digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Video Game Reviews Are Broken, Please Fix

kotaku.com — There are some of you out there who love the way writers and publishers handle video game reviews. This article is not for you.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • navster15, on 11/02/2007, -7/+32This article is fan-*****-tastic. All I want from a review is a concise representation of what the game is about and whether or not I should buy it. I prefer something like GameSpy's 5-star review system. Sure, they give out more "perfect" reviews than other gaming sites, but at least they make clear(er) distinctions between games I should play and games I shouldn't play.
    • GuyeNoir, on 11/01/2007, -15/+3Why not decide for yourself what games you should and shouldn't play?
      • oldhick, on 11/01/2007, -1/+20Because I don't have the time to sit in a game store and try every single game out myself.
      • positron, on 11/01/2007, -0/+18Some (smart) people don't like wasting their time and money buying a game only to realize 5 minutes in that it's a piece of *****.
      • Xelseragoth, on 11/01/2007, -0/+10I think what he meant was to ignore the score, and read the review. Then decide for yourself based on the text, not the score.
        • modix, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I don't think that's what he meant, but that's a smart thing to do. Many of my favorite games were seen as great but had flaws that brought the score down.

          If certain aspects of games are more important to you, like gameplay for instance, oftentimes you can enjoy a game that has the annoying character that the reviewer hated so much he marked down the game a whole number grade. Reading the review will let you decide whether the flaws are ones that matter to you.
    • BillPreston, on 11/01/2007, -2/+7I think it should be based on money.
      The reviewer says: This game is worth (say) $32.
      Makes more sense than a percentage scale where the top 5% isn't possible to hit and the bottom 50% is hardly ever used.
      • danielsan1701, on 11/01/2007, -0/+9I agree with the last line of your comment.
    • wild, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1Even better, why do we need a scale at all?
      • danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9You do realize that even "good" or "bad" options is still a scale, right?
      • wild, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Yes, I meant number/star systems.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I don't think anyone said we need them. We want and like them.
      • chad, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I give your question 3 stars out of 5.
    • WhiteRaven, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3I don't understand your point navster. Video game reviews are already doing that. This article was off base on every point. It doesn't matter whether a publication does or does not award "perfect" scores. As long as your even slightly familiar with their style, you'll *know* what the numbers mean. And being stingy with the highest scores is just fine. It does not represent some kind of penalty or obstacle to game developers. We the readers understand that for some publications, 7.5 means "quite good and worth playing".

      And quibbling about a reviewer that uses hundredths of points is just silly. Obviously, those numbers are derived from taking the average of a number of different scores... controls and visuals and sound and gameplay etc. It's just math.

      "Chapter" three kind of pissed me off. *Every* review site I am remotely familiar with recognizes and embraces the concept that games are art and review them appropriately. On this point, the author is just flat out wrong. Games *are* reviewed as art. Terms like gameplay, feel, immersiveness and style address the art of games.
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 11/03/2007, -0/+7I remember when X-Play (save your boos) talked about this. They basically said exactly what he said about the number system, obviously this isn't a direct quote, but they said something along the lines of:

      5 means practically perfect, 4 means almost perfect but had a problem or two, 3 is good but not great, 2 is mediocre and 1 is terrible don't waste your time.

      We only go out of 5 and don't use half points. Why do we use this? Because the point of these reviews is to give you overview of if we think a game is good or bad, why bother with a 2.45 vs a 2.75 out of 10? Both games obivously suck with scores like that, why does it matter if one sucks slightly less?
  • Volcomite, on 11/01/2007, -6/+12Amazing read. I love that it captures both sides and is blatant honesty. No *****. Bravo Mark Wilson. Just another reason why I respect Kotaku.
    • Cougaboy, on 11/01/2007, -2/+15I agree with most of the article, but his defense of Heavenly Sword and other short games is *****. The movie industry doesn't complain when a movie is 90 minutes long because that's the average length. If you walked into a movie theater and the movie you watched was only 30 minutes long, no matter how good, you'd be pissed. We pay attention to the length of games because they can vary so wildly. Heavenly Sword is noted by reviewers because it was exceedingly short. I would agree with him in his cellphone comparison if reviewers started their reviews with a "game fact sheet" that had things like length on it. Until then, I think he's just trying to defend a game that doesn't deserve defending.
      • Lythium, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1This reminds me of the critical reception of Samuel Beckett's play "Breath." According to wiki, it "lasts for only 35 seconds and has no characters."
        I can only imagine the reaction of the theatergoers to the very first performance ;)
    • GuyeNoir, on 11/01/2007, -1/+8Should have been under Cougaboy's comment:

      There are few things more frustrating than a really fun game that ends too quickly. It's like when you go to a fancy restaurant where the food is amazing, but the portions are really small.

      Length and replayability are two very important parts of any game. It may be an art form, but I still had to pay for it, and I want my money's worth.
    • wild, on 11/01/2007, -2/+810 hours of gameplay is a better value than a ticket to a movie theater. Its $6 an hour and you keep the merchandise. So using movies as an argument against short games is failed logic.

      Hell, even $10/hour is not horrid for entertainment when you break it out. (using your 6 hours for HS example.) You pay $60/hour for a ten minute massage. $20/hour for an NFL ticket. $300/hour for a lap dance, $75/hour for Bruce Springsteen concert. And NONE of those cases do you keep anything, or get to do it again anytime you want for no additional cost.

      And you're bitching about $60 for a video game that takes a budget in the millions? Seriously?
      • staticneuron, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Thank you! I am a gamer that values my time so i enjoyed heavenly sword and had no complaints about it. Took me about 7 hours (maybe I suck) but the ride was fun and I would have been more upset at a drawn out affair instead of the streamlined experience I got. Action games have been short for as long as I can remember, platformers a little longer and shooters behind rpgs and MMO's at the top of life eating heiarchy. Even when gears of war clocked in for me about 7 hours I was still happy. I am not saying that all my games need to be short for me to enjoy it I just put a lower value on time and more on the actual experience.
      • modix, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7I agree with most of your points, but there is a large difference is money/hour in video games. This is why people can be concerned about length of games. I'm getting near 120 hours of Persona 3, which I paid $50 and am still enjoying thoroughly. That's $0.42 per hour. Obviously long RPGs aren't for everyone, but you have to admit there can be a huge range in game values. That is the only reason why it comes up.

        Ico remains one of my favorite games to this day. It was pure art, and about 10 hours long or less. I wouldn't trade it for a game that lasted 300 hours.
        • Cougaboy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Over the time and cost that I had payed for and played World of Warcraft, I ended up paying about 15 cents per hour. I may feel like I was getting my money's worth, but how many people hate WoW on principle, specifically because it sucks up so much of a person's time?
          I agree, money/hour is a stupid way to place value on a game.
    • screwfanboys1, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1...interface (HUD, menus), sex appeal (graphics)...

      i lol'd at the graphics part
  • mrfreeziexp, on 11/01/2007, -3/+15I think we should get rid of the numbers. People are relying too heavily on them and have overestimated their meaning. For instance, Gamespot said The Simpsons Game was good. Which one would you buy: a game that a "good" or a game that got a 7.1? Most likely you wouldn't get the 7.1 game, that's too low to be worth your money. But they're both the same. 7.1 is "good" on Gamespot's scale.

    Us as readers(most of us) have quit reading the reviews and are relying only on the score, and unless the game gets an 8 we probably just pass over it. But then we're missing a lot of the "good" games!
    • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2I don't want to waste my money on a 7.1 game if there's a 9 game out there -- PERIOD. Give me numbers. For instance, I listen to people on websites all of the time talk about how great X game is and list all of its positive attributes. (I've seen reviewers do the same, so know where I'm going with this.) Then they bury grudgingly the negative attributes at the end. I've seen these same people throw down a 7 or an 8. To be honest, numbers seem to FORCE a begrudging honesty from reviewers.
    • theXenocide, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5get rid of the numbers? yeah so then it'll be real easy to differentiate between scores when reviewers start giving ratings like acceptable, admirable, agreeable, commendable, excellent, exceptional, favorable, first-class, first-rate, gnarly, gratifying, great, honorable, marvelous, neato, nice, pleasing, positive, rad, reputable, satisfactory, super, superb, wonderful.
    • grumbel, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Numbers are the only way to get a quick overview about what the reviewer thinks. They also happen to be a very exact way to express the opinion over a game. With text it often gets pretty mushy, since its often not clear how bad a 'bad framerate' really is, but if the game gets a 6.0 instead of a 8.0, then its pretty much crystal clear.

      And beside, every single review is *always* flawed, thats why we have sites like metacritic and gamerankings, so you can get an overview about what lots of people think about a game. This is especially interesting since you can see how much opinions spread. A game that gets 5.0 from everybody is almost certainly trash, a game that goes from 3.0 up to 9.0 (see for example Operation Flashpoint: Elite) on the other side can be totally awesome or terrible boring, but that completly depends on the players expectations and has nothing to do with the game itself.
    • wild, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2"Numbers are the only way to get a quick overview about what the reviewer thinks"

      That or a one-two sentence summary.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1It's kind of stupid to get rid of a useful and effective tool just because *you* think other people aren't using them right. Amazing arrogance there. What *objective* evidence do you have that "People are relying too heavily on them and have overestimated their meaning." Of course, there is none. It's just you holier-than-though, stuck-up opinion.

      I give your post 2/10 stars. The fact that your English was comprehensible forces me to withhold a zero.
    • MedHead, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Computer Gaming World (now Games for Windows) tried removing scores and got such a large amount of criticism for it that they returned to the number grading system within the same year.
  • thatguy_0, on 11/01/2007, -11/+13The article ripped off an editorial written by canada.com last week:

    http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/gamesn ...
    • bethlagarrison, on 11/01/2007, -7/+5Oh, shut up. Gaming sites have been writing about this for a long time. Gaming communities talk about it regularly. No one's "ripping off" anyone.
    • CLShortFuse, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6check the bottom of the article, he cites his sources. he's not one to steal. it's pure coincidence
  • LordAndrew, on 11/01/2007, -4/+12Oh, come on, thatguy0. A lot of people have been saying this for a while.
    And I have to agree. This is why GameSpot switched to using .5 increments, rather that the weird .1 increments that sites like IGN use.
    It's a step in the right direction, but they still have a way to go.
  • LaSepultura, on 11/01/2007, -10/+1That's why metacritic.com is so great. See how the game REALLY rates.
  • EvanVolm, on 11/01/2007, -2/+22Reviews are always broken. They represent someones opinion of a game. And, as well all know, opinions vary greatly between one person to another.
    • theXenocide, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Just cause reviews are gonna vary doesnt mean they arent useful. Opinions are the only thing youve got to work with when it comes to subjective things like games. So jst find a reviewer who has a similar taste as yours. You cant expect that every single game that you buy will blow your mind.
    • demiurgency, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Of course they do. That's obvious.
      The whole point of a video game review (of any kind of review) is that you find a reviewer/review site that more or less (80% of the time) is consistent with you own experiences and opinions. I, personally, like Gamespot's reviews. I find, most of the time, if they score a game 8.5 or higher, it's a game that I will enjoy once I'm playing it. Other people like IGN (I find they're not critical enough, but that's me). Lots of great games, like Grim Fandango, i would never even have investigated, if they hadn't gotten such high review scores from reviewers i trust.
      Reviews should never be a substitute to forming your own experiences and opinions about a game. But they can be a useful tool for bringing titles you may not normally consider to your attention.
      • modix, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Even Gamespot has been inflating scores recently. They used to be REALLY stingy with the 9+. There's been more this year than several years combined.
  • troymcdavis, on 11/01/2007, -1/+13One of the problems is that a static scale cannot reflect the progress we've made over the years. If Halo got a 9.0, and Halo 2 was better in at least some capacity and worse in none, then it should get a higher score. If Halo 3 was better in at least some capacity and worse in none than Halo 2, then it should get a higher score. Eventually you run out of room. I like the [Kill Anyone Who Owns This, Avoid, Mooch, Rent, Buy & Sell Back, Buy] scale. This doesn't allow for comparisons over time, but does the current system do that? Not really.
    • salinemist, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2That's utter *****. Total Annihation/Starcraft/Alpha Centauri/Moo2 will always be 10.0 games for their playability and fun.

      I bet people will reply to this saying they liked the original Halo better than Halo 2, and Halo 2 better than Halo 3.
    • keviniskool, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Games that have received Kill Anyone Who Owns This:

      Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing
  • rondorondorondo, on 10/31/2007, -8/+3I find metacritic to be a joke.
    • danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5I find it to be awesome and the only review site worth visiting.

      Instant digg-metareview of Metacritic: 5/10
    • modix, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2For movies and music it is a wonderful resource. There is a much longer tradition of criticism for those genres though, so its not as prone to score inflation and product boosting reviews and such.
  • BlackJackJester, on 10/31/2007, -3/+6As much as I agree with this guy...I really don't think this article has a reason to exist. I mean, you're criticizing an arbitrary system with arbitrary judgment. Who's to say that a 10/10 isn't just "Man, that game was fun. I wish more games were as fun as this game"
    • MedHead, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Either because of the reviewers or the misconception in the marketplace, review scores are accepted to mean "Terrible" to "Perfect", not "Bad" to "Good".
  • bethlagarrison, on 11/01/2007, -2/+6"There are some of you out there who love the way writers and publishers handle video game reviews."

    Really?
  • RobLiefeld, on 11/06/2007, -3/+2I will have to agree. My YoungBlood videogame a few years ago got a poor rating, but by today standards it would be up there with games like Halo or WoW.
    • nblsavage, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5Wow, I've been waiting to say this for years....your art sucks!
      • RobLiefeld, on 11/06/2007, -3/+1Well being a mult-millionaire... someone must of liked my work. If I listen to what every "critic" had to say about my artwork, I would been out of the biz a long time ago.
        • frepnog, on 11/06/2007, -3/+1If you are really Rob Liefeld, thanks for the comics over the years, no matter what any one else says about 'em, i enjoyed every one of them. Seriously.
  • Breachin, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8"The fundamental problem with game reviews is that they're analyzing products, not pieces of art. Or more clearly stated, art reviews decide if something is worth your time; game reviews decide is something is worth your money."

    I don't see why this is a problem. I have bought plenty of games that were totally awful, making me wish I would have checked metacritic first because I had just wasted 60 bucks. I acknowledge that the review system isn't perfect, I know that a 10/10 game will not be the best game ever made, but I can be fairly certain that a 4/10 game (combined score) will be worth neither my time nor money.
  • gllopc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8At the end of the day - all I want to know is if the game is worth the money for the genre it's in. I'd like a YES, NO or MAYBE.
  • guybrush3000, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4I started to feel turned off in the beginning of the article because the writer seemed to want to group together everyone who was fine with the current system as buffoons who like diet coke and can't see magic eye paintings. Which is just an awful way to kick off an essay with stupid generalizations.
    However, after his little spaz out, the rest of the article is really good and he brings up some great points.
    But dude should edit the beginning. Why alienate the people you're trying to communicate with in the first place? Ridiculous.
  • Tserk, on 11/02/2007, -1/+18"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." -Frank Zappa.
  • Easty, on 11/01/2007, -1/+12Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw is the only man who does it right.
  • CLShortFuse, on 11/02/2007, -3/+3"The fundamental problem with game reviews is that they're analyzing products, not pieces of art. Or more clearly stated, art reviews decide if something is worth your time; game reviews decide is something is worth your money."

    QFT
  • LiThiuMElectro, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7After browsing the gaming section on digg i saw "Call of Duty 4 gets 10/10 from the Official PlayStation Magazine" this article. I was sad to see that Reviewer sucks at review now COD4 might be an Excellent game but not a PERFECT game.

    All the hyped game gets perfect notes or almost perfect these days like as if the review feel the paste of the community and go by the hype. Bioshock was review almost perfect so i bought the game... I was soon wondering if the Review played the same game... on the game play side it's really good innovative.. but all those ***** BUGS all around etc..

    Indeed the "industry" of reviewing live by the hype of game and if peoples know the games they will fear to say out loud the flaw and will drive the costumer into a not so perfect reality. It's sad but true we can only trust our self :|
  • Reponere, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3I always watch gametrailers.com reviews first. IGN, Gamespot, these would be secondary.
    • totalpardo, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1i have found that even GT is getting lame with their inserted and sometimes slanted commentaries. nothing is worse than a mashup with some lamer or backing music.
  • sugarazor, on 11/01/2007, -4/+5At least Gamespot's old reviews were an average of the categories they used to judge a game. It made sense, unlike IGN's random 9.4's or 8.1's. What makes that game 0.1 better than an 8.0 game? I hate almost all review systems in general. Even the star system is annoying. What makes a movie 3 1/2 stars instead of 3? And of course, we also have the people that use 3/4 of a star or something inane like that. Best review system? Siskel & Ebert - Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down.


    A game is either good or bad, it's time to stop babying consumers and giving developers breaks on poor products. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Then it's good, check it out if it's something you're interested in. Too many reviewers excuse bad games for numerous reasons: hype, the developer, reader reaction, or because they just really wanted to like a game.
    • MaynardJK, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4A game that gets a 10 in graphics and a 5 in gameplay should get a lower score than one that gets a 5 in graphics and a 10 in gameplay.

      Which would you rather have? A game that isn't all that pretty but is fun as hell, or a game that controls like ass but looks gorgeous?

      IGN's system is far from perfect, but averaging all scores will only make it worse.
  • ifm1989, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Hmmm. I don't see anything wrong with scoring out of 100, but personally, I think they should use a grading scale like at school.

    An A through F is much easier to understand, as we all grew up with the system. When reviewers review a game, they typical score a game between 50 and 100, anyway.
    • Nowheredan, on 11/01/2007, -7/+2Except that outside the US those scores make no sense. Even Canada uses a different system.
      • danielsan1701, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7I think it's OK if a US company reviewing US market games wants to use a US-centric scale. Hoser.
    • johnbryantjr, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0a good
      f bad
      need any more help
    • johnbryantjr, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0a good
      f bad
      need any more help
  • Xtracti0n, on 11/01/2007, -2/+0good read. I do feel that some games get bad reviews due to personal opinions, which hurts the sales of those games. If good games get poor reviews, more studios get bought up by the money hungry EA ;P
  • gamemaker, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2What a great article. Could have gone further with what's broken. Like the fact that the review sites are also promotion site. Imagine if the ONLY place you got movie reviews was on Entertainment Tonight. Do you think the reviews would be objective? The sites depend for their very existence on the goodwill of the companies whic produce the products being reviewed.

    I really miss Daily Radar. They had that four-star system which makes so much sense.
    • MaynardJK, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3There is no such thing as an objective review. If there were, we wouldn't be commenting in this thread.
    • gamemaker, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1There are degrees of objecivity. Do you really think Entertainment Tonight movie reviews would be as objective as the reviews in a newspaper?
  • fogowar, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1There are good game journalists out there. Tom Chick and Ian Shannon are really good reviewers. Check out this list of "Ten unmissable examples of New Games Journalism" on The Guardian website (link below).
    http://tinyurl.com/56avv
    Think some of the articles on that page prove that games reviews can be interesting rather than x out of 10/100 format that most sites use.
  • yohnstoppable, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Game reviews will never be reliable. The people reviewing them don't have nearly the gameplay experience to write a full review. You're better off talking to a friend who has said game, or someone who has beta tested it

    EDIT: And by gameplay experience I mean for that particular game. No one can write a decent review of a game they've only played for a few hours at the most. That gets shallow games higher scores than they should, cause the reviewer has barely scratched the surface
    • quamb, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"Proffesional" reviewers, such on sites like IGN, in most cases complete the entire game before posting a review. I believe exceptions are made for online type games, or stuff like 'Barbie's Adventure' or what not.
      • thepotatoman, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Then why are they always complaining about how they only get to play games at home in their podcasts. Seriously listen to the wiik in review of October 26.
        • quamb, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1I occasionaly do. Thought they complained about being "swamped" with games - though still try their hardest to complete a game before posting a review (case in point - Zack and Wiki). Though the crap z-grade titles are not given such treatment.
  • postalblowfish7, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3ALL reviews are *****. game, music, movies - they're just one person's opinion of something and rarely objective. rent, pirate, ask a friend.
    • danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Sure, but the net effect of reviews (a la Metacritic) can be very valuable.
      • modix, on 11/01/2007, -7/+2The average of ***** is still *****. Stats done on bogus data are worthless.
      • thepotatoman, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Exactly. My 3 out of 5 is a ok game, but only translates to 60% on medicritic, while a 60 on many other sites mean the game is bad and only a tenth away from horrible.
  • totorototoro, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1He didn't mention the "click effect" of online game reviews - game review sites depend on clicks, and they know "controversial" review scores will generate a lot more clicks (and more Digg effects).
  • gd1z, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1People can complain about anything.
    • danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Not in North Korea or Burma, they can't.
      Be glad we can.
      • gd1z, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Oh please, just because we have the luxury of being able to complain, that does not mean we should complain about everything under the sun. The majority of digg submissions are complaints.
  • Apreche, on 11/02/2007, -0/+11Angry Video Game Nerd, Zero Punctuation, and Penny Arcade all know how to do video game reviews the right way. It's the same way that Top Gear does automotive reviews. Learn from them.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/01/2007, -3/+4Not everyone is smart, witty, or clever enough to do a Zero Punctuation review...and I hate the other two.
    • demiurgency, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6Zero Punctuation and PA are fantastic. I eagerly await each new installment. But neither is a good review source. Neither gives me any clearer idea whether this is a title I would want to buy, or even play.
  • tont0r, on 11/01/2007, -5/+2i like diet coke
  • Jeffool, on 10/31/2007, -2/+0Who hasn't felt this way for years? Blah, I'm so over reading professional reviews that I'm not even digging this. I only read what my friends (and similarly like-minded people,) think.
  • Jacobi, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I find that video reviews from good sites pretty much kill the problem of game reviews. Gametrailers.com uses a numbers rating system, but they tell and show you enough about a game before they get to the number to give you the information to decide for yourself whether or not you want to play something. Print reviews cannot duplicate that.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Why people want less information about a game's quality, I have no idea. I like numbers, it lets me know what to spend my money on. When I was broke, I wouldn't buy a game with a rating under a 9 for full price. A 5 star system makes it impossible for me to tell the difference between an 8 and a 9, so I like the 10 point system. When Beyond Good and Evil and Prince of Persia: Two Thrones came out that one Christmas there were a dozen other games that came out at the same time. Beyond good and Evil and Prince of Persia were a strong 80-89% so I chose the 90%+ games instead. If they would have graded them all on a straight 4 star scale I would have kicked myself for buying the wrong game.

    There are things difficult to express in mere words when you describe a game and what you personally like about it. What people can easily describe is their level of enjoyment taken from and the level of workmanship put into a game. These are the things I want to know.
    • maxsunset, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"Why people want less information about a game's quality, I have no idea. I like numbers, it lets me know what to spend my money on. When I was broke, I wouldn't buy a game with a rating under a 9 for full price. A 5 star system makes it impossible for me to tell the difference between an 8 and a 9, so I like the 10 point system."
      That's the point; you would try games you otherwise would not try. Just because one reviewer gives a game a lower score doesn't mean the game isn't worth playing, it might even be a misunderstood masterpiece. But I feel you, I am very guilty of only buying highly rated games. I certainly cannot afford my time or money at games that just arent that great, and reviews with lots of numbers are usually a pretty good barometer of a game's quality, especially when most publications and sites are saying the same thing.
  • Sithseth, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3Rating systems really aren't that bad. You got grades in school, to show how well you were doing in class, but if you were smart, you wouldn't take a 50% as literally telling you that you're retarded (just that, maybe you should get your ass in gear, and start working).

    Here, for example, these are my opinions on how I take in game review percentiles.
    90% to me means that the reviewer enjoyed the game (and you should buy it).
    80% says he enjoyed it, but it wasn't fantastic.
    70% tells me that the game is worth playing if nothing else is out, or you're bored.
    60% is along the lines of, this game isn't really worth it, don't buy it, but play it if you got it as a gift.
    50% is in the "horrible category" were reviewers just give a lower rating for the more the disliked the game while playing through it (remember, they sit through all of the ***** games, they don't stop half way through).
    And, finally, 100%. This is something that only industry changing games can receive. These games are notable if you look back in our gaming history (don't make me spell them out for you...)

    I just think that, with a little intelligence on the reader's part, game reviews can be a very resourceful medium between spending money on a video game, and saving that green. And, reviews of any sorts should never have to be them selves a work of art, they are just reviews. And, If you want IGN to turn into a blog, were they just ramble on about the games, trying explain how much they liked, or disliked games, well, I wish I could change your mind, cause that's not a good idea.
    • thepotatoman, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The only real problem is you can use those same exact explanations with a 5 out of 5 system, and that not all countries have the same percentages for average and ***** as we do.
  • demiurgency, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1it's an ok article. nothing very thought provoking. i like thoughts #1 and #2. i think the author is overly simplistic on thought #3. games are both art AND products.
    i probably spend more time reading game reviews now than actually playing games. i blame that mostly on not owning a 360, and most of the 'must-play' games imho these past 2 years are 360-only titles, or maybe i'm just getting old and losing interest in playing. the one thing that is annyoing me most about game reviews these days (i'm thinking gamespot in particular) is they are not covering multi-platform games very well.
    multiplatform games almost need two separate reviews. 1 review for the game itself (gameplay, story, etc.), and 1 review for how that game has been implemented on a specific console. when i read a review for a title for the 360 and ps3, i don't want to wade through the (largely) same review twice to pick out which version is better. i want to read the content review once, and then see a review and which console implemented that game better.
    i know if reviewers started focusing on the differences, it just opens up fanboy flame wars, and that's probably what they're trying to avoid, but still, when i read the reviews that come out for gta iv, the one and only thing i will be interested in is how that game fares on the 360 vs the ps3, so i know which one to buy. i already know gta iv will be a great game, and would rather play it before reading any review that might give away spoilers.
  • iamanonymous, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1This article seems to imply that we should review games as art and not as products (Mp3 players, as he put it), but does not give any information on why or how that would be done. A film review discusses plot, directing, acting, cinematography, special effects... the reasons you should or shouldn't pay money to watch it. Game reviews talk about gameplay, graphics, story, length, acting (if applicable), etc. Uh.. so, yeah, what's the problem? What else is there to talk about? Philosophical relevance? Shall we deconstruct games like literature? Why review them like something they're not?
  • AzraelKans, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Kotaku, aka "bring the banhammer on ANYONE who doesnt agree with me", complaining on "bias" on game reviews? I've just found a great new example for "irony".
  • smek2, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2While i generally agree that most of the reviews out there are broken (think IGN here), i still got to wonder what kind of websites and magazines the author is reading. "But even more so, what does this scoring system say to developers?" really? Many review systems are based upon categories such graphics, gameplay and controls etc. That's far more than a regular 4 star reviewing system of the movies. Yet the author claims that the movie reviewers got rid of the problems with precisely that simple rating system. It is idiotic to say that a 4 star system is better than a 100% or 10 point system, because it's just numbers. To say a video game got 9.5 out of 10 is the same as to say a movie scored 3 and a half out of 5 stars. I fail to see how the latter is better. Also, why does the author fail to see the reasoning behind a 100% score, which can't be achieved since there's no perfect game? And whats with the "We should be reviewing art when we're really reviewing products." thing? So it's art then and not to be slammed when a developer releases another mindless FPS shooter with lame controls and no real entertaining value whatsoever? Sorry, but for roughly 100 bucks per title we ARE buying products, not art.
    • coyote1284, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Somebody's pissed at being suckered into buying the Halo 3 Legendary Edition
    • ralphie81, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2"To say a video game got 9.5 out of 10 is the same as to say a movie scored 3 and a half out of 5 stars."

      What the heck kind of math are you using?
  • archimago42, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Wow, what trash. They do give simple ratings with most reputable reviews. PC gamer assigns a "title" to each 10 point range from "editors choice" to "tolerable" that is a pretty obvious indication of what they think. Even if you don't read any of the review or look at the score and just read that one line you know whether you should invest your time. They even give a Pro/con and "bottom line" box to summarize in case you are really that dumb. I see nothing broken.
  • Spoomeister, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0I'm a bit conflicted. On the one hand, I want reviews from people who like that style of game, so they can compare apples to apples. On the other hand, I want a well-rounded assessment, so I don't fall into the Halo 3 trap (i.e. multiplayer is great, as a FPS overall it's adequate, but the story blows rhinos b/c it's a retread of 2, right down to the last mission).

    Why doesn't Digg just step in and solve this problem? Just use diggs of the main site for a game as the main way to review it. If a game's main site has a lot of Diggs, I can go into the thread for it and read a variety of reviews, and the reviews in those threads that are the most accurate, popular or insightful will bubble up to the top.
  • jeremymccurdy, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1"the suckers who sit around drinking Diet Coke convinced that it tastes like real Coke"
    The writer obviously hasn't tasted Coke Zero.
    • coyote1284, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6I once put a Pepsi One on top of a Coke Zero, then my refrigerator imploded.
  • Jertje, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Then maybe, instead of skipping sensible text and going straight to the magic number, people should learn how to read reviews. Reviews are not made for people to decide - based on a number - whether or not a title is worth buying. Reviews are written so that the reader is able to form his own opinion, based on the experiences of the reviewer. The number is just a tool to make the concept of reviewing games more tangible - it's the ideas of the reviewer that count, which is also why reviews are never, and should never be 'objective'.
  • NYCowboy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4I like the way that Yahtzee in zero punctuation reviews the games. No Score just what he liked and disliked in a game. Then based on that you can make your on choice as to if you want to buy it or not.
  • JGib, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Zero Punctuation, Yahtzee, best reveiws ever
  • diggrim, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2I prefer demos over reviews! I was not interested in THQ's Conan regardless of reviews until I played the demo. It's pretty fun. Seriously, check out the difference between Metacritic's "reviews" and "user comments" http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/cona ...

    Anyway, I rate games based on this order (from least to greatest weight, each one 10x more important than the left): title and box art, game reviews, previous games in series (sorta like a demo), promotion videos, videos of gameplay, but, most importantly, hands on demo. If I like the demo, I throw the "reviews" away!

    Plus, if a game doesn't offer a demo, that's an instant -1 for that game because it's like the developer saying a demo would discourage people from buying it. (They're out to make money. If a demo helps, they'll make one.) In short, EVERY GAME SHOULD HAVE A DEMO!
    • maxsunset, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Dugg. Although I thought Conan was complete re-hashed crap... but I have certainly had the same experience where a good demo makes me hand over money I might not have spent otherwise, despite what the reviews say.
  • Clade, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2The best reviews in my opinion is the Penny Arcade guys saying "Go buy this. Stop what you are doing and go buy this". Then they eloquently explain why in 1 or 2 paragraphs. No scores, no massive texts, just a recommendation from people I've learned to trust.
  • noneuclidean, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11Up and EGM are usually the only sources I trust. And even there, I feel like I've gotten to know the editors and which ones have similar tastes as me.
  • noneuclidean, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11Up and EGM are usually the only sources I trust. And even there, I feel like I've gotten to know the editors and which ones have similar tastes as me.
  • benjio, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Example of a broken ratings system: Halo 3 got a really good ratings. Why? Corporate prostitutes.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.