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

Forums - Gaming - Review Inflation

Kenryoku_Maxis on 04 November 2009
Slimebeast said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:

In this thread axumblade breaks the myth about inflated review scores:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91272

axumblade said:
routsounmanman said:
Too many 90+ this gen...

Actually....Looking at metacritic (i know right...)

Gamecube had 26  games at 90 or above, while the Wii only has 9. Xbox had 32 games at 90 or above whereas the 360 has only 24. And of course the 63 PS2 games that were 90 or above tramples the 15 for the PS3.

Last generation had 121 games at 90 or above. We have still only 48 games this generation at 90 or above. So in order for it to reach that number from last generation 73 more games need to hit 90 over the next few years.

 

I do want to mention that, at least in my view, the 'inflation of review scores' started halfway through last gen.  And most of the inflated scores came near the end of last gen.

Ignoring that completely however, we're not even done with this generation.  And a lot of what could be keeping that score down is there's simply no console this gen that is a 'PS2'.  No one console is going to generate so much attention that its going to garner so much uniform positive attention (aka positive bias) from reviewers.  Instead, reviewers are having to often review the same game on two different consoles (360/PS3) and then have a whole different rating system for Wii games.

In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores.  That's like saying judges at figure skating contests don't lower certain contestants scores simply because they add up all the scores at the end to make an avg.

What's a better method then to prove rather than just speculate?

I don't follow.  Isn't everything based on perception?  Including review scores themselves?



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 04 November 2009
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:

In this thread axumblade breaks the myth about inflated review scores:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91272

axumblade said:
routsounmanman said:
Too many 90+ this gen...

Actually....Looking at metacritic (i know right...)

Gamecube had 26  games at 90 or above, while the Wii only has 9. Xbox had 32 games at 90 or above whereas the 360 has only 24. And of course the 63 PS2 games that were 90 or above tramples the 15 for the PS3.

Last generation had 121 games at 90 or above. We have still only 48 games this generation at 90 or above. So in order for it to reach that number from last generation 73 more games need to hit 90 over the next few years.

 

I do want to mention that, at least in my view, the 'inflation of review scores' started halfway through last gen.  And most of the inflated scores came near the end of last gen.

Ignoring that completely however, we're not even done with this generation.  And a lot of what could be keeping that score down is there's simply no console this gen that is a 'PS2'.  No one console is going to generate so much attention that its going to garner so much uniform positive attention (aka positive bias) from reviewers.  Instead, reviewers are having to often review the same game on two different consoles (360/PS3) and then have a whole different rating system for Wii games.

In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores.  That's like saying judges at figure skating contests don't lower certain contestants scores simply because they add up all the scores at the end to make an avg.

What's a better method then to prove rather than just speculate?

I don't follow.  Isn't everything based on perception?  Including review scores themselves?

U said: "In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores"

So I ask: whats a better method then to analyze wether scores have been inflated or not?



Kasz216 on 04 November 2009
Slimebeast said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:

In this thread axumblade breaks the myth about inflated review scores:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91272

axumblade said:
routsounmanman said:
Too many 90+ this gen...

Actually....Looking at metacritic (i know right...)

Gamecube had 26  games at 90 or above, while the Wii only has 9. Xbox had 32 games at 90 or above whereas the 360 has only 24. And of course the 63 PS2 games that were 90 or above tramples the 15 for the PS3.

Last generation had 121 games at 90 or above. We have still only 48 games this generation at 90 or above. So in order for it to reach that number from last generation 73 more games need to hit 90 over the next few years.

 

I do want to mention that, at least in my view, the 'inflation of review scores' started halfway through last gen.  And most of the inflated scores came near the end of last gen.

Ignoring that completely however, we're not even done with this generation.  And a lot of what could be keeping that score down is there's simply no console this gen that is a 'PS2'.  No one console is going to generate so much attention that its going to garner so much uniform positive attention (aka positive bias) from reviewers.  Instead, reviewers are having to often review the same game on two different consoles (360/PS3) and then have a whole different rating system for Wii games.

In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores.  That's like saying judges at figure skating contests don't lower certain contestants scores simply because they add up all the scores at the end to make an avg.

What's a better method then to prove rather than just speculate?

There are a few problems with your analysis.

The Largest? The Wii is generally looked down opon.  So the Wii would be a huge confoudning variable.

For example

Taking like vs like

PS3 vs Xbox.

21 VS 24 with the generation like... half over.


360 vs Gamecube

27 VS 20

 

There is a huge INLFATION in HD scores, but a DEFLATION in Wii scores.

48 vs 44 for generation TOTAL when combining 2nd and third place systems, even though this generation is only about halfway over.

When taking in consideriation "Like" games and like console sales and like production... there is a profound inflation that's nearly double.



Kenryoku_Maxis on 04 November 2009
Slimebeast said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:

In this thread axumblade breaks the myth about inflated review scores:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91272

axumblade said:
routsounmanman said:
Too many 90+ this gen...

Actually....Looking at metacritic (i know right...)

Gamecube had 26  games at 90 or above, while the Wii only has 9. Xbox had 32 games at 90 or above whereas the 360 has only 24. And of course the 63 PS2 games that were 90 or above tramples the 15 for the PS3.

Last generation had 121 games at 90 or above. We have still only 48 games this generation at 90 or above. So in order for it to reach that number from last generation 73 more games need to hit 90 over the next few years.

 

I do want to mention that, at least in my view, the 'inflation of review scores' started halfway through last gen.  And most of the inflated scores came near the end of last gen.

Ignoring that completely however, we're not even done with this generation.  And a lot of what could be keeping that score down is there's simply no console this gen that is a 'PS2'.  No one console is going to generate so much attention that its going to garner so much uniform positive attention (aka positive bias) from reviewers.  Instead, reviewers are having to often review the same game on two different consoles (360/PS3) and then have a whole different rating system for Wii games.

In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores.  That's like saying judges at figure skating contests don't lower certain contestants scores simply because they add up all the scores at the end to make an avg.

What's a better method then to prove rather than just speculate?

I don't follow.  Isn't everything based on perception?  Including review scores themselves?

U said: "In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores"

So I ask: whats a better method then to analyze wether scores have been inflated or not?

Like Kasz216 said, there's no real way to analyze it, since scores for Nintendo games are generally downscored (unless they're major releases from Nintendo like Mario or Metroid) and popular games for the other systems are inflated.

And like I was trying to say, its just your opinion from then on whether or not reviewers are inflating a perticular consoles scores (or lowering the Wiis scores).  Many people think they are right on track, while others think reviewers are trying to inflate/lower scores on purpose.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Xoj on 04 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
Slimebeast said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Slimebeast said:

In this thread axumblade breaks the myth about inflated review scores:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91272

axumblade said:
routsounmanman said:
Too many 90+ this gen...

Actually....Looking at metacritic (i know right...)

Gamecube had 26  games at 90 or above, while the Wii only has 9. Xbox had 32 games at 90 or above whereas the 360 has only 24. And of course the 63 PS2 games that were 90 or above tramples the 15 for the PS3.

Last generation had 121 games at 90 or above. We have still only 48 games this generation at 90 or above. So in order for it to reach that number from last generation 73 more games need to hit 90 over the next few years.

 

I do want to mention that, at least in my view, the 'inflation of review scores' started halfway through last gen.  And most of the inflated scores came near the end of last gen.

Ignoring that completely however, we're not even done with this generation.  And a lot of what could be keeping that score down is there's simply no console this gen that is a 'PS2'.  No one console is going to generate so much attention that its going to garner so much uniform positive attention (aka positive bias) from reviewers.  Instead, reviewers are having to often review the same game on two different consoles (360/PS3) and then have a whole different rating system for Wii games.

In any event, I don't think just adding up all the totals of review scores disproves their inflation of scores.  That's like saying judges at figure skating contests don't lower certain contestants scores simply because they add up all the scores at the end to make an avg.

What's a better method then to prove rather than just speculate?

There are a few problems with your analysis.

The Largest? The Wii is generally looked down opon.  So the Wii would be a huge confoudning variable.

For example

Taking like vs like

PS3 vs Xbox.

21 VS 24 with the generation like... half over.


360 vs Gamecube

27 VS 20

 

There is a huge INLFATION in HD scores, but a DEFLATION in Wii scores.

48 vs 44 for generation TOTAL when combining 2nd and third place systems, even though this generation is only about halfway over.

When taking in consideriation "Like" games and like console sales and like production... there is a profound inflation that's nearly double.

wii got tons of shovelware thats what hurting it scores, while good games get nice reviews those bring the score down, and wii games points like graphics, features are set lower so they are not grade like HD twins.

if they were grade the same wii would be much lower, sometimes the wii it's even treated as a the special kid, with those thing overlooked. Graphics == Art style.



Around the Network
bugrimmar on 05 November 2009
forest-spirit said:
@bugrimmar
Vive la revolution?

Hell yea baby.. down with the system!



Zucas on 05 November 2009

It's the corruption of the reviewing system. On a 0-10 scale there is a very specific way you have to review. Meaning the way you rate a game MUST, and I can't stress that part enough, be representative of the sentiments. Meaning an average game should and must always be rated a 5... not a 7 not an 8 not an anything else. Because average games are being rated 6s and 7s instead of 5s we are left with less moderately bad games and more above average games. Plays on the extremes now with either bad games being really terrible or good games being rated as really good.

The other problem is that we are still reviewing games on an industry as a whole merit. Meaning considering how well it fits either in the genre, the library, the series, etc. Because the majority of the review is not based the actual game itself a game can be viewed as better or worse because of it.

Finally, perception is a key problem as well. Publishers recognize that seeing as being average isn't a good thing. But if they can make an average score mean a 7 (or sometimes even an 8) then average doesn't appear all that bad. And because we have BOUGHT into this marketing trick and corruption of the system we agree with them. Perceptions need to change first meaning we need to stop considering games that get rated a 5 as inherently bad because it should mean the game is average... as that is the definition of average (a mean between good and bad qualities).

Obviously it's not hard to tell this is going on. Reviewers have naturally corrupted the system over the time where we get to this generation where anything under an 8 is not even considered a great game and anything under a 7 is considered bad.


I could go into more detail but I'd need to do a lot of research to figure all that out haha. But this is definitely one of the reasons why i have little faith in the current critical reviews in the mainstream and one of the reasons why I can't assert metacritic as a definite authority in gaming quality. They might be unbiased in giving the average of scores but if the average of scores is on a corrupted system then that ceases to matter. I guess there's nothing I can really do about it and complaining won't get me much of anywhere but it is something I have quite an issue with. Thus generally I only read a few reviews for most games from only a few sites and leave it at that.