binary solo said: One broken element about it is the way it is scored by most sites: where a game is broken down into component parts each part getting a score then those scores being averaged. It is an attempt at objectivity when reviews are inherently subjective. No other entertinment reviewing system employs reductionist scoring. Some review sites are eliminting the reductionist method and either giving one score for the review, or doing reductionist scoring but giving an overall score which is not simply an average of the component scores. I think VGC should get rid of reductionist scoring, or at least not base the overall scoree of a game in the average of the 3 scoring elements. To prevent people from complaining that the overall score doesn't match the component score averages I think the reductionist scores should be on the ABC scale (with no such thing as greater than A+), and the final score be /10 or /100. The other problem with reductionists scoring is that it tends to overemphasise negligible differences between games. Is there really a difference between a 9.5 and 9.6 game? No there isn't, but the people who prefer the game that got the 9.6 and don't like the game that got the 9.5 will make a big deal over that 0.1 difference. Games scored on a 1-10 scale should have 0.5 point graduations and nothing more fine than that. If a reviewer with their own assessment system arrives at a X.2 or X.7 result they should use their own personal opinion about whether to move the score up or down. No such thing as automatically rounding up or down. even a game that rates 8.1 on the reviewers own system could put it up to 8.5 basically because they definitely think it's better than the 8.0 games they've reviewed and it sits better in their personal pool of 8.5 games. Or an 8.9 game definitely doesn't warrant 9.0 in the reviewers OPINION so it gets knocked back to 8.5. I think one of the issues with game review scoring is that I am happy to pay $15 (NZD) to see a 3-star movie (6/10) at the cinema if it's a type of movie I like, and I'll watch crappy 1-star movies for free if I've got nothing better to do. But if I have to spend $50 or worse $100 on a game, or rent it multiple times in order to finish it then it's really only the 8+ and in many cases the 9+ games that are going to justify taking a risk with that sort of money. PSN/XBL/WiiWare games that are only $10-$15 are worth getting even if only scoring 6-7/10 if they are in the right genre. Because the amount paid is comparable to the level of enjoyment. Another comparison is: Movies that review badly can be box office smashes. Like Transformers 2. It got panned by reviewers yet it is one of the biggest grossing movies of all time in the USA. How many games that received low reviews have really high sales? None I'd wager, at least not within the last 10 years. The fact is much much moreso than any other forms of mass market entertainment, review scores = sales potential for games. About the only other entertaiment where reviews = life or death for the production is in live theatre. With that kind of pressure it is only natural that the gaming industry will be gunning for ever higher review scores. Same as live theatre where producers are absolutely desperate for glowing reviews from the most respected reviewers.

Ahem, our review scores are not an average of the three component scores actually. The only rule is that the overall has to fall within the range of those scores.

Strategyking92 said: I believe a reviewing system should be as such: Buy Rent Fans Only Avoid. It covers everything in the video game genre. With only 5 words you can sum up every score in the history of reviewing video games. edit: and this way people couldn't bitch about .5 points off of a certain version because it would literally mean nothing in the categorization. This would also more often than naught remove any slight bias tward a late port.

Spill.com uses the following rating system:

* Better than Sex

* Full price

* Matinee

* Rental

* Some old BS

* FU (when it is beyond insulting)

 

So for videogames, you probably can go:
* Pre-Order

* Midnight pick up

* Day one purchase

* Price drop

* Budget bin

* Rental Only

* Avoid

 

I leave others to tweak this.  Also separate fans of genre vs not.

twesterm said: sc94597 said: My main problem with the review system is the 7-10 scale opposed to the 1-10 scale. I've noticed that every game that is "worth getting" is from 7-10 and everything else goes somewhere under that. Because of this way of going about things, there is only like 3 areas you can go in. 7-7.9 8-8.9 and 9-10. So things start to get clumped together and games I would rate a 9 are in the same category as games I wouldn't and vice-versa. The games aren't actually rated from 1-10. The "7-10" system isn't a bad thing though because a 7-10 should be a good game while things below it just get progressively worse. That's the way things should be. The problem is though, now, if it isn't an 8 it's terrible and if it isn't a 9 it isn't good.  I've actually seen people say they only play 8.5+ games like anything below that is terrible.  That shit is just ridiculous. I don't remember this being a huge problem last gen, only when Metacritic and Gamerankings became big.  Of course publishers have always done all they can to get the highest scores, but this gen, I don't know, it just seems so much worse.

They should try to do that by making the best damn game they can possibly make

Reviews are not about fully own opinion.Even me, who really don't care at all about LittleBigPlanet,but after playing it trough, I would need to give it at least 9 since its so well done.Reviewers don't think like users.Thats why I really don't like about Vgchartz reviews (and hell they are soo long)

But should we complain that great games get great scores?This year has been all about high scores (at least for Ps3 users).Dragon age,Call of duty and Uncharted 2 are god dam great games.But ye I felt uncharted to be more 90 game than 100,but many reviewers gave it 100/100.

Its just after you get your hands in 5 90+ titles, you want more those, and don't satisfy with just 70-80 titles.Only -70 title I have is Dynasty Warriors 6 which I just love.But I can cleary see it faults.I don't see review system broken.

I think this effects mostly Wii users.
Maybe they just haven't had enough 90+ titles?Or maybe they enjoy games like Wii fit which has around 70 metacritic and want it to be in 90+?

1) The average should be 5, I don't believe it is
2) Bribery should be illegal under national laws. Reviewers should be offered the chance to purchase games early, but should not be given them. Nor should they be given anything else by the developer, whether it be cash, the console to play the game on or whatever
3) I don't believe there is bias against console, but there is bias against certain genres. 99% of reviewers do not understand that you have to write a review based on the assumption that your reader is considering buying the game, and thus likes the genre. I've seen a football manager sim get points taken off because you couldn't actually play any football. Games should be reviewed based on how much their target audience would enjoy them, not based on how much the reviewer liked it

scottie said: 1) The average should be 5, I don't believe it is 2) Bribery should be illegal under national laws. Reviewers should be offered the chance to purchase games early, but should not be given them. Nor should they be given anything else by the developer, whether it be cash, the console to play the game on or whatever 3) I don't believe there is bias against console, but there is bias against certain genres. 99% of reviewers do not understand that you have to write a review based on the assumption that your reader is considering buying the game, and thus likes the genre. I've seen a football manager sim get points taken off because you couldn't actually play any football. Games should be reviewed based on how much their target audience would enjoy them, not based on how much the reviewer liked it

1. No

2. You have no proof of bribery, just think it exist because games you like doesnt get the score games you dont ike get.

3. The point of a review is not to please you or the audience but to state if the game is good or not.

 

 

I say this time and time again: Metcritic and Reviewers need to disappear because ppl dont understand wat they mean and how to use...especially this gen where these numbers control ppl like sheep...somebody tell me difference between a 8.9 and 9( remember 9 up means AAA)..ppl cant make decisions for themselves

scottie said: 1) The average should be 5, I don't believe it is

Why do people keep saying that?  We aren't talking statistical averages, we're talking more of a school average.

Making a 5 the average would make things even more confusing for that very reason.

Oh and wonder how many actually reads whole review and won't just chek score.

psrock said: scottie said: 1) The average should be 5, I don't believe it is 2) Bribery should be illegal under national laws. Reviewers should be offered the chance to purchase games early, but should not be given them. Nor should they be given anything else by the developer, whether it be cash, the console to play the game on or whatever 3) I don't believe there is bias against console, but there is bias against certain genres. 99% of reviewers do not understand that you have to write a review based on the assumption that your reader is considering buying the game, and thus likes the genre. I've seen a football manager sim get points taken off because you couldn't actually play any football. Games should be reviewed based on how much their target audience would enjoy them, not based on how much the reviewer liked it 1. No 2. You have no proof of bribery, just think it exist because games you like doesnt get the score games you dont ike get. 3. The point of a review is not to please you or the audience but to state if the game is good or not.

1) That was the least important of my points so I'm not gonna argue it much, don't know why I put it as number 1. But it seems odd that the average reviews for movies and music are so much lower than for video games...

 

2) I have no proof? It is industry standard to provide a review copy of a game for free to reviewers. As for giving money, I have no proof, but it is not a crime, which is appaling. Giving consoles away to reviewers happens, Penny arcade get quite a few consoles gifted to them

 

3) That is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Movie and music reviewers accept that they are part of a service industry. They tell us if a certain movie or song will be liked by a particular group of people. In exchange, we pay with page views. Video game reviewers see themselves as the sole arbiters of truth and quality. How can a review (subjective) tell you if a game is good (objective)?