Game Reviews too light?

[MakaiOokami]

The only problem I have with IGN is that so many people take them at their word when honestly I don't think you can trust any of their reviewers, the big games always get the big scores and while a few of them deserved them no doubt it makes you wonder how can anyone trust them when they say a game is a 9/10?

I don't think IGN are in anyone's pockets although I do think their afraid of how the publishers of some of these big games will react when we have stories like Gamespot firing a guy over a negative Kane and Lynch review. (I'll stop now before I go on another rant about how games publishers should have no say over how a games review is written)

It's a fact that SOME companies basically buy their reviews. Also it's a fact that SOME P.R. Agents won't give you a review code if you're reviewing the game too low. They'll put you on the black list and you'll get last dibs on a game if you gave it an 8.5 instead of a 9. Then there was some reviewer who got the ending for playing the game on easy and said the story ended badly. Had he played on Normal he would have gotten the standard ending. He was called out for lying about the difficulty he played.

 

[MakaiOokami]

Exactly. A 5/10 is supposed to be viewed as an average title that people will still find as enjoyable. Yet it seems as if there is a 6 or 7/10 a game isn't worthy. Which is absurd.

It's because of school grading scales.

People think of 100 (10) as being the number to reach.
Then they think of 90 and they're like "That's really good you don't get much wiggle room on 90s.
When it gets to 80s they start thinking "Well it's good enough"
70s they start thinking "Well shit I earn Cs. I'm not that amazing must not be that great of a game. I should go buy one of the better ones"
60s they are like "Wow failing."
50s are like "Complete and utter F screw that."

Then you have the fact that a niche' game maybe should be a 6-7 on the ACTUAL scales, it's going to be given 8s and 9s for people within that niche'. That then codifies the whole "8-10 are the games worth the money" ideology.

In no aspect of schooling would even so much a 70 be considered a good job. 80s are barely considered a good job. In some families 95s aren't even considered a good job.

The 1-5 rating scale is a good way to break away from that but since there's no industry standards, there's no industry oversight, and in some cases there's no industry at all... You can not help but to see the complete and utter failure at messaging that occurs. When 8s and 9s are being given out like candy who wants a 7? Only people in the know.

You can't raise people on a grading scale and then have an analogous grading scale that has completely different standards Apply.

If the scale was 0-10 0 being almost nothing wrong, 10 being everything went wrong... (like LJN games on the NES) it might be a different story.

 

[Lifewish]

I will say that on the subject of blacklisting, I really do think that it happens. In fact, we have been the subject of this, not getting games from some publications because of past scores. It really sucks but it has not stopped us from giving a game the score we think it deserves, even if that upsets a publisher.

 

[Timewarp]

It's a fact that SOME companies basically buy their reviews. Also it's a fact that SOME P.R. Agents won't give you a review code if you're reviewing the game too low. They'll put you on the black list and you'll get last dibs on a game if you gave it an 8.5 instead of a 9. Then there was some reviewer who got the ending for playing the game on easy and said the story ended badly. Had he played on Normal he would have gotten the standard ending. He was called out for lying about the difficulty he played.

Yeah it happens. I recall when the PR guy for Duke Nukem Forever implied that he was going to put a lot of reviewers on a blacklist and 2K fired him for his comments explaining that they don't like to blacklist people. I'm not too sure if they don't like blacklisting people or if they just don't want their PR guys telling everyone that 2K blacklists people.

But yeah PR Agents always come off as over-protective parents and it's a shame since most gamers don't think of them when placing blame.

I will say that on the subject of blacklisting, I really do think that it happens. In fact, we have been the subject of this, not getting games from some publications because of past scores. It really sucks but it has not stopped us from giving a game the score we think it deserves, even if that upsets a publisher.

It's a shame since blacklisting in industries like gaming shouldn't be allowed. You'd think someone would step in and stop this considering most of the time blacklisting is used to bully games reviewers into giving positive scores, isn't there someone like Trading Standards or OFcom who is willing to stand up and force these companies into changing their behavior?

 

[Arthur Sataine]

The only problem I have with IGN is that so many people take them at their word when honestly I don't think you can trust any of their reviewers, the big games always get the big scores and while a few of them deserved them no doubt it makes you wonder how can anyone trust them when they say a game is a 9/10?

I don't think IGN are in anyone's pockets although I do think their afraid of how the publishers of some of these big games will react when we have stories like Gamespot firing a guy over a negative Kane and Lynch review. (I'll stop now before I go on another rant about how games publishers should have no say over how a games review is written)

Very much this. Exactly the same sentiment I have against IGN. It is almost like they deliberately try and skew numbers.

 

[Chandler Wood]

My biggest frustration is when we as reviewers get accused of being "paid off" for our scores or whatever. That is really, really shady, and I personally would feel very uncomfortable taking any part in that. Yet people seem to think that it's the huge "review black market" where everyone is paid off for scores. Sure there might be some social pressure from devs and PR reps (as well as fear of being put on a secret blacklist), but it's never gotten to the point of pure bribery and paying off scores. Our technological age has too many ways to track that, and it surely would have come to light long before now if paid reviews for games were more prevalent.

 

[MakaiOokami]

My biggest frustration is when we as reviewers get accused of being "paid off" for our scores or whatever. That is really, really shady, and I personally would feel very uncomfortable taking any part in that. Yet people seem to think that it's the huge "review black market" where everyone is paid off for scores. Sure there might be some social pressure from devs and PR reps (as well as fear of being put on a secret blacklist), but it's never gotten to the point of pure bribery and paying off scores. Our technological age has too many ways to track that, and it surely would have come to light long before now if paid reviews for games were more prevalent.

They will send goodie bags, they will cut access in the future, if not being bribed they are at least blackmailed.

Sending someone a package with freebies like posters and other things and calling it "Promotional" material is still technically a bribe. Same thing as drug companies do to doctors to get doctors to think of 1 brand over the other when writing prescriptions. How would you even enforce rules to make sure that companies dont' get blacklisted?

"Oh I had an intern do it"

"Oh I thought we had sent them a copy"

"Didn't know they were legitamite. I thought they were just faking it to get free games"

"We have limited review copies, and they were too low on the list my hands were tied"

"Most of our reviews are debug copies. Our hands were tied they don't have a debug."

 

[Lifewish]

Another issue that I have noticed in terms of how scores are perceived is Metacritic. It lists a 70 as a "mixed" review. So automatically there you are shown that 8-10 are postive, anything below is mixed or average.

They will send goodie bags, they will cut access in the future, if not being bribed they are at least blackmailed.

Sending someone a package with freebies like posters and other things and calling it "Promotional" material is still technically a bribe. Same thing as drug companies do to doctors to get doctors to think of 1 brand over the other when writing prescriptions. How would you even enforce rules to make sure that companies dont' get blacklisted?

Wait, they send goodie bags? Where the hell are mine then??? I usually just get the game and a review sheet that tells me the embargo date.

 

[Timewarp]

Another issue that I have noticed in terms of how scores are perceived is Metacritic. It lists a 70 as a "mixed" review. So automatically there you are shown that 8-10 are postive, anything below is mixed or average.


Wait, they send goodie bags? Where the hell are mine then??? I usually just get the game and a review sheet that tells me the embargo date.

Well certain guys get sent goodie bags, from what I've seen it's always the guys who give them the higher scores even if it's not down to bribery for instance Gamesmaster get sent goodie bags all the time.

 

[MakaiOokami]

Well certain guys get sent goodie bags, from what I've seen it's always the guys who give them the higher scores even if it's not down to bribery for instance Gamesmaster get sent goodie bags all the time.

It is technically a form of bribery. The more money those goodie bags are worth the more bribery like it becomes. Of course in America bribery is about as normal as air coming out of a fan that is currently on.

 

[Timewarp]

They have to be on to do that? So that's where I went wrong!

 

[stolenxnametag]

They have to be on to do that? So that's where I went wrong!

Yes, you HAVE to turn them ON!

 

[MakaiOokami]

Yes, you HAVE to turn them ON!

Not always. Sometimes a wind will come through the blades, but if you want the blades to MAKE the wind, turning on would be neccessary.

 

[Timewarp]

Yes, you HAVE to turn them ON!

Thanks Schuyler Skaats Wheeler, inventor of the two blade electric fan!

 

[Chandler Wood]

Here's another bit of feedback from a reviewer in regards to the "Growing up with the school grading scale" argument:

When you are being "Graded" in school, it is based on knowing a preset knowledge that you should have, right and wrong answers (for the most part). A grade in school is based on answering questions right or wrong. If you only answer half of them right... that is failing, yes. It's gaining knowledge specifically, and any classes that were more subjective usually defaulted to a Pass/Fail system (my guitar class in high school for example). Your tests aren't being "reviewed", they are being "graded" with an answer key.

When a game is being "Rated" it is being rated subjectively. Some areas may outweigh others in that graphics may not be as important if the story is really good, or gameplay may overshadow other aspects of the game. It's based on the complete package, not based on a checklist of "correct answers" like school. We aren't "grading" games, we are reviewing a "rating" them, which I feel makes this "we're used to the school system" argument null and void.

2+2 is 4, no matter what you say. If you answer that with 6, I can't give you a 7 out of 10 score. It's not subjective. It's a definitive answer. Games are NOT definitive. They are subjective, which allows us to go more on a "5 equals average, go from there" scale, and a large reason why scores among reviewers will vary (if there was some grand answer key for games, reviewers and critics would all be out of jobs....)

 

[Arthur Sataine]

Here's another bit of feedback from a reviewer in regards to the "Growing up with the school grading scale" argument:

When you are being "Graded" in school, it is based on knowing a preset knowledge that you should have, right and wrong answers (for the most part). A grade in school is based on answering questions right or wrong. If you only answer half of them right... that is failing, yes. It's gaining knowledge specifically, and any classes that were more subjective usually defaulted to a Pass/Fail system (my guitar class in high school for example). Your tests aren't being "reviewed", they are being "graded" with an answer key.

When a game is being "Rated" it is being rated subjectively. Some areas may outweigh others in that graphics may not be as important if the story is really good, or gameplay may overshadow other aspects of the game. It's based on the complete package, not based on a checklist of "correct answers" like school. We aren't "grading" games, we are reviewing a "rating" them, which I feel makes this "we're used to the school system" argument null and void.

2+2 is 4, no matter what you say. If you answer that with 6, I can't give you a 7 out of 10 score. It's not subjective. It's a definitive answer. Games are NOT definitive. They are subjective, which allows us to go more on a "5 equals average, go from there" scale, and a large reason why scores among reviewers will vary (if there was some grand answer key for games, reviewers and critics would all be out of jobs....)

That argument is a poor excuse for the lazy and degenerative ratings policies to begin with. It was never quite so simple as "we're used to the school system." If we were properly educated in those school systems, we'd understand what a median, or average, game is in a 1-10 system.

 

[MakaiOokami]

Here's another bit of feedback from a reviewer in regards to the "Growing up with the school grading scale" argument:

When you are being "Graded" in school, it is based on knowing a preset knowledge that you should have, right and wrong answers (for the most part). A grade in school is based on answering questions right or wrong. If you only answer half of them right... that is failing, yes. It's gaining knowledge specifically, and any classes that were more subjective usually defaulted to a Pass/Fail system (my guitar class in high school for example). Your tests aren't being "reviewed", they are being "graded" with an answer key.

When a game is being "Rated" it is being rated subjectively. Some areas may outweigh others in that graphics may not be as important if the story is really good, or gameplay may overshadow other aspects of the game. It's based on the complete package, not based on a checklist of "correct answers" like school. We aren't "grading" games, we are reviewing a "rating" them, which I feel makes this "we're used to the school system" argument null and void.

2+2 is 4, no matter what you say. If you answer that with 6, I can't give you a 7 out of 10 score. It's not subjective. It's a definitive answer. Games are NOT definitive. They are subjective, which allows us to go more on a "5 equals average, go from there" scale, and a large reason why scores among reviewers will vary (if there was some grand answer key for games, reviewers and critics would all be out of jobs....)

Here are some issues with the argument.

1. 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 can also equal Fish. 3+3 = 6 or 8 and 7+7 = 14 or triangle. A lot of games think outside the box.
2. Essays are subjective but you also give a score to them.
3. The grading scales don't line up. If you give someone a D or an F they have to take the class over again. If you give a game a 5 or 6 those are still considered passable grades. It creates a communication problem.
4. What does God of War getting an 9.2 and Dark Siders getting an 8.9 really mean?
5. Most important issue is... YOUR GUITAR INSTRUCTOR IS NOT GRADING YOUR CHEMISTRY WORK!

However sometimes your sports instructor will be why your 2 paragraph essay will be given an A- by your English teacher no matter how nonsensical your paper was.

 

[Chandler Wood]

Here are some issues with the argument.

1. 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 can also equal Fish. 3+3 = 6 or 8 and 7+7 = 14 or triangle. A lot of games think outside the box.
2. Essays are subjective but you also give a score to them.
3. The grading scales don't line up. If you give someone a D or an F they have to take the class over again. If you give a game a 5 or 6 those are still considered passable grades. It creates a communication problem.
4. What does God of War getting an 9.2 and Dark Siders getting an 8.9 really mean?
5. Most important issue is... YOUR GUITAR INSTRUCTOR IS NOT GRADING YOUR CHEMISTRY WORK!

However sometimes your sports instructor will be why your 2 paragraph essay will be given an A- by your English teacher no matter how nonsensical your paper was.

1. I agree, which is why game scores have to be different. In school, if you answered 2+2 + Fish, you are wrong. One point off. In games, it means you are creative and innovative.
2. Essays are why I said mostly. However, essays are also assignments expected to follow a certain criteria or objective set forth by the instructor. Game reviewers are not instructors setting forth instructions on essays for a class (or at least we shouldn't be).
3. Exactly. A communication problem. Reviewers know how they grade, readers just assume otherwise. Which is what this whole thing is. But I still don't think games are "graded" or should be put into some sort of scale for something that is graded based on a definitive set of knowledge. We don't have a grading rubric for games (ie If graphics don't meet "this" level, subtract one point). It is entirely subjective.
4. Fortunately PSLS doesn't deal in 9.2 and 8.9s. We go down to the .5 scale. But if you are referring to a comparative rating scale, that's silly. Games are reviewed at different times by different reviewers, so each must be taken based on that information (ie. games that got a 9 five years ago from another reviewer, may get a much lower score now from me). It means that at that time, to that reviewer, that's the rating that was determined.
5. Another point well made, again, which is why we should NOT be rating the same way that schools grade.

If we want to grade games, and go on that scale, then I want a rubric to go off of. I want to know full expectations and right and wrong answers. I don't want anything left to chance. Until I get that however, I am going to continue to rate on a scale in which 5 and 6 means average, nothing significantly new to speak of, but not necessarily bad either.

 

[Untraditional]

What if there were no rating games for reviews and it was all just an essay on said game, with the last paragraph being the authors opinion on the game and their experience. You could have a pros and cons list or w/e too, tho i guess realistically, who would read those?! So much easier to scroll down to the score, see the new Rachet and clank got a 7.5 and go on the comments and go "This game easily deserves an 8.5... i think.. i haven't played or read it.. but I had ratchet deadlocked... which was pretty fun."

So since i can never take myself seriously for too long, what i'm trying to say is, do you guys think there is a better system?

 

[MakaiOokami]

What if there were no rating games for reviews and it was all just an essay on said game, with the last paragraph being the authors opinion on the game and their experience. You could have a pros and cons list or w/e too, tho i guess realistically, who would read those?! So much easier to scroll down to the score, see the new Rachet and clank got a 7.5 and go on the comments and go "This game easily deserves an 8.5... i think.. i haven't played or read it.. but I had ratchet deadlocked... which was pretty fun."

So since i can never take myself seriously for too long, what i'm trying to say is, do you guys think there is a better system?

The better system is to write what makes you excited about the game, what potential deal breakers are, and then give a summary that tells people what kind of gamer you need to be to get the most out of the game.

For example Disgaea won't appeal to people who don't like items named things like Horse Weiner, and random craziness that's way over the top.

It will appeal to people who like crazy JRPGs and Strategy games, and putting in 100s of hours maxing characters and customizing stuff.

Is White Knight Chronicles 1 or 2 deep enough to keep you playing, but friendly enough that new MMO players won't get turned off. Like what are the kinds of people who should be playing the game, and who should be renting it, and who should stay away.

Is Basement Crawl fun enough to warrant buying if you like Bomberman?

Should you buy Tower Fall Ascension if you don't have PS4 friends to bring controllers over?

The reviews shouldn't be about how good a game is, but who would get the most out of it. If you're new to shooters is Killzone Accessible enough? What about Battlefield 4?

People seemed to review Knack based on whether or not ti's perfect. Not whether or not it's fun, or whether or not the co-op works decently enough. It is kinda an unforgivingly hard game but tons of people love it despite the bad reviews.

Call of Duty on Vita got horrible reviews but I guess if you're desperate for portable shooting online it's not so bad.