I understand that the final verdict score system of many websites has evolved over the years, but I sincerely believe review scores aren't enough for people to make informed decisions for their video games. The recent review thread of Death Stranding is evidence of just that. Putting a number on any game is enough for some people to make a decision if they want to purchase the game without actually reading the content of the review.
I've seen people more anxious about Death Stranding getting a 90+ Metacritic score than actually hoping that they like the game as well.
Most reviews thoroughly explain why they feel like they gave the game a high score, and that could be the exact reason someone else could've given it a negative one. The subjective nature of games shouldn't allow for a scoring system like this to give you enough information about a game, because what exactly does a 7/10 in sound mean? you know. I'm sure people have suggested this idea before, but seeing that Death Stranding review thread spiral out of control has shown that there are people genuinely bothered by the game scoring an 84 Metacritic score, which should be enough in terms of this current scoring system.
Then there's the issue with how apparently a lot of reviews sound harsher in their review content than their overall score, and people who have actually read the content are hesitant about the game now.
People are going apeshit over the IGN review, without even reading it, and being pissed at its score. It's the same when Jim Sterling was ridiculed online because he didn't give BOTW a full 10/10.
It's why I appreciate YouTubers like Joseph Anderson, SuperBunnyHop and MatthewMatosis, that don't put a number on the game but force you to go through their content, so they can explain why they feel that way, but I know everyone doesn't have the time to read or watch an entire review.
My question to ERA is this, what do you think should be the alternative to the general scoring system we have at the moment, and would you be actually willing to go through the review content instead of relying on the number at the end?
I've seen people more anxious about Death Stranding getting a 90+ Metacritic score than actually hoping that they like the game as well.
Most reviews thoroughly explain why they feel like they gave the game a high score, and that could be the exact reason someone else could've given it a negative one. The subjective nature of games shouldn't allow for a scoring system like this to give you enough information about a game, because what exactly does a 7/10 in sound mean? you know. I'm sure people have suggested this idea before, but seeing that Death Stranding review thread spiral out of control has shown that there are people genuinely bothered by the game scoring an 84 Metacritic score, which should be enough in terms of this current scoring system.
Then there's the issue with how apparently a lot of reviews sound harsher in their review content than their overall score, and people who have actually read the content are hesitant about the game now.
People are going apeshit over the IGN review, without even reading it, and being pissed at its score. It's the same when Jim Sterling was ridiculed online because he didn't give BOTW a full 10/10.
It's why I appreciate YouTubers like Joseph Anderson, SuperBunnyHop and MatthewMatosis, that don't put a number on the game but force you to go through their content, so they can explain why they feel that way, but I know everyone doesn't have the time to read or watch an entire review.
My question to ERA is this, what do you think should be the alternative to the general scoring system we have at the moment, and would you be actually willing to go through the review content instead of relying on the number at the end?