By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Understanding Review Scores - Quit the Console Review War Crap

I don't think a single reviewer could match any one person's views. So it would be too difficult to find the reviewer that you can agree with.



Around the Network

I care a lot more about the scores than I do the personal reviews, as I'm not interested in other people's subjective experiences or opinions. That's why I prefer when reviewers at least try to adhere to some universal system of grading. I only want to know if the game is worth playing and how badly should I want to play it. Anything else I can judge for myself.

If I ever want more info I can just watch ACG's video reviews, as he has a very good formula for breaking down games and only giving the relevant details. But I barely ever read or watch game reviews now, not counting Digital Foundary.

That's my thoughts on reviews. When it comes to actually choosing the games I play, I trust word-of-mouth and my own interests more.



Pemalite said:

I usually don't even look at reviews anymore.
I just buy it, if the game is bad, shelve it and play something else.

The main issue is, my personal taste is not always going to align to the reviewers.. Some of my favorite games of all time were very average titles... Sure those games had flaws, but I still sunk a ton of hours into them.

Same. I've enjoyed a lot of supposedly middling games (from critics) and not rated some highly praised ones. Review scores are always subjective to ones opinions at the end of the day. While reviews are some ways an indication of games quality; some games for example like GTA Remaster/Cyberpunk on consoles get down-scored for horrible bugs and performance - and rightfully so.

As for fans of said companies who crutch onto scores from their favourite multi billion dollar corporations. I don't see much harm in them. Let them be. While I largely don't agree when certain fangroups who push the narrative that scores = better games/system nor do I care what scores what vs another in pointless debates over system wars. They can be make for interesting if not entertaining reads.

Personally I generally just look at publishers/devs previous games before making my purchasing decisions.



console warriors and console wars are bad ...unless i need to spice things up to get some views ya know, some bait here and there, upsetting some people , then more views.

THEN i can make another video, calling all them out and pretending i didnt want it in the first place.



 

Pemalite said:

I usually don't even look at reviews anymore.
I just buy it, if the game is bad, shelve it and play something else.

The main issue is, my personal taste is not always going to align to the reviewers.. Some of my favorite games of all time were very average titles... Sure those games had flaws, but I still sunk a ton of hours into them.

The vast majority of my favorites are 80s-tier games according to Metacritic. A lot of the 90s-tier stuff bores me. A lot of games I like are 70s, even a couple of 60s. I honestly stopped caring much about Metacritic after what happened to Obsidian with Fallout: New Vegas, which I absolutely loved. Most people would probably say my tastes in games suck. Oh, well.

I think part of the problem with aggregate scores is that we've been conditioned from our years in school. 70 is supposed to be a C (75 in some scales), which is "average". In reality, my mother would start chewing me out and restricting my gaming privileges if my grades dropped below a B. When I was in nursing school, you had to have a minimum 72 (C-) to pass. There was no "D." If you made a 71, you failed.  So we're conditioned to see 70s as borderline failing grades. And when letter scores are involved, Metacritic tends to weigh a B as 75, a C as 50, a D as 25, and F as zero. At least they did the last time I saw one of those. And one less than stellar grade from some hole-in-the-wall site that barely has enough recognition to be captured by MC can sink a game's aggregate. 

7.8 out of 10, too much water.



Around the Network
SanAndreasX said:
Pemalite said:

I usually don't even look at reviews anymore.
I just buy it, if the game is bad, shelve it and play something else.

The main issue is, my personal taste is not always going to align to the reviewers.. Some of my favorite games of all time were very average titles... Sure those games had flaws, but I still sunk a ton of hours into them.

The vast majority of my favorites are 80s-tier games according to Metacritic. A lot of the 90s-tier stuff bores me. A lot of games I like are 70s, even a couple of 60s. I honestly stopped caring much about Metacritic after what happened to Obsidian with Fallout: New Vegas, which I absolutely loved. Most people would probably say my tastes in games suck. Oh, well.

I think part of the problem with aggregate scores is that we've been conditioned from our years in school. 70 is supposed to be a C (75 in some scales), which is "average". In reality, my mother would start chewing me out and restricting my gaming privileges if my grades dropped below a B. When I was in nursing school, you had to have a minimum 72 (C-) to pass. There was no "D." If you made a 71, you failed.  So we're conditioned to see 70s as borderline failing grades. And when letter scores are involved, Metacritic tends to weigh a B as 75, a C as 50, a D as 25, and F as zero. At least they did the last time I saw one of those. And one less than stellar grade from some hole-in-the-wall site that barely has enough recognition to be captured by MC can sink a game's aggregate. 

7.8 out of 10, too much water.

When I was young/er. My schools actually didn't have pass or fail grades.
Ended up leaving school after I finished year 9 anyway and went straight into college level education... High School wasn't for me.

But you are right, it seems around the 70's mark is seen as a bombed game... Yet something like Vietcong in the early 2000's scored in the low 70s and I had an absolute blast with it.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

The foolishness of agregating a mass of subjective opinions and thinking you can objectively score those experience on any scale is what let me to not care for scores nowadays.
Not just that, I think a phenomenon based on hype, FOMO and score inflation has led the gaming landscape to overly judged these games based on their scores while forgetting what a subjective experience it ultimately is. This perception has also claimed the 70's range of games which by all mean receive generally positive reviews, yet seen nowadays as trash because a subset of gamer too fixated on score said so and only wants to validate high 80's and 90's and such.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Reviews should just ditch scores and use a verdict system consisting of Bad/Average/Good, this would also put more focus on the review content and make clickbait harder.



Wyrdness said:

Reviews should just ditch scores and use a verdict system consisting of Bad/Average/Good, this would also put more focus on the review content and make clickbait harder.

See, that's great and dandy for some, but others, like myself, want the opposite. Written reviews take all the surprise out of the game for me. Just give me a score and nothing else, then aggregate the scores. Anything 70+ meta or open is worth a shot to me if it looks intriguing, anything below is most likely a pass unless it really captivates me by a trailer or marketing. Simple, easy, and is spoiler free.

I don't mind written reviews existing, but they need to have a score, out of a 100, to matter to me. None of this /5 or /10 nonsense either. An 81 is a massive difference from an 89. An 84 is a noticable difference from an 87. Websites need to stop being lazy and do all reviews out of 100 if they want to matter to a gamer like me.



My issue with the 2nd half of your video is how confused it is regarding "opinion." Even after bringing up Google's common definition, you don't seem to internalize the "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" part of it. Considering that malleability, you should've examined other definition sources to get a better grasp on what that entails. Because this argument of divorcing "opinion" and "factual analysis" as much possible has some big potholes.

Last edited by coolbeans - on 13 March 2022