Review scoring systems

[MattyP]

https://www.eurogamer.net/eurogamer-reviews-are-changing

 

Looks like Eurogamer are moving back to a different rating system from the "Recommended" one. They are going with stars with a scale of 1 to 5.

 

I've read a lot of mags over the years and my favourite scoring system I think was in ACE where they had a "Predicted interest curve" showing the level of interest the game held as time went on. Thought this was quite different at the time. Think they also had a % score along with this.

 

The other one I quite liked was Zzap 64 with their "Sizzler" and "Gold Medal" ratings along with a rating out of 10 for various aspects of the games.

 

So any stand out for you as being a bit different? Do you prefer no score just reading through a well written review?

 

[LaveDisco]

I think this is probably a good move to get external viewers to their pages. But it's the same scale:

 

5 Stars = Essential

4 Stars = Recommend

3 Stars = No Score

1-2 Stars = Avoid (which won't be used)

 

[merrychan]

My absolute favourite was that issue of EDGE with no review scores.

 

@MattyP I never read ACE and that does sound good, loved Zzap64 back in the day

[K]

The PIC in Ace was ridiculous - it was a weird pseudo-logarithmic scale, with the x axis showing hours, days, months and years, and it was pointless because the reviewer clearly hadn't been playing the game for a month, let alone for a year. How could you possibly predict how much you'd enjoy a game a year from now?

 

Sorry, that's been bugging me for 30 years, I just had to get it off my chest.

[Jamie John]

I think the scoring systems used to rate games are entirely buggered and have been for a while now.

 

Case in point: Redfall, a game that has been universally panned by every person who has played it, is currently sitting at 59% on Open Critic, so (almost) a 6/10 or 3 star game, which, put that way, doesn't seem too bad. By Open Critic's other metric, however, it's only been recommended by 14% of reviewers, so what do those two numbers combined even mean? "86% of reviewers suggest you avoid this game like the plague, but it's getting 6/10s, so it's an above average game. But, oh no, there's a little icon of an unhappy man next to it with 'Weak' written beneath him, so, on second thought, don't play it." 🙃

 

I think most gamers have come up with their own scoring hierarchies when it comes to games, anyway, based on their own tastes:

 

- S tier: pre-order and get hyped to the max for (Tears of the Kingdom)

- A tier: buy maybe a month or two down the line, once it's slightly discounted and has been patched (Jedi Survivor)

- B tier: buy once it's half-price or on Game Pass (Like a Dragon: Ishin!)

- Everything else: avoid (Redfall)

 

To an extent, I think Eurogamer originally were going for something like this when they switched from /10 to their 'Essential', 'Recommended', 'Avoid' system, but they're probably switching back to a numeric system now so they get more traffic.

 

Speaking for myself, I hardly ever read reviews, anyway. I see what's highly rated on Meta/Open Critic and then look into it a bit more to see if it's my sort of thing. I'm part of the problem leading to the death of games media, I know, but I used to read Edge reviews religiously and come away not knowing what type of game was actually being reviewed. Nowadays, I tend to look at the cumulative scores, watch a bit of gameplay footage and then read opinions on here before I buy.

[teddymeow]

3 minutes ago, Jamie John said:

 

I think most gamers have come up with their own scoring hierarchies when it comes to games, anyway, based on their own tastes:

 

- S tier: pre-order and get hyped to the max for (Tears of the Kingdom)

- A tier: buy maybe a month or two down the line, once it's slightly discounted and has been patched (Jedi Survivor)

- B tier: buy once it's half-price or on Game Pass (Like a Dragon: Ishin!)

- Everything else: avoid (Redfall)

 

 

I'd agree with this. It's pretty much how I look at potential purchases.

[bradigor]

We don't do scores, just a do we like it or not.

[Timmo]

I think 3 or 5 is about right.

 

Wasn't there a magazine that rated games out of 1,000? I mean, you should move to 10,000 if you're going to do that, make it so no two games ever get the same rating, and create an automatic league of every game you've ever reviewed.

[anewman]

Edge mid 2000s era 1-10 standard for me. Felt like the 10s really mattered when there were like 4 of them in total.

 

Was the issue with missing review scores a print error, or is that a joke/myth I’ve fallen for?

[Timmo]

Just now, anewman said:

Edge mid 2000s era 1-10 standard for me. Felt like the 10s really mattered when there were like 4 of them in total.

 

Was the issue with missing review scores a print error, or is that a joke/myth I’ve fallen for?

 

They weren't missing, they were on the final page in small print if I remember correctly.

[BadgerFarmer]

I've written reviews with percentage scores, out of ten, out of five stars and no score, and I don't really have a preference. It is frustrating when people (and Metacritic) put so much value in scores, though, since a hell of a lot more thought goes into the words than what number appears at the end.

[Welrain]

I don’t care anymore. I don’t really read review sites or magazines anymore.

[Benny]

12 minutes ago, Timmo said:

I think 3 or 5 is about right.

 

Wasn't there a magazine that rated games out of 1,000? I mean, you should move to 10,000 if you're going to do that, make it so no two games ever get the same rating, and create an automatic league of every game you've ever reviewed.

 

I wish I could do this with the 1000 games I rated on Backlogged.

[Qazimod]

Because all review structures are alike, the summative paragraph at the end of every critique is as good a recommendation as skipping to a number or percentage would be - so the absence of scores wouldn't bother me in that sense. However, scores can be fun when you compare a bunch of them and rage over Bioshock Infinite being given three points more than Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike or whatever.

 

I help @Badger out with the resurrected Disposable Media website and (in our current format) we don't score. It's mostly just a little corner of the web where I can gush about cool new things and ramble about older revisits, rather than fret about point or percentage scales.

[anewman]

I still think there’s room for ‘playability’ scores.

[James Lyon]

16 minutes ago, Timmo said:

Wasn't there a magazine that rated games out of 1,000?

 That was Ace, I believe.

 

I think it was Computer and Video Games who used to have every review accompanied with a drawing of the reviewer's emotional state while playing. More of that malarkey, please.

[MattyP]

14 minutes ago, James Lyon said:

 That was Ace, I believe.

 

I think it was Computer and Video Games who used to have every review accompanied with a drawing of the reviewer's emotional state while playing. More of that malarkey, please.

Think ZZap !64 did that too as they used to have comment boxes from each of the reviewers of the game...

[Keyboard Koala]

The only scoring system I used to trust was the deKay-o-meter. Alas, since he's changed his user name (and probably left the forum), the deKay-o-meter doesn't seem to be in use anymore.

It ran sth along the lines of "meh-ok-good-great-ace-best-sexbest".

[LaveDisco]

Dekay’s left!? Oh, that’s a shame.  

Also, a score out of ten is actually just an out of 5 system, but with 5 added to all the values. 5/10 = 1, 6/10 = 2 and so on. 
 

The only exception to this is edge, where a six is the best mark you can score. 

[Ry]

Gamestm review scale of 10/10 was always my favourite. The mag in general was brilliant. They were not scared to give out the low scores. Deservingly giving Assassins Creed 3/10.