2013)

Dunny said:


> It's been going on for as long as game reviews have existed. I'm sure we all recall the tongue-in-cheek Crash! Parody "Unclear User" which was published when it was proven that a competitor was taking money for positive reviews - Crash! proved it, published their knowledge only to be taken to court and have it all covered up. Every single issue of Crash! still for sale was recalled and destroyed, simply because a software house had more money than the reviewer.
> 
> It's sad, but you can't trust any reviews at all, and never have been able to.
> 
> D.


 

Never had a PS3 so I never go through their reviews.  But yeah, its a bit sad that the media can play such influences into scoring.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Nov 11, 2013)

I think major gaming sites review in a very biased way, some are probably paid to review a high score.


----------



## Dunny (Nov 13, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Never had a PS3 so I never go through their reviews.  But yeah, its a bit sad that the media can play such influences into scoring.


 

The incident I was talking about occurred in 1985, so it's been around for a very long time - pretty much as long as there's been video game review magazines, in fact. 

Back then, of course, being a rather impressionable teenager I trusted mag reviews - Crash! was pretty reliable but even so the odd game turned up that was overrated. What really used to swing me though was standing in a computer shop browsing the boxes and looking at the artwork - if a game was well presented (and looked exciting with decent graphics etc) then I usually bought it. With the most expensive games being £5.99, there was an enormous amount available to me for pocket money. 

Nowadays with the increasing lack of brick-and-mortar shops, it's getting to be digital downloads. There's videos and screengrabs to sway my opinion, and with word-of-mouth being so accessible in today's online societies it's easier to choose something I'll like. 

So gaming review sites, for me at least, are getting less and less relevant. 

But I still miss those magazines and I really miss the shops 

D.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Nov 14, 2013)

I heavily prefer the given system of Film Criticism and Music Criticism when it comes to numbered scores. I think that a score range of 0-10 with decimals is very inaccurate and random. Film criticism and music criticism often places scores of 0 to 5, or 0 to 4; a narrow spectrum of possible scores allow you to weigh better and is also easier to interpret for readers. A score of 4 could be paired with excellent, 3.5 would be great, 3, would be good, 2 would be lackluster, etc. The majority of film reviews display this kind of tone that often coincides with their rating. It's much harder to understand what an "8.2" is supposed to mean when paired with the review. What exactly is the ".2" supposed to be? Why not an 8? How much better is an "8.2" than an "8" or a "7.8?" It just seems really convoluted; it's not as if reviewers can actually use a specific and mathematical way of measuring.

However, the idea that there needs to be a 0-10 scale with decimals is already ingrained in video game reviewers; regardless of it being a very inaccurate way of measuring anything.

While there are plenty of problems with the reviewers themselves, I also find a big problem with the fans. This isn't just true with video games, this is true for all. For example: suppose a reviewer gives a low score to a generally acclaimed game. You can expect fans to ravage that reviewer. As long as the reviewers make valid points, I don't think fans should jump at them like that. I mean, fuck, chill out. You don't have to say the reviewer is a stupid asshole who has no idea what he's doing for having a differing opinion. The worst recent case I found was the Dragon's Crown review. I think that a criticism of the art style as being too exaggerated and slightly trivializes women is perfectly valid. If it detracts from her experience of the game, then there's no problem with that. It's just aggravating.


----------

