Hate Out Of Ten

[TornadoCreator]

How do people feel about game review scores now. A year or two ago, 8/10 was a "bad" review. It was just ridiculous. People expect 10/10 reviews for games they've not even played... it's sad. Here's a good video on the topic.

 

 

Now, what I wonder is if people feel this is changing yet. PS4/Xbox One games have been getting 6's and 7's far more than the standard 8's and 9's but we're still not using the lower half of the spectrum, and a 5/10 would still be thought of as terrible by most gamers rather than average as it should be.

 

What do you guys think?

[toxicitizen]

8/10 was never a bad score. Gamers are just fucking stupid. Even a 6/10 can have some redeeming value and be worthwhile for a playthrough.

 

edit:

 

I'm not sure I agree that 5 should be the average, though. I don't think game review scores should necessarily follow a normal distribution. And at 5/10 you're still looking at a game that somehow lost half the points. At that point you kinda have to wonder what the problem is. Hence the importance of actually reading the review, as the score on its own is meaningless.

Edited July 4, 2014 by FLD

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm fine with 7 being considered "average".  I mean, a 70% is a C, which is supposed to be the average grade, so it makes sense to me.

 

*Edit* - That said, if I'm rating things with stars I do tend to apply the middle = average idea.  Generally I go llike this:

 

1 star - I really didn't like it

2 stars - I didn't like it

3 stars - it was okay

4 stars - I liked it

5 stars - I really liked it

 

I don't know why stars seem different to me.

Edited July 4, 2014 by TheMightyEthan

[TornadoCreator]

I'll have to disagree there FLD, as I feel your view of a rating system is fundamentally flawed. I don't rate a game 10/10 then knock points off for flaws. A 5/10 didn't lose half the points, it simply didn't excel in anything. I would consider the first InFamous a 6/10 game at best because it felt average and unexceptional, but I didn't dock it points for doing anything explicitly wrong. If anything 5/10 should be average by definition. This isn't a school exam, they don't "fail", for getting less than a 7/10. This is an artistic critique metric and we get more nuance from it by using the whole scale.

[TornadoCreator]

I'm fine with 7 being considered "average".  I mean, a 70% is a C, which is supposed to be the average grade, so it makes sense to me.

 

*Edit* - That said, if I'm rating things with stars I do tend to apply the middle = average idea.  Generally I go llike this:

 

1 star - I really didn't like it

2 stars - I didn't like it

3 stars - it was okay

4 stars - I liked it

5 stars - I really liked it

 

I don't know why stars seem different to me.

 

Only in USA. 70% as an average grade is stupid, it reduces the important part of the scale while highlighting the irrelevant. In UK a passing grade is 40%, but the exam is harder. This makes the difference between a 90% and a 93% for example far more nuanced, and makes high scores rare and valuable. Far too many Americans ace their exams, getting perfect SAT scores... if there are people regularly getting perfect scores the exams are too easy... the same is true in video games. If a critic is giving out more than a sparse few 10/10s, they need harsher judging criteria.

[toxicitizen]

I'll have to disagree there FLD, as I feel your view of a rating system is fundamentally flawed. I don't rate a game 10/10 then knock points off for flaws. A 5/10 didn't lose half the points, it simply didn't excel in anything. I would consider the first InFamous a 6/10 game at best because it felt average and unexceptional, but I didn't dock it points for doing anything explicitly wrong. If anything 5/10 should be average by definition. This isn't a school exam, they don't "fail", for getting less than a 7/10. This is an artistic critique metric and we get more nuance from it by using the whole scale.

I don't think my view of a rating system is flawed, I think what you're talking about is something completely different. Reviews in general have nothing to do with artistic value, they're an evaluation of the product to inform consumers. They score games based on tangible aspects: gameplay, graphics, sound, replay value. Is it even fun?! And yes, the game can very much fail. In that regard, then yes, you would start at a "perfect" score and knock points whenever you think there's a problem. If I research it and read only bad reviews, then it fails to generate a sale from me. The games industry is a business, how is that not a failure on their part?

 

If we're talking about purely artistic merit then we're in critical analysis territory and those are a completely different thing. They have no score attached to them because that's simply not the point. They explore what the mechanics are saying rather than whether or not they're solid. They're not asking "should you buy this game?" but rather "is this game thematically interesting and why?" and they do so while ignoring its value as a product. It doesn't matter here if the game is buggy or broken. This is where concepts like ludonarrative dissonnance become relevant. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out Errant Signal on youtube. I'm also a pretty big fan of SuperBunnyhop's Critical Close-Up series.

 

(edited for typos and added links)

Edited July 4, 2014 by FLD

[TornadoCreator]

I would disagree that these concepts are separate at all. What good is a video game review as product? As product all that tells me is whether the game works... that doesn't interest me. If a game doesn't work, I'll take it back and demand a full refund as I would with any product.  Sonic Free Riders or Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing for example are broken. I feel reviews need to judge the games artistic merits just as a film review does for film. I'm buying art after all, not a toaster or a set of socket spanners.

 

What I'm getting at is that the reason I'm buying a game is for artistic expression. I don't want average to mean "functional", I want it to mean "of average artist value". I'm not after all buying a media disc, I'm buying the art on that disc.

 

Really it comes down to how you see games. Are they art or product, expression in media or simply a toy to pass the time. I think you can see which side I'm on here.

Edited July 4, 2014 by TornadoCreator

[toxicitizen]

I'm on the same side as far as how I personally view games. I'm a big fan of both the Youtube channels I linked and it sounds like you'd enjoy them as well, so I strongly recommend you check them out.

 

I just don't think that's the right way to look at reviews. Artistic value is insanely subjective and most people buying a game couldn't give two shits about it. I mean, one of the (if not THE) best-selling IPs of all time is Call of Duty, for fuck's sake. That should tell you something.

 

Games are expensive as hell, so yeah, I think when it comes to launch reviews then it's more relevant to evaluate them as a product. I don't want to pay 60 dollars for an interesting game that barely works. I'd feel ripped off if I'd bought Battlefield 4 day one and gotten the broken mess that it was at launch. 

 

I mean, I'm not trying to be exclusionary here. There is room to comment on a game's artistic merit in a review. It just shouldn't be the entire point like you're suggesting. I want a review to tell me whether a game is thematically interesting and whatnot. It just really needs to focus on "but it's also fucking broken right now so maybe wait until they patch it up before you drop 60 bucks on this".

Edited July 4, 2014 by FLD

[Vecha]

I feel too much energy is given to the numbers.

I just like to read the review personally...


And when Metacritic is brought in...God, it just gets even more tiresome.

Oh well, that's my two cents that really doesn't bring anything to the table of how we should use numbers. Bahaha.

[TornadoCreator]

Oh no, you misunderstand... I consider product stability to be bare minimum. As far as I'm concerned Battlefield 4 at launch is a 1/10 because it doesn't work, to get anything above a 2/10 from me it needs to have artistic merit, that said I don't rate multiplayer FPS games at all because I don't consider them games. I'll explain.

 

The likes of Call Of Duty etc. don't need story, character, art design etc. they're about muliplayer competitive play and have little to no appeal to me and other gamers who want narrative driven interactive media. They're not 'video games' in the same way that The Last Of Us or Final Fantasy VII is. I actually feel completely unqualified to discuss Call Of Duty and don't feel it belongs. In effect I consider a game critic discussing CoD to be as ludicrous as a film critic discussing the FIFA World Cup Final, sure it's televised entertainment but it's completely different from a feature film and cannot be judged in the same way. I no more consider Call Of Duty players to be gamers than I would consider a football fan to be a film buff... even if they watch every match in the season.

 

The only reason I buy games is for artistic expression and like with film critique, I expect game critics to touch on the artistic merits; to fail to do so is to miss the point. No-one writes a film review in which they discuss the framerate it was filmed in, the contrast in the shots, or the clarity of the audio (unless they're egregiously bad). It's assumed all films can at least attend competency here and they instead talk about storylines, theming, character depth, pacing, and cinematography... this is what makes film art and not just a waste of time, and it's precisely this that gaming should aspire to.

[Alex Heat]

I'm on board with Ethan, but also with Vecha.  If I have to use a metric to gauge an experience, a simple 1-5 scale with 3 being average/standard/inoffensive works best for me.  But at the same time, I agree that too much stock is put into the number/judgment.

 

Sure, there's a finite amount of time, but if one is so curious about an experience, only experiencing it will give them a genuine answer.

[toxicitizen]

Oh no, you misunderstand... I consider product stability to be bare minimum. As far as I'm concerned Battlefield 4 at launch is a 1/10 because it doesn't work, to get anything above a 2/10 from me it needs to have artistic merit, that said I don't rate multiplayer FPS games at all because I don't consider them games.

 

The likes of Call Of Duty etc. don't need story, character, art design etc. they're about muliplayer competitive play and have little to no appeal to me and other gamers who want narrative driven interactive media. They're not 'video games' in the same way that The Last Of Us or Final Fantasy VII is.

And I'm the one with a flawed understanding of what a review system needs to be? I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. COD is as much a video game as anything else. Your own personal preferences are absolutely irrelevant here. Plus, I'm not sure the review system you've been describing actually exists anywhere in the real world...

 

In effect I consider a game critic discussing CoD to be as ludicrous as a film critic discussing the FIFA World Cup Final, sure it's televised entertainment but it's completely different from a feature film and cannot be judged in the same way. I no more consider Call Of Duty players to be gamers than I would consider a football fan to be a film buff... even if they watch every match in the season.

Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. You can't draw arbitrary lines to define which video games qualify as being video games. I mean, I can kinda see where people are coming from when they say that Dear Esther or Gone Home aren't games. I strongly disagree but I can at least see why they might feel that way. What you're saying here, though, is absolute fucking nonsense.

 

The only reason I buy games is for artistic expression and like with film critique, I expect game critics to touch on the artistic merits; to fail to do so is to miss the point. No-one writes a film review in which they discuss the framerate it was filmed in, the contrast in the shots, or the clarity of the audio (unless they're egregiously bad). It's assumed all films can at least attend competency here and they instead talk about storylines, theming, character depth, pacing, and cinematography... this is what makes film art and not just a waste of time, and it's precisely this that gaming should aspire to.

This analogy simply doesn't work. With games, framerate is directly related to performance. It's irrelevant to films because they all run at the same one. But when The Hobbit came out in 48 FPS, reviews made mention of it because it was suddenly very relevant and actually had an effect on the viewing experience. If a movie has bad lighting or contrast, then any reviewer who knows what he's talking about will make mention of it. But the same goes when it's particularly good. You think the artistic merit of a film only goes as far as the script and acting? Holy shit, man, there's so much more to it.

[TornadoCreator]

I can draw lines like that, they're anything but arbitrary, and they make perfect sense. Why are you so offended that I consider narrative driven Video Games and competitive multiplayer Video Games to be so different that they're no longer the same medium... I'm clearly right.

 

In this young and very badly organised industry there's no allowence for different media. In televised entertainment you wouldn't judge a football match, hollywood blockbuster, serial soap opera, stand up comedy show, documentary, horror film, or children's cartoon short by the same criteria would you? Hell a film critic wouldn't even pay attention to most of what I just said, but it's all still televised entertainment. What I'm suggesting is that interactive media is much like televised entertainment; it's actually many forms of entertainment all under an umbrella term. Tetris, Call Of Duty, and Shadow Of The Colossus are all very different games as different as sports, stand up comedy, and film I'd say. There's nothing stopping a film fan enjoying a football match or a stand up show, but that doesn't make them films. Likewise there's nothing stopping a gamer from playing all types of games but they're clearly different media, that's my point...

 

Now I personally grew up playing video games, they had storylines, where largely single player and had an ending. My hobby is an insular, solitary, and introspective hobby. I don't care about multiplayer deathmatch in the slightest. Handing me a Call Of Duty game is like handing a film buff a DVD with a football game on it and saying, "I know you like video entertainment so I got you some". It's a gross and even somewhat offensive oversimplification of the medium. That's what I mean when I say I don't consider Call Of Duty to be a video game in the same way as I would the games I play. It's not a statement of it's quality, hell, I CAN'T judge it's quality; it's a statement on the inherent disconnect between such disperate genres.

[toxicitizen]

I can draw lines like that, they're anything but arbitrary, and they make perfect sense. Why are you so offended that I consider narrative driven Video Games and competitive multiplayer Video Games to be so different that they're no longer the same medium... I'm clearly right.

Oh, I'm not offended. I just think you're saying very silly things. Don't misunderstand my tone for anger, that's just how I tend to talk. Also, your analogies were so bad that I was suspecting a troll and, well, the "I'm clearly right" part doesn't help you there.

 

In this young and very badly organised industry there's no allowence for different media. In televised entertainment you wouldn't judge a football match, hollywood blockbuster, serial soap opera, stand up comedy show, documentary, horror film, or children's cartoon short by the same criteria would you? Hell a film critic wouldn't even pay attention to most of what I just said, but it's all still televised entertainment. What I'm suggesting is that interactive media is much like televised entertainment; it's actually many forms of entertainment all under an umbrella term. Tetris, Call Of Duty, and Shadow Of The Colossus are all very different games as different as sports, stand up comedy, and film I'd say. There's nothing stopping a film fan enjoying a football match or a stand up show, but that doesn't make them films. Likewise there's nothing stopping a gamer from playing all types of games but they're clearly different media, that's my point...

I'm not sure why you keep going back to that football match example because it makes no sense. It's a sporting event that just happened to have cameras pointed at it, it's not a crafted piece of filmed entertainment. It's really more akin to a concert DVD. Almost everything else you listed is fair game, though. The only reason a "film critic" wouldn't pay attention to those other things would because it's not his job to review them. But the rules of doing so would be largely the same whether it's a movie, live-action TV or even animation. Hell, I'd expect a film critic to review a feature documentary because why not.

 

Now I personally grew up playing video games, they had storylines, where largely single player and had an ending. My hobby is an insular, solitary, and introspective hobby. I don't care about multiplayer deathmatch in the slightest.

That's fine. I'm not particularly into multiplayer games either. But you're confusing mediums with genres, here. Just because you wouldn't play it doesn't make it a different medium.

 

Handing me a Call Of Duty game is like handing a film buff a DVD with a football game on it and saying, "I know you like video entertainment so I got you some". It's a gross and even somewhat offensive oversimplification of the medium.

No, handing you a COD game is like handing you a copy of The Shining when you don't like horror films. It's still very much a film. And I really need to point out that the inherent contradiction with what you're saying while calling something else an oversimplification blows my freaking mind, here. You are trolling, yes?   

 

That's what I mean when I say I don't consider Call Of Duty to be a video game in the same way as I would the games I play. It's not a statement of it's quality, hell, I CAN'T judge it's quality; it's a statement on the inherent disconnect between such disperate genres.

Well, you're right about them being different genres... Why should being based around social interaction or competition magically make it a different medium? Different type of experience, sure. But that's about it. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by FLD

[deanb]

I think really with reviews you want to be finding someone that does reviews in a style you prefer and stick to them. For example I prefer something to go "yeah this games works, and it's pretty fun" or what not, yet someone else might want to review a game if it's pushing boundaries, someone might review a game based on the arty fartiness or someone might want to review a game on how much content there is to it.

 

Such a broad range of styles, and broad range of games, there's likely reviews where an 8/10 would match with your tastes, and someone else's 8/10 might be your 1/10 on that kind of game.

 

In a more broader sense directly answering initial point, I do feel there's certain games that get an almost instant pass, regardless of merit in comparison to other games of similar nature. I also find a 7/10 being an "average" quality game to be a bit silly, even more so with the flawed grading scheme (it's not an exam, and it's kind of a after-the-fact explanation, also in that case use an A/B/C/D etc), but it's highly unlikely to go away any time soon, and anyone trying to shift to 5/10 being average is likely to be seen as been super harsh on a game. Despite the fact they've now nearly double the range in which they can score games.

 

Hence I just don't really bother with them and we have the summary box stuff on PXOD with type of genre, USP, any cons, and time to beat. Should tick most boxes of the "tl;dr" crowd, with rest of review there for folks who like reading.

[TornadoCreator]

I can't really do complex quotes using the Wii U so I hope you can follow this well...

 

You claim the difference between Call Of Duty and narrative games are more genre differences, I disagree. The fundamental differences in mechanics are far more telling than simple genre. A good example of this is as follows.

 

I like both Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Fallout 3. These are great games and if asked for a genre, most would say they're RPGs, maybe they'd specify Western RPGs; which is fine but wrong. The genres are Cyberpunk and Post-Apocolyptic respectively, the game... mechanics style?... that would be Western RPG. It's genuinely hard to discuss these things because the industry has built haphazardly without direction or structure. Think about how stupid the "genre" name First Person Shooter is. Extra Credits did a great episode discussing this.

 

My point is I know someone who likes Fallout 3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution but doesn't like Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim because he doesn't like the Fantasy genre. He liked Mass Effect, but didn't enjoy Dragon Age: Origins. This is what genre means, it's a description of the setting. The genre for Call Of Duty is Military, the mechanics style, (for lack of a better term as one currently doesn't exist), is First Person Shooter. Calling both of these things "genre" makes academic discussion on gaming very difficult.

 

PS: For future reference, I'm never trolling. I like to question conventional wisdom and think critically about my hobbies. I'm an intelligent guy trapped at home and unable to work due to disability. This is how I keep my mind active, debate and analysis. If I ever say somthing that offends I apologise but the most interesting topics are emotionally charged. If you disagree with me about something, great, let's debate; but I promise you my opinions are genuine and my posts serious. I do not troll, it would be a sad and pathetic use of the limited time I have left.

[toxicitizen]

You claim the difference between Call Of Duty and narrative games are more genre differences, I disagree.

You do realize that Call of Duty has a story-based campaign, right?

 

The fundamental differences in mechanics are far more telling than simple genre. A good example of this is as follows.

 

I like both Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Fallout 3. These are great games and if asked for a genre, most would say they're RPGs, maybe they'd specify Western RPGs; which is fine but wrong. The genres are Cyberpunk and Post-Apocolyptic respectively, the game... mechanics style?... that would be Western RPG. It's genuinely hard to discuss these things because the industry has built haphazardly without direction or structure. Think about how stupid the "genre" name First Person Shooter is. Extra Credits did a great episode discussing this.

I get what you're saying here but I think you're looking at it wrong. You're certainly not wrong that DXHR is cyberpunk and Fallout 3 is post-apocalyptic. But you're only describing their narrative settings here. Again, you're using your personal preferences of story-based games as hard limits to define them. Some games simply don't have stories or take place in more generic settings. How would those narrative descriptions be helpful, then?

 

I mean, what does "cyberpunk" really tell you about Deus Ex as a game? I agree that First-Person Shooter is a stupid name, but really, it tells you everything you need to know about how it plays, doesn't it?

 

Telling me Deus Ex is a First-Person RPG tells me what kind of game it is, cyberpunk tells me what kind of story/universe it has. Transistor is also cyberpunk but beyond that it has very little in common with Deus Ex. Simply saying "cyberpunk" is fine for purely passive story-based mediums like books or movies, but for something interactive like a video game it's simply inadequate because of how varied the experiences can be. 

 

When looking for something new to play, I'll think about it in terms of what type of mechanics I'd like to play (FPS, RPG, Turn-Based strategy, etc...) over what kind of narrative genre it is, but that's just me.

 

My point is I know someone who likes Fallout 3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution but doesn't like Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim because he doesn't like the Fantasy genre. He liked Mass Effect, but didn't enjoy Dragon Age: Origins. This is what genre means, it's a description of the setting. The genre for Call Of Duty is Military, the mechanics style, (for lack of a better term as one currently doesn't exist), is First Person Shooter. Calling both of these things "genre" makes academic discussion on gaming very difficult.

Miscommunication it was, then. Like I said, describing the mechanics is every bit as important (if not more) as describing the narrative setting when it comes to video games. Games are by their very nature interactive experiences and trying to categorize them purely in terms of passive ones is doing the medium a disservice.

 

PS: For future reference, I'm never trolling. I like to question conventional wisdom and think critically about my hobbies. I'm an intelligent guy trapped at home and unable to work due to disability. This is how I keep my mind active, debate and analysis. If I ever say somthing that offends I apologise but the most interesting topics are emotionally charged. If you disagree with me about something, great, let's debate; but I promise you my opinions are genuine and my posts serious. I do not troll, it would be a sad and pathetic use of the limited time I have left.

Fair enough. I just thought some of your points were kind of illogical and poorly constructed. When I encounter that, my first instinct is to doubt the authenticity of the argument. Especially when I see phrases like "I'm clearly right", which is something a troll would say to try and get a rise out of people. This is the internet, after all.

[toxicitizen]

I think really with reviews you want to be finding someone that does reviews in a style you prefer and stick to them. For example I prefer something to go "yeah this games works, and it's pretty fun" or what not, yet someone else might want to review a game if it's pushing boundaries, someone might review a game based on the arty fartiness or someone might want to review a game on how much content there is to it.

 

Such a broad range of styles, and broad range of games, there's likely reviews where an 8/10 would match with your tastes, and someone else's 8/10 might be your 1/10 on that kind of game.

Yeah, finding reviewers whose opinions you generally respect or agree with really is the best thing to do here. I disagree with Jim Sterling's reviews more often than not but I certainly respect his opinion. A 5/10 from him won't make me write off a game entirely but I'll certainly want to know what it was that made him feel it deserved that score.

 

In a more broader sense directly answering initial point, I do feel there's certain games that get an almost instant pass, regardless of merit in comparison to other games of similar nature. I also find a 7/10 being an "average" quality game to be a bit silly, even more so with the flawed grading scheme (it's not an exam, and it's kind of a after-the-fact explanation, also in that case use an A/B/C/D etc), but it's highly unlikely to go away any time soon, and anyone trying to shift to 5/10 being average is likely to be seen as been super harsh on a game. Despite the fact they've now nearly double the range in which they can score games.

Yeah, this is all subjective as hell. But I tend to favor smaller-range scales, like the 5 stars system Ethan mentioned. None of that 100 points decimal scale bullshit. I mean, shit, for all the garbage that's on that site, I think Kotaku's Yes/No system is actually a good idea.

[TornadoCreator]

I definately agree different sensibilities require different critics, in fact I think that's a good solution to my issue to an extent. Jim Sterling and Noah Antwiler are two critics I like, in fact Jim Sterling and I have scarily similar tastes in most cases.

 

My position is that someone who reviews RPGs needs completely different skills than someone who reviews FPSs, and I think that because people spread themselves too thin reviewing all kinds of games no-one takes the extra step to become an aficionado of the media. For example, a J-RPG critic with knowledge of animé, Japanese mythology, tokusatsu, and tabletop pen and paper gaming (like Noah Antwiler) so their cultural references aren't lost on them. Roger Ebert was a great film critic because he was well read and understood the common themes and practices in western film. This is what let him become such a great pusher of film-as-art; as of yet video games don't have that.

 

PS: I'm aware that CoD has a campaign, and like the audience that buys CoD, I'm completely ignoring it. No-one buys CoD for it's laughably trite 4 hour long teen boy power fantasy non-stories and we all know this. Sure they may play the campaign as well, but it's the multiplayer they buy the game for.