Videogame Reviews - Playing With Numbers? 76
Thanks to NTSC-uk for its editorial discussing the possible confusion in using numbered rating schemes for videogame reviews. The author rhapsodizes: "No number can possibly capture the striking vision of the sun setting over Hyrule Field or the ingenious brilliance of Metal Gear Solid's interactive references to reality", before going on to conclude: "Treated as numbers with a defined value, they will always be looked down upon as having deficiencies. Yet when you read them as you would a word and open it up to your own interpretation, they begin to fully deliver the explanatory potential that is locked within." Do you think numbered ratings have an important place at the end of game reviews?
Of course I think they have their place! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: That's what those weird-looking "paragraphs of descriptive text" are for.
What a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
We should do away with the star system for hotels (how can one number possibly describe a whole hotel?). We should do away with film genres (how can one word describe a whole film?). We should do away with races (how can one word describe a whole person?). We should do away with ages (how can one number describe the experiences of a whole lifetime?).
What a stupid article. It's not like the whole review is being replaced with a number. It's something to quickly glance at to see if it's a load of shit or a really good game. If there's a review of a game I've never heard of before, and it's got 2/10, then I'm not going to waste my time reading it.
Re:What a non-issue (Score:2)
And on that note, I give this article a 1/10
Try again next time
Re:What a non-issue (Score:1)
While we're at it (Score:1)
Also, I don't understand why some women should be deemed more or less attractive than others, because that is extremely subjective.
I don't read restaurant reviews, because if the place has rats, I want to find out about it first hand.
Numbers are really bad descriptors of a monetary situation as well; the numbers for the American fina
You sissy! (Score:1)
Why?
They had their traywagons of burgermeat standing in their back yard, in the sun. With rat poison around the meat patties.
People still go there, all the same.
Re:What a non-issue (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, people interpret numbers differently. It's a numeracy issue. Logically, 50% should indicate "average", 75% "better than most" and 90%+ "act of God". Yet people will look at a score less than 75% and have the exact reaction that you have to a 2/10 score. Games reviewers move to account for this: hence, anything worth playing receives at least 85% as its score. Which is daft: this leaves practically nothing to choose between the games in the 0-50% category.
I respect the system of UK multiforma
Numbers suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Numbers suck (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Numbers suck (Score:1)
The numbers are also useful if you want to get a wide range of opinions. I've written a Perl script to compare average review scores on GameFAQs, which is very useful if I want a quick opinion, and I can use it to fully read some of the reviews which gave it scores close to that - as well as some of the highers and lowers. While simp
Re:Numbers suck (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of sites that average review scores. Others have already pointed out GameTab [gametab.com] and Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com]. There is also GameStats [gamestats.com], Gaming Chart [gamingchart.com] and Game Rankings [gamerankings.com]
Game Rankings [gamerankings.com] in particular is good because they include a "difference" listing for each site to compare how far their reviews are from the average of each game.
For example, you can see that the average PSX Nation [psxnation.com] review is 8.5% higher than the average.
Classification system (Score:2)
Perhaps games should be put into one of four categories: junk, OK, good, and great. MGS would fall into the great category, as would Prince of Persia and Halo. AoM Titans and Empires: DMW would fall into good. Moo3 would be categorized "OK", and Big Motha Truckers would be junk. That wa
Re:Numbers suck (Score:3, Interesting)
In gaming magazines and websites that are craptacular enough to not have any kind of set ratings policy or enforce any kind of ratings consistency, it's unlikely that the writing will be any better than th
Re:Numbers suck (Score:1)
I don't think that's fair at all. While granted, GamePro is not exactly a bastion of gaming insight, they put out a decent product.
And those so called amateur sites can do just as well. Netjak [netjak.com] consistently impresses me
Re:Numbers suck (Score:3, Interesting)
GamePro doesn't even take the time to perform basic proofreading. Not only is every issue filled with misspellings and grammatical errors, but in last month's issue, they actually claimed that Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes was, in big bold print, "A remake of the 1988 PS1 classic." This is the sort of effort that goes into their magazine.
While I will concede that their fe
Re:Numbers suck (Score:1)
While weighting reviews against each other is silly, you at least recieve a list of different places that have other opinions about that game. That way, someone who was already thinking about it can judge better whether it's worth 20 or 60 bucks.
And it doesn't matter if Madden recieves 92.4% if you don't like football games at all.
Rating Article (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rating Article (Score:3)
6=bad - inefficient. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that average game here doesn't refer to statistical average, but perceived average.
Re:6=bad - inefficient. (Score:2)
Daikatana sold at least one copy.
Re:6=bad - inefficient. (Score:4, Interesting)
From the FAQ [rottentomatoes.com]:
Why is the cutoff for a Fresh Tomato so much higher for individual game reviews?
Although most publishers rate games on a 1-10 scale, it is a rarity for a game to get a score below 6. Because game reviews are mostly positive (a very high majority fall in the 7-10 range), the cutoff for a Fresh Tomato is raised to 8/10. This higher cutoff actually produces a wider spread of Tomatometer scores that is equivalent to movies; otherwise, almost all games are recommended!
The problem is that the bar being set this high has become a defacto standard. Some review site or magazine that starts doing what you suggest (and you're absolutely right, they should) will stand out as a sore thumb and as a company that routinely gives low scores. Which means that companies will stop sending them review copies to play. Which means that they can't compete (especially if they're a magazine) with the other reviewers.
Re:6=bad - inefficient. (Score:1)
A review site that does give out low scores and relies on purchasing games to review them will also begin to include statements such as "waste of $50 dollars" in their reviews. As a result, the reviews of bad games on that site will be drawn lower. If publishers cannot reach standards set in the 1993-1998 era, then I ca
Re:6=bad - inefficient. (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason they don't give it the 5 it d
they are very useful (Score:5, Insightful)
How I read the numbers in review (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that number scores are important for what they are: A distillation of opinion. That's all it is, and all it should be treated as. If you want the justification of the opinion, then that is what the review is for. The way I think about is like this: A random art critic can say 'Van Gogh is the greatest artist, ever.', and that is like a numeric opinion. If I want to know why he thinks that, then I'll read further. If I hate Van Gogh, then I'll be curious about how his opinion could be so different to mine, and if I love him, well, to be honest I probably won't care too much to read a gushing review of the man's work.
Zzap!64 had it right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
-1, bandwagoniser, for example, or +5, mind-bending.
Re:It's simple... (Score:2)
Number rating works when its an average (Score:1)
Someone needs to start a rollup review site that takes the video game reviews posted everywhere else a
Been done already (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Number rating works when its an average (Score:2)
Indeed. Several times. There is at least metacritic [metacritic.com], GameRankings [gamerankings.com] and Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com]. The first and last of those also have other media reviews.
Conserving Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Magazine reviews don't often have the luxury of including a "bottom line" sentence like this one, let alone one that's in a separate paragraph (like this one!), so the number score really helps them sum up their view on a certain game without forcing their opinions of a more obscure game off the magazine's review section and into the ass-end of their website. It allows them to cover both the super-hyped AAA games like Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes or Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow and mostly unknown cult hits like Disgaea in the same issue without charging more than $6 an issue.
On a separate note, it also helps when comparing games. If you generally agree with a reviewer and follow them over a period of time, in the same way that many people follow Roger Ebert's movie column and TV show, then you can use their scores to compare different games that they've reviewed. For instance, if you loved Devil May Cry and Shinobi and a certain reviewer gave them both a 9.0, then it's worth looking at the scores to see how that reviewer sizes them up against a new game that you want to buy, especially something similar like Crimson Sea 2 or Samurai Warriors. He could really like those games and find very little to complain about when reviewing them, but still give them a 7.0, meaning that there's nothing wrong with them, but that they're not really top tier games, either.
And really, it's not as if having a number there hurts the review in some way.
If you like numbers... (Score:3)
It even links to the reviews, so you can read through them all. The numbers help, so you don't have to waste too much time reading about really, really low rated games.
Numbers in ratings are needed (Score:2)
Percentage as game review score is not only flawed, it's supremely stupid. A 50% rated game in this system is most likely garbage of the highest order, while 100% score is routinely saved for Duke Nukem Forever, the final game, that is to be brought unto us by Jesus on the Day of Reckoning.
I think 1-10 scale,
Re:Numbers in ratings are needed (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't get over how entirely wrong this is. Proven Fact? Cite your source.
It's not the depth of the rating system that makes it inconsistent
You need to now have a list of those, and make sure that your reviews consistently evaluate those traits. Dock a point for a bad camera here, you need to dock it for every game with a bad camera. What if the game only has a half-assed camera, compared to the completely unusable camera in this other game? This is exactly where it all starts to fall apart. You can not be consistent when dealing with something as subjective as ART. It's not the number system that causes the problem. It's the HUMAN factor.
You also have to take into account that each REVIEWER is different. Many people absolutely hated the camera in Kingdom Hearts, but I never had a problem with it. I would rate the game higher, but the game is still widely accepted as brilliant.
FWIW, my site recently got some complaints about how we are GameCube biased. Note that we are a GameCube specific website. The specific complaint alledged that we gave "perfect 10" scores to F-Zero GX, Soul Calibur 2, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Super Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, and Zelda: Wind Waker. (These are also the ONLY games to be given 10's at the time of that complaint)
The complaintant ignored the fact that we give MULTIPLE reviews for most games, and that a score of 10 is not PERFECT on our scale, because nothing can be perfect. The only game on that list to be given 10's from EVERY reviewer was Wind Waker.
He also ignored the reviewer slant
Re:Numbers in ratings are needed (Score:2)
Stick to your guns, man.
Re:Numbers in ratings are needed (Score:1)
Re:Numbers in ratings are needed (Score:2)
Some people are in favour of a one-bit system. 1: buy it. 0: don't buy it.
Need both words and values (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone mentioned earlier, many people want a general impression of what they're about to read. Personally, I like how sites like Gamespot and Gamespy throw the rating right up front, whereas a place like Firingsquad with its insightful yet girthy reviews requires navigating through a drop-down list to check out the "final verdict." I suspect most would rather spend time reading and learning about a "4-star" game than a "1-star" one.
Of course, that leads to the perceived notion that there is some grand quantitative scale when you see something like 79 and 81 / 100. Is the 81 game really better than the 79 reviewed on another site? Ultimately it's up to the reader. It's sometimes good to have bias -- if you're a hardcore genre or platform player, you may be more inclined to accept the given idiosyncrasies (i.e. directed linear levels vs. free-roaming, checkpoint saves vs. save anywhere, etc.).
These are ordinal values at heart, and should not be compared at interval levels.
Now with respect to that article, the author makes a good point about reinforcing the qualitative, descriptive muses of the reviewer. However, it's often preferential to give different abstraction levels of your information to pull in a greater volume of readers. The rating/percentage is a good start. It's doubtful that many readers will engage a lengthy game review (no matter how elegantly written) without having a hint of the final mark. Why read eight pages if it's a really crusty game? Conversely, why do that with a game that's already known from other sources to be great? Just a quick check to verify assumptions, and you're off to go get it. Game reviewers are not supposed to write elaborate and astounding essays for which its effect will fail if abstracted into a single value. They are supposed to aid in (and perhaps entertain) the decision to acquire a game for which the player will ultimately decide whether or not it is of good or sufficient quality.
It's necessary to have and utilize both a summative value and a qualitative review. Relying exclusively on a single value leads to game misconceptions, while a written piece alone cannot realistically convey your information to all but the committed (or bored) readers.
Re:Need both words and values (Score:1)
Most people would, but the significant amount of 4-star reviews makes them bland. As a result, 1-star reviews are more interesting to read because it shows either the game being entirly substandard, or shows that the reviewer has a negative preconception of the game itself.
For example, one review site rated Serious Sam: The First Encounter as 5/5-Stars, while also setting Serious Sam: The Second Encoun
Yes, unfortunately. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we use them anyway. Why? Because as much as we hate to admit it, there are a LOT of people out there who simply WON'T READ THE GODDAMNED REVIEW. In order to do most games justice, you have to write a great deal, and these Ritalin cases simply can't sit still long enough to read it all.
I experimented with this briefly, and the result was a flood of e-mails from people asking, "So, what did you THINK of the game?" No matter how plain I made my opinion, or how basic my vocabulary was, it was clear that they simply weren't READING the review.
We have our point ratings there basically as a way to shut those people up.
Re:Yes, unfortunately. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's how they usually go:
Paragraph one - a brief introduction usually involving some bad puns using the game's name, characters or developers.
Paragraph two through twenty - an overwrought synopsis of the game's plot and back-story, usually cut and pasted from the press release or another review. Sometimes both.
Paragraphs twenty-one through forty-five - A careful consid
Consistency over time (Score:3, Interesting)
However I think we're running into trouble now, because at many points in the past milestone games have received, with hindsight, what we can now see as slightly overinflated scores which have owed more to their groundbreaking new effects than actual gameplay. Perusing the scores of early PS2 games can easily confirm this, as the typical average score has come down (I particularly hate when games get marked down because they're only marginal improvements over predecessors). I'm sceptical as to whether games are actually going to look that much more impressive in the next generation, and contention in the industry is squeezing the poorer software houses and titles out, which should lead to an overall level of quality increase.
This will (hopefully, IMO) lead to production quality being a virtual given, and allow scores to more accurately represent how good the game is, with 5/10 being average, and worth getting for fans of the genre (like I believe how most Final Fantasy games should score!). For example, if you were a big fan of a certain band, then you'd probably buy their CD even if a selection of music magazines gave them 4/10, as you know you want to hear it anyway; however if Mario 128 came out and received a 4/10 average you'd definitely have to think carefully about getting it.
www.gamerankings.com (Score:3, Interesting)
You take every the game review and convert the score as a percentile (4/5 stars = 80%; 9/10 = 90% etc), then average all the available scores.
If a game can get 150 reviews and can average >95% then you know it's probably a pretty damn good title. Only about a dozen games have achieved 95% average ratings since the website started: Zelda:OOT, Halo, MGS2, GTA III, Metroid Prime are some examples and they represent some of the best titles those platforms have to offer.
Generally
>90% = excellent
>80% = good
>70% = mediocre
anything else is probably pretty poor.
No single reviewer with a bone to pickhas undue influence to the overall ranking
Re:www.gamerankings.com (Score:2)
to continue my thought...
An 81% game isnt likely to be perceptibly better than a 78% game, but you get a ballpark sense of how the game was received overall. Of course you are going to select individual reviews to see the details of that particular score.
Because reviewers can be so different numbers dont tell the whole story for the average game. I find it particularly useful to pick pick great, average, and p
Computer Gaming World (Score:2)
I completely agreed with this editorial. It's not much of a surprise, then, that I stopped reading CGW when they started adding scores to their reviews, something whic
A smaller range might help (Score:1)
With rating numbers, readers are allowed to skip over the actual review, ignoring details, and comparing games solely on the basis of how one's number stacks up to another's number. Of course this isn't a "bad" thing. Perhaps that's all the information the reader wants or needs.
Why run text at all? (Score:1)
I'm guilty of this myself. I see a rating, I know very roughly what the review would say, and I move on to something else. My curiosity has b
Re:Why run text at all? (Score:2)
Re:Why run text at all? (Score:1)
PC Gamer seems to do it right (Score:2)
Anyway, they really do seem to have a sensical numbering system. on their key, 0-39% is labelled "Don't bother." That seems right. I don't want to bother with below-average games, right? The labels then go up from there: "Tolerable" a
Numbers are good... (Score:1)
Re:Numbers are good... (Score:1)
Screenshots... (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots... (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots... (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots... (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots... (Score:2)
Extreme example, but still. A terrible game can always look great, and a great game can always look terrible.
Re:Screenshots... (Score:1)
Sunsets in Hyrule / Numbers have no potency / But (Score:1)
Hmm..... (Score:1)
"They say so much, but they never tell you if it's any good."
Why you are safe (Score:3, Interesting)
The beauty of this is that the job of sorting out a huge variety of games (and other things) can be handed right over to a computer, which can access huge databases of this information and collect meaningful results. As of yet, computers cannot read reviews and understand what elements of a game might make it good if it were described in writing.
What good does this do? Well, it saves the prospective game buyer a lot of time and effort; he can easily pull up a game that has a general reputation to be good. Even without a computer to examine the values for him, he can even find this information out at a single glance. Delving further, if a game looks good then he will take more into consideration.
As was said, you really do need to have an in-depth review if you are going to make a final decision, but a number allows a person to get to that stage quickly and painlessly without suffering the tedium of sifting through a big pile of titles whose quality he has no clue about--not even an arbitrary clue. Numbers may be more arbitrary, but they're enough of a clue to use as a jumping-off point.
There are holes in this way of working; people might potentially miss out on a game that they would actually love, even if the reviewer didn't like it that much. The pros outweigh the cons, however, and personal experience has shown me that many of the best games I have played were indeed widely reputed as good (and therefore scored as such more often). This saves me time, and as long as I can find a few good games to keep me happy I don't have to worry about the others that slip by, even if they are super fantastic.
The only thing that keeps the number system from being perfect is that different people have different ideas on what good game is. If we all fealt the same way about all of them then there would be no titles "slipping by". So, in order to make the number system more reliable, one has to be personally matched to a specific reviewer. If you can find a like-minded person who will rate games in a manner that you would, then you'll have infinitely more seccuss than with any random critic.
We might not have the time to personally try every game in existence, but we do have time check out games that are reputed to be good, find reviewers and scorers that tend to think the same way we do, and even try a few random games "just for the heck of it" (just in case we might find one of those elusive masterpieces). This is what people do in the real world, and when you look at the system there doesn't really leave that much to be desired; all of the bases are adequately covered. Granted, they aren't perfectly, but to a degree that is satisfactory for everyone.
Taking all of this into account, the number system serves as one of the basises for a larger system in place that has not failed for me yet, and I'm probably not missing out on much because of it. If I am, it's only to a negligible degree. ;)
You know Id be happy with a system (Score:3, Funny)