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

Forums - Website Topics - Would you be upset if VGChartz altered old review scores?

 

Would you be upset if VGChartz altered old review scores?

Yes 30 26.79%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Depends 23 20.54%
 
I don't even read em' 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
Zucas said:
naznatips said:
Zucas said:
Haha of course not. I wish so called "professional" reviewers would change scores if they thought something was done improperly. The most important thing about a review is to inform the consumer about the product as accurately as possible. If that's not being done then it needs to be fixed to make sure the right message is being sent out.

I really do think that people who think others lose credibility because they are willing to admit they are wrong need a reality check. Those who are willing to admit they are wrong and didn't get it right the first time and willing to change for the sake of being more accurate are people who should be held to the highest respect. Maybe if politicians in my country could do something like that we'd live in a better world. Maybe if people in general could do it haha.

That makes no sense. Adjusting scores isn't the same as admitting you're wrong. We have editing for that. Reviews cannot possibly please everyone who reads them, so they just need to be accurate and well-justified. If there is inaccurate information in a review I will absolutely make sure that it's corrected, but it matching your opinion does not make it right or wrong. What makes it right or wrong is if it's well-justified for the score it does give the game, complete, and accurate. 

But, if anything by telling people they are "wrong" anytime you don't agree with their score of a game you are showing your own arrogance, not theirs. 

Oh that's a cop out.  If you are doing your job correctly a written review and the score it represents are one in the same thing.  Therefore if you admit you were wrong in a review you wrote, then your score is wrong too.  Reviews aren't technical papers, they are personal opinion.  Justification, while based off the features, is still personal in the conclusion you come to (why some people like certain genres or not).  So no having the "ballz" to admit you are wrong and change it thereof isn't a sign of arrogance.  Thinking that what you are writing is technical and the word of the almighty lord is the biggest load of arrogance ever.  Reviewers, therefore, should have absolutely no issue changing a review score if they felt they reviewed improperly BASED on their own opinions because that is all it ever was to begin with.

 

Where did anyone say they were wrong in a review they wrote? All Tor said was he feels differently about a game later. That's not the same as the review being wrong, it's just someone's opinion of a game changing.

Reviews are analysis. They are personal analysis but they are analysis nonetheless, and there are aspects of those analyses that are undeniable fact. That's not the same thing as opinion. You need to find yourself a dictionary. An analysis is not, by default, an absolute truth it's a breaking down of and description of the concepts of the whole. Absolutely people disagree with analysis, but just like literary analysis, it's not a random opinion statement (like you seem to have way too much of), but an actual determination based on visceral factors. 

We have editing to try and make sure games get reviewed fairly. It's absolutely true that every person is different, and their analysis of a game is effected by personal factors, but you cannot call it the same thing as just a stated opinion. There are clearly definable factors that lead to the conclusions established in a review, whether you agree with the conclusion itself or not is immaterial.

What's important is that the game was reviewed fairly, completely, gives all pertinent information about the game to the reader, and makes a well-justified conclusion about the general quality of the game. There are multiple correct analyses of any work of literature, media, or entertainment in general. There are no absolutes in analysis, but there are fair and traceable factors into determining and our reviews absolutely use them. 

Changing such a thing because some whiny forum member who happened to feel differently of the game than the conclusion of the review suggested thinks xxxx should have been scored higher or lower and yelled it out in all caps and 4 words is ludicrous. 



Around the Network

I wouldn't really mind, as I generally don't care about reviews, but it would still be kind of strange. Why would you change them? Yuo review games when they come out, and usually, once they're out, people's opinion's on them changes. If you start changing scores, there'd be no end in sight. You'd have to constantly keep changing/updating scores, 'cos people's opinions and perceptions of quality would change over time.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

naznatips said:
Zucas said:
naznatips said:
Zucas said:
Haha of course not. I wish so called "professional" reviewers would change scores if they thought something was done improperly. The most important thing about a review is to inform the consumer about the product as accurately as possible. If that's not being done then it needs to be fixed to make sure the right message is being sent out.

I really do think that people who think others lose credibility because they are willing to admit they are wrong need a reality check. Those who are willing to admit they are wrong and didn't get it right the first time and willing to change for the sake of being more accurate are people who should be held to the highest respect. Maybe if politicians in my country could do something like that we'd live in a better world. Maybe if people in general could do it haha.

That makes no sense. Adjusting scores isn't the same as admitting you're wrong. We have editing for that. Reviews cannot possibly please everyone who reads them, so they just need to be accurate and well-justified. If there is inaccurate information in a review I will absolutely make sure that it's corrected, but it matching your opinion does not make it right or wrong. What makes it right or wrong is if it's well-justified for the score it does give the game, complete, and accurate. 

But, if anything by telling people they are "wrong" anytime you don't agree with their score of a game you are showing your own arrogance, not theirs. 

Oh that's a cop out.  If you are doing your job correctly a written review and the score it represents are one in the same thing.  Therefore if you admit you were wrong in a review you wrote, then your score is wrong too.  Reviews aren't technical papers, they are personal opinion.  Justification, while based off the features, is still personal in the conclusion you come to (why some people like certain genres or not).  So no having the "ballz" to admit you are wrong and change it thereof isn't a sign of arrogance.  Thinking that what you are writing is technical and the word of the almighty lord is the biggest load of arrogance ever.  Reviewers, therefore, should have absolutely no issue changing a review score if they felt they reviewed improperly BASED on their own opinions because that is all it ever was to begin with.

 

Where did anyone say they were wrong in a review they wrote? All Tor said was he feels differently about a game later. That's not the same as the review being wrong, it's just someone's opinion of a game changing.

Reviews are analysis. They are personal analysis but they are analysis nonetheless, and there are aspects of those analyses that are undeniable fact. That's not the same thing as opinion. You need to find yourself a dictionary. An analysis is not, by default, an absolute truth it's a breaking down of and description of the concepts of the whole. Absolutely people disagree with analysis, but just like literary analysis, it's not a random opinion statement (like you seem to have way too much of), but an actual determination based on visceral factors. 

We have editing to try and make sure games get reviewed fairly. It's absolutely true that every person is different, and their analysis of a game is effected by personal factors, but you cannot call it the same thing as just a stated opinion. There are clearly definable factors that lead to the conclusions established in a review, whether you agree with the conclusion itself or not is immaterial.

What's important is that the game was reviewed fairly, completely, gives all pertinent information about the game to the reader, and makes a well-justified conclusion about the general quality of the game. There are multiple correct analyses of any work of literature, media, or entertainment in general. There are no absolutes in analysis, but there are fair and traceable factors into determining and our reviews absolutely use them. 

Changing such a thing because some whiny forum member who happened to feel differently of the game than the conclusion of the review suggested thinks xxxx should have been scored higher or lower and yelled it out in all caps and 4 words is ludicrous. 

Is something wrong naznatips? Your past several posts in this thread come off as pretty hostile, especially with your use of adjectives.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

SaviorX said:

Is something wrong naznatips? Your past several posts in this thread come off as pretty hostile, especially with your use of adjectives.

Adjectives are fun. 



naznatips said:
Gilgamesh said:

Of course not

In the VG Chartz team forum there is just a few people that usually goes over the reviews that someone writes up and could mean the score may be still to low or to high, but when you get the opinion of a hundred people replying to the review and everyone is saying it should be higher or lower then maybe the score should be change to satisfy what the VG Chartz members thinks instead of what the people that wrote up and approved the review think (As long as the members have good enough reasons to drop or raise the score).

Sinse the review IS technically the websites (VG chartz) review and score, not just one persons opinion. When you see a review on Metacritic it wont say the review came from Torillian or Machina it's going to say VG Chartz reviews.

That's the way I see it.

Reviews are not, nor should they ever be, determined by the popular opinion. They are a professional analysis of a game. Obviously people will not always agree with that analysis, but a review should always be an analysis whether you agree with it or not. Some people will, some will not. 

Thankfully for this site you have absolutely no say at all about how I run the reviews.

And that's perfectly fine, everyones doing a great job with making reviews, I know I doubt I'd ever be able to write up a review so I respect everyone that does it and the amount of effort they put into it. I understand that reviews are not public opinion and pretty well all websites are the same, but it would be nice. Like I said as long as the public has a good enough reason for needing to lower or raise the score.

Just for special occasions it would be nice to adjust the score, if you have a few hundred people replying and disagreeing with what the reviewer said (and the public had a really good reason why) then there must be something wrong, no? It's not like every review you have the majority of people disagreeing with the reviewer, a lot of the times they'll be praised with the good work that they done.

(Not saying all reviews would need this but maybe 1 of every 100).

I understand what your getting at though, if VG Chartz was accepted into Metacritic or Gamerankings it wouldn't look very proffesional of us if we were changing our scores. So whatevers best for the website.



Around the Network
Ari_Gold said:
not rlly, wii exclusives have been greatly overrated

THANK YOU, and AMEN. 



Make games, not war (that goes for ridiculous fanboys)

I may be the next Maelstorm or not, you be the judge http://videogamesgrow.blogspot.com/  hopefully I can be more of an asset than a fanboy to VGC hehe.

psrock said:
There have been just one review that has bothered me and always wish someone else who did not hate the series to begin with had reviewed the game.
God of War: Chains of Olympus

HAHA, totally true and funny enough it's maxwell right? He's the one that recently banned me over something stupid if I'm not mistaken.



Make games, not war (that goes for ridiculous fanboys)

I may be the next Maelstorm or not, you be the judge http://videogamesgrow.blogspot.com/  hopefully I can be more of an asset than a fanboy to VGC hehe.

naznatips said:
Zucas said:
naznatips said:
Zucas said:
Haha of course not. I wish so called "professional" reviewers would change scores if they thought something was done improperly. The most important thing about a review is to inform the consumer about the product as accurately as possible. If that's not being done then it needs to be fixed to make sure the right message is being sent out.

I really do think that people who think others lose credibility because they are willing to admit they are wrong need a reality check. Those who are willing to admit they are wrong and didn't get it right the first time and willing to change for the sake of being more accurate are people who should be held to the highest respect. Maybe if politicians in my country could do something like that we'd live in a better world. Maybe if people in general could do it haha.

That makes no sense. Adjusting scores isn't the same as admitting you're wrong. We have editing for that. Reviews cannot possibly please everyone who reads them, so they just need to be accurate and well-justified. If there is inaccurate information in a review I will absolutely make sure that it's corrected, but it matching your opinion does not make it right or wrong. What makes it right or wrong is if it's well-justified for the score it does give the game, complete, and accurate. 

But, if anything by telling people they are "wrong" anytime you don't agree with their score of a game you are showing your own arrogance, not theirs. 

Oh that's a cop out.  If you are doing your job correctly a written review and the score it represents are one in the same thing.  Therefore if you admit you were wrong in a review you wrote, then your score is wrong too.  Reviews aren't technical papers, they are personal opinion.  Justification, while based off the features, is still personal in the conclusion you come to (why some people like certain genres or not).  So no having the "ballz" to admit you are wrong and change it thereof isn't a sign of arrogance.  Thinking that what you are writing is technical and the word of the almighty lord is the biggest load of arrogance ever.  Reviewers, therefore, should have absolutely no issue changing a review score if they felt they reviewed improperly BASED on their own opinions because that is all it ever was to begin with.

 

Where did anyone say they were wrong in a review they wrote? All Tor said was he feels differently about a game later. That's not the same as the review being wrong, it's just someone's opinion of a game changing.

Reviews are analysis. They are personal analysis but they are analysis nonetheless, and there are aspects of those analyses that are undeniable fact. That's not the same thing as opinion. You need to find yourself a dictionary. An analysis is not, by default, an absolute truth it's a breaking down of and description of the concepts of the whole. Absolutely people disagree with analysis, but just like literary analysis, it's not a random opinion statement (like you seem to have way too much of), but an actual determination based on visceral factors. 

We have editing to try and make sure games get reviewed fairly. It's absolutely true that every person is different, and their analysis of a game is effected by personal factors, but you cannot call it the same thing as just a stated opinion. There are clearly definable factors that lead to the conclusions established in a review, whether you agree with the conclusion itself or not is immaterial.

What's important is that the game was reviewed fairly, completely, gives all pertinent information about the game to the reader, and makes a well-justified conclusion about the general quality of the game. There are multiple correct analyses of any work of literature, media, or entertainment in general. There are no absolutes in analysis, but there are fair and traceable factors into determining and our reviews absolutely use them. 

Changing such a thing because some whiny forum member who happened to feel differently of the game than the conclusion of the review suggested thinks xxxx should have been scored higher or lower and yelled it out in all caps and 4 words is ludicrous. 

Bolded part is all I've been trying to say.  It is their opinion and don't hamper it.  There are analytical parts in every review but the important parts are how the reviewers react to them.  Sometimes people like to call those opinions, btw.  And there is wrongness in opinion if you personally think your opinion is wrong.  Don't need an outside source to rethink and opinion.  That would be quite the false dichotomy to think that. 

Try not to read into an argument to find everything you can't agree with instead of reading for what is actually being said.  Could have helped here.  All I've been trying to say is if the reviewer thinks they are wrong then let them change it.  Don't hamper freedom of speech. 



Zucas said:
naznatips said:

Where did anyone say they were wrong in a review they wrote? All Tor said was he feels differently about a game later. That's not the same as the review being wrong, it's just someone's opinion of a game changing.

Reviews are analysis. They are personal analysis but they are analysis nonetheless, and there are aspects of those analyses that are undeniable fact. That's not the same thing as opinion. You need to find yourself a dictionary. An analysis is not, by default, an absolute truth it's a breaking down of and description of the concepts of the whole. Absolutely people disagree with analysis, but just like literary analysis, it's not a random opinion statement (like you seem to have way too much of), but an actual determination based on visceral factors. 

We have editing to try and make sure games get reviewed fairly. It's absolutely true that every person is different, and their analysis of a game is effected by personal factors, but you cannot call it the same thing as just a stated opinion. There are clearly definable factors that lead to the conclusions established in a review, whether you agree with the conclusion itself or not is immaterial.

What's important is that the game was reviewed fairly, completely, gives all pertinent information about the game to the reader, and makes a well-justified conclusion about the general quality of the game. There are multiple correct analyses of any work of literature, media, or entertainment in general. There are no absolutes in analysis, but there are fair and traceable factors into determining and our reviews absolutely use them. 

Changing such a thing because some whiny forum member who happened to feel differently of the game than the conclusion of the review suggested thinks xxxx should have been scored higher or lower and yelled it out in all caps and 4 words is ludicrous. 

Bolded part is all I've been trying to say.  It is their opinion and don't hamper it.  There are analytical parts in every review but the important parts are how the reviewers react to them.  Sometimes people like to call those opinions, btw.  And there is wrongness in opinion if you personally think your opinion is wrong.  Don't need an outside source to rethink and opinion.  That would be quite the false dichotomy to think that. 

Try not to read into an argument to find everything you can't agree with instead of reading for what is actually being said.  Could have helped here.  All I've been trying to say is if the reviewer thinks they are wrong then let them change it.  Don't hamper freedom of speech. 

If a reviewer thinks they are wrong they need to figure that out before the review goes live, or at least within a few days of it going live. After that a review is part of our archive, and as long as it's factually correct and justified then it's considered our analysis of the game. As I said, there are multiple correct ways to analyze a game. The VGC reviews are just ours. It's not a big deal if you don't completely agree with it. 



naznatips said:
Zucas said:
naznatips said:

Where did anyone say they were wrong in a review they wrote? All Tor said was he feels differently about a game later. That's not the same as the review being wrong, it's just someone's opinion of a game changing.

Reviews are analysis. They are personal analysis but they are analysis nonetheless, and there are aspects of those analyses that are undeniable fact. That's not the same thing as opinion. You need to find yourself a dictionary. An analysis is not, by default, an absolute truth it's a breaking down of and description of the concepts of the whole. Absolutely people disagree with analysis, but just like literary analysis, it's not a random opinion statement (like you seem to have way too much of), but an actual determination based on visceral factors. 

We have editing to try and make sure games get reviewed fairly. It's absolutely true that every person is different, and their analysis of a game is effected by personal factors, but you cannot call it the same thing as just a stated opinion. There are clearly definable factors that lead to the conclusions established in a review, whether you agree with the conclusion itself or not is immaterial.

What's important is that the game was reviewed fairly, completely, gives all pertinent information about the game to the reader, and makes a well-justified conclusion about the general quality of the game. There are multiple correct analyses of any work of literature, media, or entertainment in general. There are no absolutes in analysis, but there are fair and traceable factors into determining and our reviews absolutely use them. 

Changing such a thing because some whiny forum member who happened to feel differently of the game than the conclusion of the review suggested thinks xxxx should have been scored higher or lower and yelled it out in all caps and 4 words is ludicrous. 

Bolded part is all I've been trying to say.  It is their opinion and don't hamper it.  There are analytical parts in every review but the important parts are how the reviewers react to them.  Sometimes people like to call those opinions, btw.  And there is wrongness in opinion if you personally think your opinion is wrong.  Don't need an outside source to rethink and opinion.  That would be quite the false dichotomy to think that. 

Try not to read into an argument to find everything you can't agree with instead of reading for what is actually being said.  Could have helped here.  All I've been trying to say is if the reviewer thinks they are wrong then let them change it.  Don't hamper freedom of speech. 

If a reviewer thinks they are wrong they need to figure that out before the review goes live, or at least within a few days of it going live. After that a review is part of our archive, and as long as it's factually correct and justified then it's considered our analysis of the game. As I said, there are multiple correct ways to analyze a game. The VGC reviews are just ours. It's not a big deal if you don't completely agree with it. 

Well I wish reviewers could do it perfectly the first time.  Hell I wish reviewers actually could accurately comment on the factual quality of a title.  But that's a little to idealist.  I guess I can go along with this though, but I see that as asking way too much from a normal human being. 

But I'm not talking just about VGC, but reviews in general.  Personally I just wish reviewers would spend more time formulating their opinions reasonably.  Guess we have a difference of opinion on actual justification.  I can live with that.