Quantcast
Why do people hate low review scores?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why do people hate low review scores?

Because most of these low scores are given to generate traffic on said-website.
Some games journalists feel the need to be "different" so they give a different score than everyone else. Sometimes its higher and sometimes its lower. It's the lower ones that cause the most outrage



Around the Network

I'm assuming this is about your Tekken review, but by the looks of it, it wasn't the score that's the problem; the problem was that your review didn't really say anything useful, particularly about TTT2 and the movie. You didn't talk about what the movie was about or who it followed. You didn't mention what new features were in Tekken Tag 2 Prologue. You didn't mention what four characters were available in that demo. Etc.

GameSpot gave it pretty much the same score you did, but their review was way better since it mentioned a lot of useful information. They mentioned TTT's gameplay still holds well, but it has some graphical issues and the lack of online is disappointing considering that other fighters that got rereleased had online included. They mentioned what four characters are in the TTT2 demo, and that there are new tag tricks.

However, the demo lacks the characters' move list which is a big problem (for me at least) since I only use two of those characters; I need to look at the move list for the other two to learn their combos and moves, but without a move list, I won't know how to properly play with them which will take away a lot of my enjoyment. I also need to constantly look at Xiaoyu's move list since she's more complex than most of the Tekken characters. Lastly, they talk about the movie's plot and what characters is mostly follows, which sounds terrible. Once I finished reading their review, I said that it was not worth it.

But you, instead, complain about the characters and having 'insert coin' on the screen (which has always been like that since the first game). The characters have always been silly and crazy since the beginning of the Tekken series, but that's one of the beauties of the series. It has a great, crazy diverse cast of fighters, and most of them feel entirely unique in terms of fighting style. Also, some of the characters like Kuma, Panda, and Roger (the kangaroo) aren't meant to be taken seriously; they're just for comedic relief. It's evident that they aren't meant to taken seriously once you've seen some of their endings; they're silly but funny. Lastly, you got the price tag wrong; it's $40, not $50.

And oh yeah, everyone knows Eddy and Christie are for the noobs. Many newcomers love them because you can just button smash with them.



I think there are a few issues at play:

1. Metacritic and gameranking have warped review scores and given them a level of importance that is reiterated when developers and publishers use meta scores to help market their games. Many don't read reviews but just look at the scores.

2. Due to (1), average reviews scores have gradually become higher meaning even minor reductions in review scores can spark outrage.

3. Outrage at review scores doesn't happen in other industries because they're fairly estalished. Video games are still fairly new but review outrage is usually on only core titles where a tech savy group of "elites" can vent rage reviewers. Really, some gamers are just very young or immature but have greater knowledge of where to go to vent their rage at an ill-perceived wrong.

4. To a lesser but still significant degree reviewers in the games industry are still enthusiast press. Whilst there are a number of publications that write and convey accurate criticisms, there are still many that are essentially only gamers that have great difficulty hiding their biases and lack consistency. I've read some reviews on sites where the reviewer has later admitted to not playing a game with sound or for no more than 3 hours. The rumours of publishers splashing cash around game journalists before review also don't help.

It's important to remember however that with books and movies there are discrepancies between sales and reviews (more so than videos games). Whilst it isn't perfect, we shouldn't want the games industry to become too snobbish and alienate readers and players so some critique of the reviewing process is a good thing.



I like that VGChartz bases its numbers off of a word or term that best describes the game's experience (Exemplary, Great, Decent, etc.). I do the same thing myself, as the number I assign to a game is just a placeholder to a word that best describes it. For example, here's my scoring range:

10: Masterpiece
9: Amazing
8: Great
7: Good
6: Above Average
5. Average
4. Below Average
3. Bad
2. Awful
1. Disaster (I don't think I've assigned a game a 'disaster' yet. Hopefully I'll never play a game worthy of this score. )

Despite my more "centered" review scale (compared to the 7=average crowd), my average game rating (of over 300 games) is still a 7.8. And I want to continue to raise that score, because who really wants to play a bad (or even average) game?

So for example, I gave Skyrim an 8/10. It's a great game. It has a few things that hold it back from being an amazing game (such as glitches and lack of evolution in gameplay), but it's still a GREAT game. But, I'm sure others see that 8 as a blasphemous mark upon such a great game as Skyrim (to be honest, how the game is one of the best reviewed game of the year, and VGChartz's highest rated game ever kind of boggles my mind... but in the end that's just on me ).

In the end... this really doesn't have anything to do with the OP. Just rambling I suppose... XD



It's not that I hate bad scores, it's that I hate bad reviews. And not in the sense of a negative review, I mean a flawed one. Completely making up things, glaring inaccuracies, blowing small flaws out of proportion, not caring in the slightest about what is being reviewed and just getting it over with...

I could bring up examples, but I'll just leave it at "most of the reviews IGN or Gamespot does".



 In memory of Topless Avatars Pertaining to Hotness and Titilation (TAPTHAT).

3DS friend code: 5155 - 2983 - 3034

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Gamers today are the most entitled babies ever.

There, I said it.

They don't want lower review scores for their favorite games or a legitimate challenge in the games they play. They know that a game they're anticipating is the best game ever before they even get to play it, and they'll ruin you if you should so dare as to give it a sub-9.0 score. If you made the average "hardcore" gamer today play Magician Lord, they'd have a panic attack.

What about games that were universally hated, like Duke Nukem?  I remember seeing almost every review for that game (mine included) getting harassed for "jumping on the bandwagon of hate" in spite of the fact that almost everyone agreed it sucked.  

I also get a lot of complaints when I mention shoddy control schemes...apparently I should just deal with it :P 


Gamers have invested so much hype and energy into Duke Nukem that the idea that it was, in fact, a bad game was devastating to them. It's one thing if a PS3 game disappoints (for example) and 360 gamers get to bag on it, but when a hyped, multiplatform game from a classic series launches to bad reviews, most gamers resort to a natural defense mechanism. It can't be the game that's bad, just the reviewer! Entitlement pure and simple.

Trust me, I wrote a couple reviews for Vgchartz. I got a lot of flack for my Mass Effect review because I gave it an 8.5 (the same as Gamespot gave it). Apparently many of its fans on the site thought it deserved no less than the excellence of a 9+ score. I don't really mind it now, but more than one user seemed to give the impression that I was the problem and there weren't any great issues with the game itself.



 

 

Because they are usually fans of the franchise/biased and hate to see anything below an 8.5 OR its the hottest game on there platform of choice and good reviews mean more bragging rights so naturally they want it to review really well.



Montana's spot on. People become fanboyish for games before they're even released, hyping them like crazy and instantly judging games to be 9+ material (whilst at the same time lamenting score inflation in general, heh). When the big first reviews come out any note of criticism is instantly taken out of context, distorted and twisted to make it seem like petty criticism and that the reviewer is out to trash the game. It's doubly worse if said game is an exclusive.

Also agree with Tor though. A lot of fans are going to be dipshits, reviewers just have to man up and accept they'll get a lot of hate if they give a hyped game a 'low' score (whatever people think 'low' is for that game). Far better to do that and be honest, than to tell the fans what they want to hear, which'd only to end up giving your reviews less credibility in the long run.



Kangi said:
It's not that I hate bad scores, it's that I hate bad reviews. And not in the sense of a negative review, I mean a flawed one. Completely making up things, glaring inaccuracies, blowing small flaws out of proportion, not caring in the slightest about what is being reviewed and just getting it over with...

I could bring up examples, but I'll just leave it at "most of the reviews IGN or Gamespot does".


This is the problem right here its that there are alot of bad reviews that are being done on big name sites. And yes I have seen on many occasions where reviewers just did not know what they were talking about in relation to the games they reviewed or puts their bias into it just to exaggerate a small flaw, to those that are generally new to gaming sometimes take these reviews as the gospel truth for the game so a game that they probably would have enjoyed is tarnished by this review.

Thats why I barely take into account or look at any review done by any major site on the net.



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



Mirson said:

I'm assuming this is about your Tekken review, but by the looks of it, it wasn't the score that's the problem; the problem was that your review didn't really say anything useful, particularly about TTT2 and the movie. You didn't talk about what the movie was about or who it followed. You didn't mention what new features were in Tekken Tag 2 Prologue. You didn't mention what four characters were available in that demo. Etc.

GameSpot gave it pretty much the same score you did, but their review was way better since it mentioned a lot of useful information. They mentioned TTT's gameplay still holds well, but it has some graphical issues and the lack of online is disappointing considering that other fighters that got rereleased had online included. They mentioned what four characters are in the TTT2 demo, and that there are new tag tricks.

However, the demo lacks the characters' move list which is a big problem (for me at least) since I only use two of those characters; I need to look at the move list for the other two to learn their combos and moves, but without a move list, I won't know how to properly play with them which will take away a lot of my enjoyment. I also need to constantly look at Xiaoyu's move list since she's more complex than most of the Tekken characters. Lastly, they talk about the movie's plot and what characters is mostly follows, which sounds terrible. Once I finished reading their review, I said that it was not worth it.

But you, instead, complain about the characters and having 'insert coin' on the screen (which has always been like that since the first game). The characters have always been silly and crazy since the beginning of the Tekken series, but that's one of the beauties of the series. It has a great, crazy diverse cast of fighters, and most of them feel entirely unique in terms of fighting style. Also, some of the characters like Kuma, Panda, and Roger (the kangaroo) aren't meant to be taken seriously; they're just for comedic relief. It's evident that they aren't meant to taken seriously once you've seen some of their endings; they're silly but funny. Lastly, you got the price tag wrong; it's $40, not $50.

And oh yeah, everyone knows Eddy and Christie are for the noobs. Many newcomers love them because you can just button smash with them.

This is a game review site, and as such the review was edited to take out much of the stuff about the movie.  I didn't mention much of the demo, though I did mention the fact that the 4 characters  from the movie were in the demo, that must have been edited out as well.  The review was edited to reflect the 'main course'  of the package: Tekken Tag Tournament HD.  

The 'insert coin' thing was a joke, nothing more than that (though I do think it's kinda silly).  

As for Eddie Gordo, I loved Eddie Gordo becuase I like capoeira, not because I'm a noob.  I've also used Hworang and Law (and a few others) in the past, but in this game both of them seemed too stiff for my liking.  

I didn't buy the game myself, but I looked up prices online, and on amazon at the time of the writing (and on Wikipedia at the time of writing), the price was at 49.99, so I wrote that into the review.  

I do admit that a lot of my complaints about the game (silliness of the setting, stiff controls, etc) could be aimed at any game in the series, but I actually LIKE tekken (and am looking forward to Street Fighter x Tekken), but this iteration of the series hasn't aged well and the demo wasn't that well put together.  Not to mention the movie was a joke...I could do  awhole seperate review on the movie since I occasionally do movie reviews as well.  

I think I justified my score well: poor movie, a port of a game that hasn't aged well with minimal graphical improvements, and a minimalist demo.  It's jsut not worth it even for 40 bucks. Unless of course you're a Tekken fan, which I think is a fair assumtion since you asserted that "Eddie gordo is for noobs".  



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III