I’ve been guilty of this doing this exact same thing before. But I do know that some of my favorite games have never gotten the super high scores that people think they need to be great.
This logic works for movies too.
Yeah Canada!… hey! wait a minute…
1: Worst game ever.
2: Worthless game.
3: Some slight merit might be had.
4: Could concievably be played if you are bored
5: Pretty ok.
6: Decently fun game.
7: Engaging game.
8: Great game.
9: Amazing game.
10: Best game ever.
Forgot to write my other part.
The reason everything beneath 7 is seen as crap is that even crap get 7+.
Game review scores are very seldom relevant.
What’s a game review?
Something game makers pay for and the score they get depends on how much they paid the critics that set the score. Throw enough money at them and a steaming pile of crap will be called game of the year candidate by the critics.
Anything over 5.5/10 is at least worth renting for me.
I feel like the score is a waste of time if there isn’t an actual review to go with it, which is what I’ll usually use for judgment purposes.
Personally I’m a fan of Conan O’Brien’s review system.
44 Star System
35 = Great
11 = Not So Good
2 = Really Good
1 = Horrible
I love Conan’s game reviews! Best bit he’s done in years!
Green being GOOD.
Dark red being BAD.
Yellow being EXCELLENT.
Sort of an okra being POOR.
I would say this (game) being an aqua-marine, which is NOT BAD.”
I rate games on a scale of 1 to amazing.
A bad game getting a rating of 3.2
A good game getting a rating of “it’s pretty good”.
An amazing game getting a rating of “HOLY &#^$ YEAH! You need to play this!”
I figure it holds about as much weight as most game reviewers.
Two tips on reviews: perspective is everything, and know the source. Just because you don’t like a game doesn’t mean the reviewer is “wrong” for giving it a higher score than you would; it may well be that it’s not your cup of tea. This works in reverse too; just because you love it doesn’t mean everyone else will. And of course, with professional reviews, you have to keep in mind at all times that they’re being paid to write those reviews, often by the very companies that make the games being reviewed.
In any good experiment, the key to useful results is large quantities of data available so you can correlate both negatively and positively what trends are present. I don’t see why reviews should be any different, especially when you’re unsure of the item in question.
Which is why Metacritic is so awesome, you get the pro reviews, but you also get hundreds of player reviews too. Though I don’t always agree, a lot of reviewers just nitpick about little details that don’t matter. Still, better than nothing and you get lots of sources.
Metacritic is actually a horrible system when you think about HOW it tabulates data; not all review are on a scale of ten, some are out of five, some are yes or no, and what Metacritic does is it reads 5/5 as 100% perfect game, and the yes no reviews as either 100% or 0% score ratings. This is also an issue as lots of reviewers score differently, and some will lean lower and others will lean higher for the same quality. This means that if someone likes a game, but notices some issues, but still believes it to be worth it, they could give it a 6 or 7, while another reviewer could think the same and give a 9. This throws the average out as a way to correctly show the opinions of the reviewers.
Another issue with it is how the general public reviews tend to work, as lots of people give only 10/10 or 0/10 for their opinion, rather than any other choices, and this throws off the true score the game should get.
Lastly and most harmful is how it affects the industry; a large number of publishers are pushing developers into agreements where the score they get on meta critic determines their financials (see Skyrim for a good example, they missed out on the target by 1% and missed out on plenty of money because of it, and had to sack a bunch of people).
The way I see it, Metacritic NEEDS to die, soon, because what it is doing is not accurately portraying the opinions of reviewers, and can lead to damage to great developers.
This feels soooo much relevant to ZombiU’s reviews, heh. :/ Have you heard, Pierski?
The Metacritic of the game or opinions in general?
I personally like destructoid’s video rating. its got a buy it or rent it, and whatever’s below rent it
Of course, then there’s the skewed reviews. Double Dragon Neon received a rating of 3 from IGN, but I had a ton of fun playing it with my brother, and later a friend. I’ve also heard from other friends that they enjoyed it. I can see how some might not like that kind of game, but personal preference should have little or no bearing on ratings.
1-8 shit game
9-10 paid reviews.
I was talking to my boyfriend about this, and commented that what I’d like to see is an actual video game evaluation rubric, and that way you could see where a game lost or gained marks. I’ve seen reviewers give games higher marks than they might have deserved because they loved the franchise, or lower marks than they deserved because they were devoutly dedicated to the original version of a particular game and refused to believe a remake could be better.
Unfortunately, the sheer amount of time and effort it would take to create such a rubric, to cover all of the possibilities, would make it implausible, and rather like grading an english essay. But still, I think it’d be nice.