This is still the site that gave Noby Noby Boy a 9/10

And this is why it is stupid:

METASCORE RANGES

____________ Score Movies, Books & Music_____________ Games
Universal Acclaim____________81-100_______________90-100
Generally Favorable Reviews___61-80________________75-89
Mixed or Average Reviews_____40-60________________ 50-74
Generally Unfavorable Reviews__20-39_______________ 20-49
Overwhelming Dislike__________ 0-19________________ 0-19

The reason for this special treatment for games has to do with the games publications themselves. Virtually all of the publications we use as sources for game reviews (a) assign scores on a 0-100 scale (or equivalent) to their reviews, and (b) are very explicit about what those scores mean. And these publications are almost unanimous in indicating that scores below 50 indicate a negative review, while it usually takes a score in the upper 70s or higher to indicate that the game is unequivocally good. This is markedly different from film or music, where a score of, say, 3 stars out of 5 (which translates to a 60 out of 100 on our site) can still indicate that a movie is worth seeing or a CD is worth buying. Thus, we had to adjust our color-coding for games to account for the different meaning of games scores compared to scores for music and film.

You see, according to metacritic, most game sites consider from 50-74 average. Eurogamer seems to be using a film review scale instead of a gaming one, and I'm sure that works out for most of the other low reviews.

@ theprof00

There is of course a problem with that, else people wouldn't be complaining about all the perfect scores being handed out. And the reason metacritic does that, is because they follow the norm of most game reviewers, but if everyone just does that, how are we going to change it for the better?

I think it's stupid that the scoring system is so inflated, because it becomes harder to distinguish good games from worse games, and I think it's great that someone are at least trying to go in the direction of the other review systems.

*Looks at Halo 3 score on EuroGamer...*
Then...
*Looks at MGS4 score on EuroGamer...*

*Refuses to take EuroGamer seriously ever again*

@rainbird

metacritic has an obligation to their mission statement to follow the scores as they are listed on that chart. Some sites, like Eurogamer, do not follow the norm. It isn't Eurogamer's fault that metacritic has its head up its ass, but it is strange.

To expound on that, Eurogamer is influencing some people not to buy, because we are all used to 70 being an average, not 50. To me, this actually feels gimmicky, as is when people give other things besides the 100 point range, like grades or stars. IT begs the question, are they really concerned about giving the readers sound advice, or are they more concerned about being different?

The "broken" part about reviews in comparison with movies and books is that, book movies and the like don't cost $60. (well, some books do) Because people are more cautious with 60$ than 10$, most buyers will only pay attention to ~80+ scores. Sites like Eurogamer undermine this system. Not only that but they also use a 10 scale which is proven ridiculous time and time again.

@ theprof00

Again, if nobody does anything to change it, it will remain broken. And why is the 10 scale ridiculous, when an 8.8-rated game is better than an 8.6-rated game? Wouldn't it be better for the consumer, if it was easier to see which titles were better than others, and have the current numbers used spread out over a bigger range, instead of just 70-100?

I would much rather that more review sites did like Eurogamer, and used the entire 10 scale, compared to how things are today, where there isn't room to expand at the top. No game will ever be perfect, and we certainly shouldn't ever be able to find a game so close to perfection as say, GTA4 is (according to reviews).

I've heard Giant Bomb.

Whilst I have to applaud any review site that has its reviews normally distributed around 5/10, I still can't like Eurogamer. They just have such radically different taste to me that I can never learn anything from reading their reviews

This is the reason why 10 scale is bad:

Killzone2 got a 9, and so did Nobynoby boy. Which one do I buy?

It's not about it being broken, it's the psychology of the reader that is at fault, and that will never change. I thought I explained that. NOBODY is going to buy a game that's been judged over the entire 100 point scale ie: bad games are 10, mediocre games are 40-60 and good games are 70+.

Nobody will buy those sub 70 games. nobody. It's unfair to the manufacturers because those games will be good for some people, but because of the psychology involved in the score, nobody would want to buy.

sega
we never complained about giant bomb because it was well within the average. I posted the other day that the average review was 89 with a 8 point or so standard deviation. all normal scores would have fallen within 81-97. 100 was just slightly out of the first deviation, just like all the 80's scores. 70 and 60 and way way beyond normal distribution and explains that there is something else affecting the score. ie: The average for some sites is 50, not the standard 70.

This is not the cause of why we are complaining, but it illustrates why we have a problem with it from a scientific standpoint.