Thread 723343203

How can we fix game reviews?

I just rate out of 5.
Yeah it isnt a finely tuned scale but it forces me to commit to a quality standard and stop moving numbers around.

Shit game
Bad game
Mid game
Good game
Great game

Publications basically rate from 1-5 anyway (they call it 6-10) unless the game is safe dedicated punching bag territory.

>>723343203 (OP)
stop giving them revenue

>>723343619
>I just rate out of 5.
too much
rate out of 3
1 - shit
2 - ok, if you like the genre
3 - must play

>>723343619
>>723344378
I upvote or downvote on steam, that's it

>>723343203 (OP)
Just stop talking about it

>>723343203 (OP)
The modern review scale is just Nintendo's review scale from 30 years ago.

>>723344526
you probably don't rate if you don't feel strong enough about a game, so that is technically a 3 tier rating

>>723343203 (OP)
Every game starts as a 10.
Remove a point whenever something retarded happens.

if you think most games coming out today are garbage or average then you're just a retard

>>723343203 (OP)
80's, 90's and early 00's reviews weren't like that at all though.

>>723343203 (OP)
On a x/10 scale it's quite rare for games below 5/10 get released or reviewed. For journos I think they don't want to rate things too low because they might ruin the relationship with the game's publisher.

Are game reviews not effectively 'fixed' in the sense nobody gives a shit about review score anymore? Nobody cares what scale anybody uses because nobody cares about them in the first place. You're never going to have a 2026 version of an internet wide trollfest over to twilight princess getting 8.8 from gamespot, shit just doesn't matter anymore.

A perfect 10/10 game doesn't matter if it only sells 2000 copies and a 3/10 with 350,000 daily players will get all the attention. A ****/***** from a neckbeard with 100,000 yourube subs that likes everything you like is worth more than 250 reviews on metacritic.

>>723344378
>rate out of 3
Pretty much. There are so many games out there, why play a mid game?

1 No
2 If you really like the setting/genre/series
3 Yes

But even then journalists wouldn't be honest.

I think most people commenting aren’t interested in contributing to a community of gamers in good faith, they just want to make a game look worse. I think most people can’t even fathom why they give a game a score, they just think it is that score.

Like, I’ve asked people what they think of Batman Arkham Knight, a decent game that’s very pretty for the time it came out, but redundant as a story, with mechanics which are at best boring (riddler trophies) and at worst unbearable (Batmobile sections). But when asking people what scrore they would give, they’d say something like “8/10”, then when asked why, they’d couldn’t say.

8/10? For a game worse than its predecessors in most ways? It’s the same with Tv shows. How can you rate something you have such a lot of hours invested in? After so long the worst doesn’t seem that bad. Like Game of Thrones. People say it’s the best series ever, but is it really? Or is it because you spent 60+ hours with it.

>>723346635
Arkham Knight is a 7/10 because it has a lot of really good stuff and a lot of really bad stuff, so it averages out

>>723343203 (OP)
You were not alive in the 90s or early 00s. Don't talk about shit you know nothing about.

>>723346826
Averages at… 7/10? How is that average? Average is 5/10. Is English your first spoken language?

>>723343203 (OP)
Don't have a score.
Just have people write about the pros, cons, and in general about the game, and let people decide from there if they want it or not.

>>723347007
I never said "Arkham Knight has some 0/10 stuff and some 10/10" stuff, retard. I said it has some bad stuff (4 or 5/10) and some great stuff (9 or 10/10). Thus, it averages out to a 7/10. I love it when redditor know-it-alls make themselves look like retards when they're trying to look smart

>>723347362
>bad stuff (4 or 5/10)
If something is 5/10, it falls on the middle of the scale. How do you rationalise that that is bad? Surely “bad” cannot be ascribed to the middle of the scale. If anything, 5/10 is “boring” but not bad. I’m not trying to condescend and I assume you’re non-English but I feel you fundamentally don’t understand how a scoring scale works

>>723347585
People who went to school understand that anything lower than 70% is failing.

>>723347585
5/10 is mediocre. Boring. Not downright terribly designed or broken. But not worth my time and not worth a recommendation, i.e. functionally bad. Video-games are already a waste of time, period. If I'm gonna waste my time playing a game, it better at least be a 6/10. You couldn't articulate the difference between a 2 or a 3 or a 4 out of 10, because it all just means "bad, don't play" at the end of the day. You're trying to split hairs for things that you yourself can't even come up with a consistent definition for

>>723343203 (OP)
It's academic grading.
65 and below is failing/fundamentally flawed.

>>723343203 (OP)
>How can we fix game reviews?
By simply ignoring them, they're utterly pointless, as is the entire notion of game journalism. If you want to see what a game is like, you can watch no commentary gameplay videos and your brain will tell you if the game looks fun or not.

>>723343619
5 stars is the best rating system for games
for movies i prefer 10 scale since there is less variety


The more variety the smaller the scale

>modern review score

Dont you mean 4chan review score

>>723344526
You are a simple minded idiot, yeah.
>>723344378
rating out of 3 is not enough.
>>723344682
Retarded perspective, don't ever breed you worthless face of poop

>>723348058
>rating out of 3 is not enough.
False.
I either want to play a game, regardless of a genre, want to play a game because I like the genre, or don't want to play a game.
Simple as.

>>723347834
>>723347905
You’re admitting you’re unable to fathom differences between 5/10, 6/10 and 7/10. I could articulate the difference, but that’s the point, I can but you can’t. The fact you’re so proud you don’t care enough about video games to form a strong opinion like a score with rationalisation of that score is not a point to be proud of. It shows you’re a watermelon eating, air-Jordan wearing, menthol cigarette smoking negro

>>723348292
Articulate the difference between a 2/10 and a 3/10. "Hmmm, this turd has a slightly less pungent odor. This shit pebble is slightly dryer, so I like it a bit more". It doesn't fucking matter, you autistic retard. Bad means bad. Don't play means don't play. Now, when discussing goodness (i.e. 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10), then the differences actually mean something. Are you telling me you actually take pride in your insufferable autism? Are you really so bereft of any meaningful accomplishments?

>>723348150
You're playing them regardless you stupid fuck lmao

Epic fail

>>723348821
I won't play a game if it is shit, you nigger.

>>723343203 (OP)
Bully marketing people, make reviewers and influencers afraid to be associated with them, ostracise anyone who uses marketing-invented terms like 'triple A' and 'DLC'.

>>723348531
>Are you telling me you actually take pride in your insufferable autism?
Yes. I find enjoyment in differentiating between things I like and dislike. If something’s a 4/10, it might be a game that is boring and unsatisfying, but be competently made. A 3/10 may be boring and satisfying, but not competently made. It’s really not that difficult, but think about this. You’re arguing for rejecting having a range of fully formed opinions. How do you rationalise that?

>>723349569
Okay, so a 4/10 game is unfun but competently made and a 3/10 game is both unfun and incompetently made. So what's a 2, 1, and 0?

>>723343619
This.
Though recently I've been using this "Would I pay for it if it was $20 on Steam" and most of the time the answer is No so I pirate it.

>>723343619
>I just rate out of 5.
Sadly due to yelp or whatever populized it, everything under 4 means it's absolute dogshit, 4 means there's something wrong with it and 4.5 to 5 means normal.

>>723343203 (OP)
I stopped looking at them in 2014 when journalists told me i was a "piss baby" who lived in my "mom's" basement. And they said they didn't need me.

>>723349784
>2/10
Unfun, incompetently made, boring and broken, also adding exploitative things like microtransactions or extensive DLC
>1/10
All the above, but containing material I find personal offensive
>0/10
This shows you’re unable to understand a scoring scale. You can’t score something 0/10. It is something, not nothing.

Now, why are you proud of not having fully formed opinions? It’s fun to think about what you’re doing instead of mindlessly consuming.

>>723350662
You're just pulling definitions out of your ass. Making them up on the spot, because this is the first time anyone has actually pressed you on your arbitrary system. Give me 3 examples of 1/10s, 2/10s, 3/10s, and 4/10s each right now, if you've thought this out so thoroughly

>>723343619
I committed to using a 5 star system for years, but eventually started doing half stars as well just because you do need that finer scale a lot of the time.

>>723350880
lol I’ve give you clear definitions and answered your questions, yet you still can’t reciprocate. Are you upset that you are a lazy thinker?

>>723343203 (OP)
By realizing that you are wrong, not the reviews.

1-10 and even worse 1-100 scales have always had this problem. They map too easily onto the academic grading scale where a 6/10 is in fact very bad.
It was this way in the good ole days too.

>>723343619
Publications simply don't review 1-5's.
>then why use them
Because showing the distance a reviewed game has to those titles is still relevant, voice in my head.

>>723351304
Why can't you give me 3 examples of each of your rankings? Prove to me that you've actually thought this out and aren't just making up bullshit on the spot

Is it the reviews or the politics?

>>723348531
I'm obviously not that anon since they have already answered this, but I would just take your 5-10 scores and re-scale them to 1-10 since I don't like the idea of using a 10 point scale if you aren't going to use 10 points. The difference between a 2, 3, and 4 on this scale would be the same as how you would describe the difference between a 5.5, 6.1, and 6.7. Remember that these numbers don't actually mean anything. They are just some way to describe how a game is in a relative comparison. With all that said, I also wouldn't actually use the system I described above since "worth playing" and "not worth playing" are the only two outcomes that matter.

Anons, the issue is not the scoring system, the whole thing is utterly subjective to begin with, the issue is that most publishers give free copies for early reviews if not other things, GTA 5 reviewers literally got a paid vacation by Rockstar to review the game in a luxurious hotel, so what motivation do they have to not average all good scores at 9-10 and not leave the same publishers that basically fund their careers satisfied? And let's not pretend people don't lose their shit when a high expected game gets an 8. So there is zero benefits for reviewers to do so.

>>723352247
>10: Both an objective GOAT and also a personal favorite.
>9: An 8 that personally resonates with you and is worth more than the sum of its parts.
>8: Great. Succeeds at everything it tries to do.
>7: Good. Maybe not a must-play, and maybe not exactly perfect, but still solid.
>6: Decent but unambitious, or too ambitious for its own good.
>5: Downright mediocre. Not a terrible experience, but not really worth one's time.
I don't see how you could articulate the same for 4, 3, 2, and 1.
>4: Shit
>3: Even more shit
>2: Even MORE shit
>1: Uhhh...
Like, why would anyone even put so much thought into negativity anyways?
>"Let's not be too harsh now. Concord is clearly a 3.5/10, not a 2.5/10! Oh, KTJL? That's obviously a 1/10, how dare you call it a 2/10!"
If it's bad, it's not even worth my time trying to think about it or categorize anyways. My brain just immediately discards it. I don't even play sub-5/10 games anyways, because if it's that obviously shit why would I waste my time and money on it in the first place

>>723353037
I'm not categorizing them any more than you are. I'm just cutting them off and re-scaling what you have left back to a ten point scale so your 7 falls about in the middle. What you are describing makes sense about the 1-4, but it doesn't make sense to have possible scores reserved for things you don't plan on scoring. If there is no scenario where you would ever care about 1-4, then just drop the 1-4.

>>723343203 (OP)
A 10 point scale is just too much fluff, 7 is the absolute most you will ever need, like a Lickert.
>Extremely good
>Very good
>Somewhat good
>Neither good nor bad
>Somewhat bad
>Very bad
>Extremely bad
And even this can be cut down to 6 or 5 but I think 6 works best since it leaves no room for fence sitting.