Not so average?

[neoviper]

gamesTM's review scoring policy commendably states that "some publications would fool you into believing that a 7/10 game is average" and that "any title that simply performs to an adequate standard will receive a 5/10". That is a notion that I agree with entirely, however, it’s one that has been almost completely absent from the magazine in recent months.

Average, by the very definition of the word, typifies a set of values. As such, a quick tally of the reviews in your last two issues yields mean averages of 7.2 (issue 96) and 7.3 (issue 95). Not to be pedantic, but doesn't this put the magazine into the bracket of publications that "would fool you into believing that a 7/10 game is average"?

There are two possible justifications for this - games are increasing in standard, or your scoring system is being too generous. The fact that these averages were achieved during the traditionally quiet first quarter lends credence to the former, in which case the scoring policy should be changed. However I suspect that it could be a combination of the two. To reference a specific example from your latest issue, the Dead to Rights: Retribution review carried a rather scathing indictment of the game with the only positive comment to be found suggesting that it can be a bit funny in small doses. However, the score of 4/10 suggests, in accordance with your own heralded scoring system, that the game is only slightly worse than average! Surely a score or 1 or 2 would have provided a more fitting summation of the text in the review, subsequently freeing up the 4 to 6 bracket for the swathes of average games that have been rather generously awarded 7's and 8's lately?

Perhaps more fittingly, could you take the brave step of dispensing with the scoring system altogether and allowing your excellent reviews to speak for themselves?

[Triggerhappytel]

Good post Viper-san. I too dislike this notion (popularised in the days of Official PlayStation 1 Magazine, I expect) that 7/10 is the middle of the road score, as many/all publications seem to lean toward. Gamespot and IGN are particularly bad for this, with IGN handing out absurdly generous scores.

However, in the other topic we've been discussing consistency, and when you've got a team of writers working on probably a dozen reviews per issue, unless the publication has an extremely competent and dedicated editor who plays all these games and has weight in the final say, it's going to be very difficult to maintain absolute consistency in the analyses and writing, not to mention personal preferences and subjective opinions coming in to it.

The problem is that different writers and readers have different goalposts - I personally would consider a game with poor gameplay but an excellent story to be quite seriously flawed, but there are those who think quite the opposite and would rather experience a strong narrative.

There is also the problem of genre preferences to consider - do you get a beat 'em up fan to review Super Street Fighter IV and risk getting a skewed high score, or do you get someone nonchalant over the genre to review it at the risk of an unfairly low score? Either way, subjective opinions are again coming into it, and you're not necessarily getting a straight-down-the-middle score that is completely fair.

As someone who has written reviews, I find that I tend to decide on a score whilst playing the game, and when it comes to the writing, I have to do it in such a way that the score sounds justified. Sometimes this will make me reconsider and alter (usually lower) the score, but generally I try to make the text read like I am writing about a [_]/10 game.

Review scores themselves will always be a point of contention, and I would like to see them abolished, or in the very least a trial period without them - how about it, gTM?

[maf-me-quick]

i dunno, if they lose the scores than there not up on metacritic, and that means what they say holds less weight, fair or not. i'm not sure if being a magazine would help counter balance that or be even more detrimental, seeing as more people read reviews, or just look at score's, online. at places, say, metacritic.

[neoviper]

The problem is that different writers and readers have different goalposts

I appreciate that, but like I said in the other thread, I don't think there's a single GTM review where I've disagreed with the main review, so I don't think the difference in writers is the issue. The problem is that the score at the end is often not representative of what was said in the review, as evidenced by the Dead to Rights example. I think if they are going to persist with a numerical scoring system, it should be consistent with what they have set out in their scoring policy.

I like your suggestion that they should do a trial period without scores. Years ago when I used to read Edge (before their negativity started to bore me), they actually did an issue where the bottom of each review simply said '? out of 10'. I thought it worked really well - you really had to read each review thoroughly to establish whether that game was for you, and it reduced the importance of that pesky little number at the end! Then at the back of the magazine, there was a tiny box with all the scores, for those poor souls who absolutely could not live without them (i.e. the Metacritic crowd).

[Bilge Rat]

Remember though that gamesTM does not review every single game that is released. Due to time and space constraints they only review the titles that they think people will actually be interested in. If they think that a game's very premise is a steaming pile of horse dung then they won't even review it, thus raising the scores of the games they do review to above average.

This is why they have few games that score a 1 or a 2. It is only on rare occasions when a heavily-hyped game turns out to be total dross (Wii Music or Haze for example).

Also bear in mind that 1 represents a game with almost no redeeming features whatsoever and 10 represents a game that is as good as it could possibly be. Since most developers endevour to make good games instead of bad ones and so generally manage to fit something of interest into their releases it means that there are more 10s than 1s, again raising the average for actual scores. 5 is more of a theoretical average.

[maf-me-quick]

but gamestm are a consumer magazine, right? so if they go on about all the flaws of a game, but in spite of them it's still entertaining and there's half a paragraph or so saying that it's still enjoyable, then a 7's about right, right? likewise if a game is mostly good but there's a couple of things that wreck it completely and it gets a 5 or 6 that sounds about right also. if there are just more things to talk about and make the consumer more aware of then i think that's fine. it's not like they've (to my knowledge) ever turned around and said "this game is fundamentally broken and is full of bad ideas all over...but it looks very pretty; 8."

[Tlix]

I don't really have a huge problem with the scoring system but wouldn't it be better or even easier for people to judge if it was done out of 5 rather then 10? 3 would be average (obviously) but that still seems a decent enough amount of points to give something where as if something is just below average 2/5 doesn't look quite as bad a say a 3/10. That way everyone wins. People get a better score given to them and the mag doesn't have to give the low scores that it seems too afraid to give.

On a side note I too want to play Dead to Rights but won't get round to it any time soon. The negative comments didn't really put me off and still thought it was worth a try for myself.

[Triggerhappytel]

Strangely, I find myself tempted to buy Dark Void because of its cheap prices. I thought the demo was okay - the flying seemed fun, but the shooting quite rubbish - and because it's supposed to be short I almost find myself wanting to play it despite having lots of much better games at home needing playing.

I suppose that kind of builds on maf's quote above; if a game is lacking in some areas, how much weight should its simple fun factor carry? Resident Evil 5 was fun at times, but I don't think it was a very good game overall. But does being 'fun' outweigh most gripes?! The same with Lost Planet 2; it's a shitty game in some respects, but it can also be very fun. How forgiving should we be?

[maf-me-quick]

But does being 'fun' outweigh most gripes?!

i also think you should think about the entertainment factor. these days that doesn't necessarily mean fun, i get that. i don't like giving examples, i feel poncy, but here's mine; it might be a game that engrossed you and you just have to see how it plays out (KotOR). might be a game you just can't put down because it's addictive (borderlands), and, on the remote chance in 2010, the game might just make you smile (sonic unleashed). i have major problems with all these games, but they all have something that, in spite of their...quirks, i loved to bits.

not to say problems can't get in the way, though. if they wreck a game, they wreck a game. no two ways about that. it's just about how much you enjoyed taking part in the game.

am i making any sense?

[DifferentClass]

I said in the other thread that I think they should get rid of the scores, but I have a different reason.

Lets take a game like Demon's Souls, now this got a 10 out of 10 but I think with this game that score, or any score means feck all. To get a sense of that game you can't just look at the score, it has such subjective gameplay. Some may love it, and clearly do but there will be plenty others that feel that those type of game mechanics frustrating, clunky or inaccessible. But if you just read the review all this stuff is pointed out, so you can read it and decide yourself if that sort of game would appeal to you.

While you can still do that with the score I feel that it takes too much attention away from the review, if Demon's Souls gameplay doesn't sound to good yet you try it because it got a 10 because it must be a quality game you're gonna be disappointed. A score on its own is useless, a score attached to a review is equally useless. The sooner they disappear the better, when I see them on websites I often think they're there just to cause arguments on the comments section.

[maf-me-quick]

Back on track, I feel that scores have far to much weight nowadays and a lot of gamers are missing out on many a great gaming experience. As you all know I probably play the most diverse selection of games on the forum as score mean diddly to me,

well, you play more 360 games than any one, dunno if diverse is the word (of course there is diversity on the 360), using dead to rights as an example, that's not really diverse, that's just (from what i gather) a generic 3rd person shooter. though out of curiosity, do you play stuff on the DS or wiiware? from what i understand, they have the most "out there" games. i think, anyway.

[Triggerhappytel]

though out of curiosity, do you play stuff on the DS or wiiware? from what i understand, they have the most "out there" games. i think, anyway.

I think downloadable games are by far the most inventive and exciting games of the current generation - I've enjoyed stuff like Flower, Trine and PixelJunk Eden far more than most big games on my PS3. Obviously it's harder to have a breakout hit in downloadable guise, but developers are more willing to fund and publish unique ideas and concepts, because of lower costs and more of a desire to come up with original ideas, rather than just copy the big third/first person shooters.

[maf-me-quick]

mmm...i'd say the DS has more good games on it than the wii does, though it doesn't stop the 10 tons of crap on the shelf you have to wade through to find them.

[bellow]

Neoviper is right. That little box explaining, rather pretentiously, the Gamestm scoring system has become meaningless. It's obvious the scoring has moved more in line with other publications, possibly due to subconscious pressure from metacritic. (by subconscious, I mean a magazine may want it's reviews to carry a weight that that is universally recognised across the board, and move that way naturally).

It's time for that box to be removed. It gives a credence to the scoring that is not upheld by the mag. Most Gamestm readers don't need scores so their importance should be downplayed - kept only for the semi-nonsence of metacritic.

[merman]

Hold on, who says that the average scores in a month have to work out as average?

In other words, this month there could be several above average games and a classic that drag the average score FOR THAT ISSUE up. Next month they could review half a dozen rushed and badly bugged games that don't deserve more than 4 and that issue will HAVE A MUCH LOWER AVERAGE.

It took me a while to adjust to the idea that 5 = average in GamesTM. I was used to the old days of ZZAP! where generally a game that scored 75% or more (in other words 7.5) was worth playing, between 60% and 75% there were flaws that might make a game less playable but could still interest someone who likes that type of game, and below 60% was considered poor. In fact I went through a spell where I never bought games that scored less than 80% in ZZAP!. Although I don't buy many new games, I still use GamesTM as a buying guide, but I do tend to stick to games that get 7 and above.