If you don't think the writer is capable of expressing their views, why do you care about the number they attribute to the review?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Polygon updating Review Policy, getting rid of scores.
- Thread starter Phendrift
- Start date
If you don't think the writer is capable of expressing their views, why do you care about the number they attribute to the review?
I think it'll get people just not paying attention to their reviews at all :p
I think it fits for their demographic. To those who are saying review scores matter more than reading reviews...you'll still be tended to by the majority of games journalism.
Using "a high amount of Youtubers" as an indication of some kind of popular trend has been disproved as a convincing argument time and time again nor does it disprove consensus.
Like you realize that your argument has basically become "games I don't like as much get higher scores because of hype and hivemind" and "people just couldn't notice or talk about the real flaws in popular games"
Also did you ever think that perhaps if there's a consensus on something, it isn't because people are all judging it "in very much the same manner", but rather it is the other way around and that thing appeals to a lot of different people for various reasons and tastes, hence a large positive consensus?
Last edited:
What you've said really doesnt make a lot of sense, tbh.
I don't. For the most part, the score is the only useful part to me -- and even it's not that useful (its main use is identifying total stinkers). If I care about the person's personality -- well, those people already exist, and I can already watch their videos.
This is a misguided change and I half-expect they end up reversing it when they realize no one's reading them.
This is good news but i don't think we should get rid of scores all together. I believe it's difficult for the human mind to differentiate on a 10 point scale (never mind 100 point scale) but i think 5 point scale could work.
Eurogamer has essentially done a 4 point scale (avoid, nothing, recommended and essential) and i think it works.
IGN's system where they give games a score on a hundred point scale is absolutely ridiculous. How can you differentiate between a 8.6 and a 8.7? They really need to change this
Eurogamer has essentially done a 4 point scale (avoid, nothing, recommended and essential) and i think it works.
IGN's system where they give games a score on a hundred point scale is absolutely ridiculous. How can you differentiate between a 8.6 and a 8.7? They really need to change this
While i personally like scores as a tangible means to gauge something off of. Totally understand this.
I mean, people still read Kotaku and Eurogamer reviews, so I think Polygon will be fine.
Shame, I love review scores.
Oh well, many other outlets have review scores that I can get from :)
Oh well, many other outlets have review scores that I can get from :)
Are you truly underestimating the effect hype culture has on your average consumer?
I mean its been displayed time and time again on how hype can easily get people to make bad purchasing decisions look no further than No Mans Sky.
And when it comes to dust settling you don't have to look any further than games like Bioshock 3 which at first was universally praised to only receive a sudden and fierce pushback weeks/months after release.
The metacritic scores would look VERY different than they do now if they forced people to wait a month after release to review the game. That is what I'm saying.
What are you talking about lol. You're conflating two different things. No Man's Sky reviewed fairly poorly. Journalists didn't buy in to the hype, instead the hype had the opposite effect. Bioshock Infinite is an incredible game, and I wouldn't let a vocal minority dissuade you of a larger sentiment thinking otherwise. Infinite came out in a very competitive year, with games like The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto V and Super Mario 3D World. Had it not been such a competitive year, it'd probably have garnered far more recognition.
The other day I witnessed a bunch of people arguing in 40 page-long thread discussing a Star Wars review. That review gave no scores, but it caused havoc on etc. I personally think that this won't change much in terms of the quality of conversation around reviews. People will still be way too invested, but I guess now at least the arguments will be about the words and not the numbers.
I find it yet another embarrassment on the gaming community that the majority of reviewers of just about every other kind of entertainment product can use scoring systems fine, yet for some reason a large portion of the gaming community can't handle them, causing review outlets to feel the need to ditch them for a quiet life. Fucking sad.
I find it yet another embarrassment on the gaming community that the majority of reviewers of just about every other kind of entertainment product can use scoring systems fine, yet for some reason a large portion of the gaming community can't handle them, causing review outlets to feel the need to ditch them for a quiet life. Fucking sad.
Hype can do more than give people a push towards purchasing a product it can give people a push to inflate their reviews of a game with rose tinted glasses.
I personally believe that Infinite was also rated highly thanks to hype culture among many you listed.
I agree with respect to sales, but not necessarily reviews. I actually think hype can just as easily have the opposite effect with reviews, eg when the expectations are too high and journalists or gamers end up being disappointed.
I think Infinite reviewed really well because it was really unique in its world and story, and ended on a really poignant and powerful narrative note.
The only game I can think of that really did have widespread fallout following critical acclaim, is GTA IV, but I could be wrong and it could once again just be a really loud vocal minority. That said, again, I think journos were less enamoured by hype alone, and more the technical accomplishments and sense of freedom or scope to the game. I think they saw it as some landmark, ground breaking game, which in many ways it was, its just the gameplay and overall fun factor suffered somewhat, something that might have been initially clouded by the rest.
I'm kind of concerned that this trend would make "less obvious" games like hidden gems that have yet to achieve cult classic status more difficult to discover as they get older. In the extreme, if a game had no scores at all, how would the consensus of opinions for it be quantified? You may say it doesn't need to be, but when I or others go to Opencritic or Gamerankings to look up the top rated games on a console during its entire lifespan, how will those be affected?
Last edited:
It's not exactly the same subjective numbers. Numbers have no naunce, and are not descriptive enough since we are dealing with a subjective medium. What a reviewer may call a 6, another may call a 8. And that's without taking into account that what these numbers mean varies depending on the outlet. An IGN 8 ("Great") may not be an Edge 8 ("Excellent").
Numbers are a way to reduce all information, so they leave you without the essential details.
A number is an opinion of the reviewer.
One could look at other media. TV, music and books normally don't have numbers on them, and we still know which is good, bad or a cult classic.
Same way you discover great movies and books and podcasts, and hidden gems in various mediums? Other mediums do it just fine and it isn't driven by review scores but articles and word of mouth.
Good. Anything that quells a bit of the Hype Machine Review score speculation threads is okay by me. People's salaries and a developer's futures got too tied up in an arbitrary number rather the what was actually said in a review or people's actual feedback.
Well said.
Well said.
This is pretty big considering how major Polygon is. But
I don't see how anything would ever stop them from doing a rotten tomatoes type system.
I don't see how anything would ever stop them from doing a rotten tomatoes type system.
I like this. Never understood the obsession over scores alone, which often times seem to overshadow the actual review itself. It was serviceable for a time, but it has felt like a dated metric for a while now.
And for the people that love scores, there's always metacritic.
And for the people that love scores, there's always metacritic.
I'm honestly surprised that people visit sites like Polygon, Kotaku, IGN etc etc.
I get all my gaming "news", if you like, from forums.
I get all my gaming "news", if you like, from forums.
I rarely read a game review with no score. To me the final part of the review is the putting some critical thought into summarizing everything you wrote into a succinct number which demonstrates your final feeling on the game. Yes, this is hard and a lot of people are bad at it. However, that doesn't mean that we should just toss it out the window because it's hard.
I disagree that other mediums aren't driven partially by reviews, even if they rely on it slightly less than games do now. My public library (which I work at and can verify the process of) will not get a movie to circulate to the public if it doesn't have a high RottenTomatoes score, won't get a book if it doesn't have a high average Goodreads or Amazon user score, and won't get a music album if it doesn't have a high RateYourMusic or Acclaimedmusic score. If a person is recommended a movie that isn't part of an established franchise, the first place they might go to is RT to get a second (and one hundredth) opinion instead of just blindly going to watch it based on one friend's word-of-mouth recommendation.
The most popular things don't have trouble getting recognized when they release, but word-of-mouth usually doesn't last much beyond the launch window. Someone just now buying a used last-gen console is going to look up "Best Games on WiiStation360" or whatever on Google want to see what the masses agree on, not one random website's list.
Last edited:
Making up a number is not "critical thought". It's the opposite.
A review is a subjective opinion. Putting a number to an opinion is still subjective.
I can't say much more without divulging Ars' history with numberless reviews (I'm not a managing editor, so that kind of company process is not in my purview to freely share), but I'd like to stress that this is no small decision to make for a publication. Very interesting stuff.
Reviews are just opinions and nothing else. A number does not make it any more objective. Come on now.
I've advocated for this type of review process for years. I look forward to people complaining about having to read reviews now.
I'm really surprised by how positive this news is. I'm kind of indifferent. I actually like review scores—specifically Giant Bomb's 5-point scale—but to each his own.
So how are they going to give people the skimmy on if the game is worth buying, renting or passing on? Some reviews are too in depth and I like to read the highlights of where the reviewer found issue, either technical, writing, or bland gameplay.
Just hope it doesn't backfire where you can't read it as them not liking it or a game that has serious problems. Because that has happened. And honestly scores though sometimes hurt if the reviewer really trashes the game, at least for those games that are bad or have big issues it calls them out and lets consumers know.
I don't mind how Kotaku does it honestly, but sometimes the negative stuff they talk about over shadows the good parts of some of the games.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Giant bomb is super fair in their reviews even though they don't review every big release. And I don't see them changing.
Honestly feel there's more too this for them to drop scores.
Your not alone. I think getting rid of scores just shifts ownership, and makes it so you can say what you want without consequence about a product which inmho opinion defeats the purpose. Kotaku's I read to get an idea of what their experience was with the game, but I feel it's not the same as putting a score up that reflects all the pieces the reviewer covered to make honest developers do better if their game has major issues.
Or even if it doesn't, if the total consensus on a game is it's great in these area's but weak in these, I feel the score helps reflect the total package and show developers where they need to improve. I guess you could do that without a score, but a score break down which a lot of people do helps alleviate all that.
Just hope it doesn't backfire where you can't read it as them not liking it or a game that has serious problems. Because that has happened. And honestly scores though sometimes hurt if the reviewer really trashes the game, at least for those games that are bad or have big issues it calls them out and lets consumers know.
I don't mind how Kotaku does it honestly, but sometimes the negative stuff they talk about over shadows the good parts of some of the games.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Giant bomb is super fair in their reviews even though they don't review every big release. And I don't see them changing.
Honestly feel there's more too this for them to drop scores.
Your not alone. I think getting rid of scores just shifts ownership, and makes it so you can say what you want without consequence about a product which inmho opinion defeats the purpose. Kotaku's I read to get an idea of what their experience was with the game, but I feel it's not the same as putting a score up that reflects all the pieces the reviewer covered to make honest developers do better if their game has major issues.
Or even if it doesn't, if the total consensus on a game is it's great in these area's but weak in these, I feel the score helps reflect the total package and show developers where they need to improve. I guess you could do that without a score, but a score break down which a lot of people do helps alleviate all that.
I'd like to remind everyone of the reactions elicited by the 8/10 for God of War from Edge.
We (i.e. the gamer™ demographic) are way too attached to these numbers and they're all inflated at this point. More critical outlets are met with disdain and a '7 out of 10' is crap in the eyes of many. It's been laughable for years, honestly. Thus, it's a good move to transition past them.
We (i.e. the gamer™ demographic) are way too attached to these numbers and they're all inflated at this point. More critical outlets are met with disdain and a '7 out of 10' is crap in the eyes of many. It's been laughable for years, honestly. Thus, it's a good move to transition past them.
Metacritic seems like should be ready to restructure their content. Maybe start having humans parse through reviews, mapping out commonalities in praise and criticism.
While it's a positive move in general to remove scores, I don't think it addresses the more deep rooted problems of game reviewing, and that's the lack of actual critique for major titles. It feels so incredibly superficial next to the stuff that the YouTube reviewer community is putting out like Joseph Anderson or Gaming Brit Show. I think very highly of their content and reviews from outlets feel past the threshold of acceptable vapidness by comparison.
While it's a positive move in general to remove scores, I don't think it addresses the more deep rooted problems of game reviewing, and that's the lack of actual critique for major titles. It feels so incredibly superficial next to the stuff that the YouTube reviewer community is putting out like Joseph Anderson or Gaming Brit Show. I think very highly of their content and reviews from outlets feel past the threshold of acceptable vapidness by comparison.
A review is subjective opinion, and scoring systems are subjective too. There's nothing objective about any of that
Sites have a system for grading and it's not just made up on the spot. Also, there is often talk between the editor and the reviewer to hammer down on why the reviewer felt the game deserved a certain score. Removing this additional process of critical thought just because it's hard to do correctly only serves to removes additional pieces of information that a reader has.
As a reader I can already read the review, the number just crystalizes the words into a number for greater effect.
When a reviewer gives a game a 10/10 or 100/100 it is far more dramatic and impactful than just reading a review.
Once again, from IGN's review score guide:
The system is.."this feels like..." and then asign a number, more or less.
