Game rating systems. What is your perspective?

[compl3x]

The issue about ratings seem to have reared its ugly head again with some controversy over Eurogamers 8/10 score given to UC3. link - Note: Don't read the comments, your head will explode

It seems that with games, especially AAA titles, if you get anything below a 9 or a 10 your work is an utter failure and you may as well shut-up shop and find another career... Or at least that is how it must feel.

I'm curious how many people actually pay attention to the numerical ratings given to games. Do you decide whether or not to pick up a title at or close to launch based on its x/10 rating? Or do you prefer to read a full text review to make your decision... Or do you ignore all of that and ask friends or simply buy the game, try it and completely and independently form your own opinion ( you rebel, you)?

For me, I always read text reviews and try to ignore the numerical rating as much as possible. It's fine to use these ratings as a very, very loose guide but I wouldn't purchase a game solely based on them. I think it would be positive for the gaming industry if we were rid of them completely.

Your thoughts?

[Reacon]

I find that numerical rating on the traditional scale of 7-9 is worthless, and I refrain from reading from sites that use them. Although numerical rating as a whole is kinda stupid...

You could use the argument that people are lazy, but why not take a moment to read the final few summary paragraphs of a review instead of looking for a numerical rating?

[REM2000]

yeah numbering is a hard thing to gauge, the only way i find it useful is if the scores match up mostly to how i find games from a particular reviewer. I find the edge uk magazine scores not too bad and roughly how i would score the games. However sometimes i ignore the low scores as i know what kind of games it going to be and i just want to play that sort of game.

[Ryoken]

I don't care about them.. just like with movies and IMDb ratings.. It's such a personal experience of how you play a game, what you look for, what you are willing to overlook, etc.. They are just pointless to give ratings.. just review it, I don't need some numbers that mean nothing..

[LingeringSoul]

Personally, I've been gaming for long enough to know when a game is something that I'll potentially enjoy and when it isn't. When reading a review, I'll look at the specific grievances that the reviewer had with the game, and I'll figure out whether or not they're something that would affect me personally. An example of this would be Jim Sterling's Battlefield 3 review, where he faulted the tank combat for feeling too sluggish and disconnected from the rest of the action. I knew that I could safely disregard that comment, because I've been playing Battlefield since its inception, and I've never had a problem with the way that the vehicular combat feels.

That being said, I do pay attention to review scores when they approach the extreme ends of the spectrum. That is, I'll be more inclined to buy a game that I previously had no interest in if it gets an extremely good score (I purchased Kirby Mass Attack after reading Jim Sterling's review). Similarly, I'll be more inclined to avoid a game if it gets horrible reviews.

[migo]

Numerical ratings would be more valuable if reviewers used the full 10 points. A lot more 1s and 2s need to be given out. Video game reviews are like the 10 point must system of boxing, which is pretty bizarre in only using 8, 9 and 10.

[Tharp Daddy]

I feel some parts such as graphics (not aesthetics), sound, controls (how polished and "tight" do they feel?), and other such systems are able to be graded on a scale. But the final product, and the entertainment, cannot. You can give an honest opinion in that such as "i feel this is not an enjoyable game" but you cannot assign a number to how much it will entertain. You also have to take the designers intent into consideration, and what they were shooting for. If someone gives Dark Souls a 9 for being difficult, but another gives it a 3 for being too hard, are either right? No. I believe you can grade some parts of the system, but the package as a whole comes down to the user. Tell the faults, and tell me how the graphics size up, but do not assign a numerical value to the game as a whole. "More than the sum of the parts" comes to mind.

TL;DR: Tell me the good and the bad, and who might enjoy it. Give a numerical value to sound, gameplay, graphics, etc. but do not assign a value to the game as a whole.

[paganinio]

quite a few of my favorite games have had an average score of between 6.0 and 8.0

And quite a few of those 9.0+ games are rubbish, now that I've played them.

[soniqstylz]

Numerical ratings would be more valuable if reviewers used the full 10 points. A lot more 1s and 2s need to be given out. Video game reviews are like the 10 point must system of boxing, which is pretty bizarre in only using 8, 9 and 10.

Kind of like the reviewer that gave UC3 a 4/10?

[theyarecomingforyou]

My favourite system is the one that Ars Technica uses - Buy, Rent, Skip. It also includes some 'pros' and 'cons' (which some people oppose as well), which is great at a glance. But it encourages you to read the full review, which I think is essential.

Personally I prefer more technical reviews, especially those highlighting image quality, performance benchmarks and technical appraisals. And I'd rather a review was critical than simply glossing over the flaws. I think many of the Skyrim reviews were a bit too glowing - obviously a result of time constraints, as few reviewers can put in the 60hrs+ that the game really demands.

PS - I quite respect Eurogamer as a review site. I don't think it's perfect by any means but I do like that they are happy to be critical on big budgets games, when so many publications - like IGN, etc - will basically do a fluff piece.

[Vice]

I've stopped reading game reviews because I've lost faith in the whole reviewing and rating system. Instead I watch youtube play throughs of new games and that shows me what I need to know about a game so I can make my own decision.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I won't lie, I most definitely use scores to gauge part of my interest. I don't see how I can avoid doing so when the gaming market is literately swimming with games these days and I have limited life time to play them. I hardly even have time for demos these days.

However I make sure to take reviews as an average, and read a good number of opinions. No use on getting hell-bent, or over excited over one review, read many and get a fair outlook.

[dead.cell]

Personally I prefer more technical reviews, especially those highlighting image quality, performance benchmarks and technical appraisals. And I'd rather a review was critical than simply glossing over the flaws. I think many of the Skyrim reviews were a bit too glowing - obviously a result of time constraints, as few reviewers can put in the 60hrs+ that the game really demands.

I know this isn't really the main topic at hand here, but honestly... if you spent 60+ hours in Skyrim only to discover some things you might not be too pleased with, I dunno... still sounds like an awesome game if it kept your interest for THAT long, as a singleplayer game too. I've got over 70 hours put in mine and while I find the game to have gotten way too easy at my level, I still wouldn't give it any less of a grade for all the fun I've had with it thus far.

As for numerical rating systems, I do sort of watch them. I find Metacritic to be relatively accurate in how I feel about many games, since it's an average of reviews anyway. Usually though, I'll read user reviews and see whether their concerns or bogus or not. Some people slap bad reviews on games because they tried playing it with a fossil for a computer. The ones I hate though (yes, hate) are those who give bad reviews for a game IN A GENRE THEY DON'T EVEN LIKE!

Seriously, I hope none of you folks do this. I mean, I'm not about to go out giving reviews for sci-fi movies and games because I can't stand any story where humans find alien life out there, they all start speaking English, and we form some sort of galactic UN and bicker. ****, I hate sci-fi sometimes...

[Glassed Silver]

I've stopped reading game reviews because I've lost faith in the whole reviewing and rating system. Instead I watch youtube play throughs of new games and that shows me what I need to know about a game so I can make my own decision.

This.

For example: a game can be perfectly fine for itself, but I might just not get the kick out of it.

Glassed Silver:mac

[HawkMan]

The problem is that rating systems go like this

5 or below, unplayable and same as 1

6 to 8 is what should have been 2 to 5

8 is used as 6. Not a good game but average

9 is used as anything from playable to great

10 is pactically never used because the condensed scaled doesn't allow for it, and reviewers haves completely irrational expectation of what a 10 game is.

[monkey13]

As HawkMan says. 5 should be average in the middle of the scale and it isn't. I never really go on the scores. I tend to read the content and see which features look like things I might like/dislike.

I know people have a lot of opinions about Eurogamer's reviews. I quite like them as I think you get an individuals honest opinion. Rather than gushing praise in line with the hype of the title or another panning for the latest weak game.

We all know that sometimes we play a well reviewed 9-10 game and just don't enjoy it. Maybe I think it is a 7-8. Other times you play a 7-8 and think it is 9-10.

I'd rather have someone's honest opinion of what they thought, felt, enjoyed, hated etc.... about a game than a puff piece that ends up with the same score as everyone else.

[LingeringSoul]

The problem is that rating systems go like this

5 or below, unplayable and same as 1

6 to 8 is what should have been 2 to 5

8 is used as 6. Not a good game but average

9 is used as anything from playable to great

10 is pactically never used because the condensed scaled doesn't allow for it, and reviewers haves completely irrational expectation of what a 10 game is.

I was with you up until the very end. One of my big problems with game reviews nowadays is that they're handing out too many tens. Tens were never meant to imply perfection (because such a thing can never exist in the context of gaming), but they were meant to be exceptionally rare, and only handed out to games that truly are the best of the best. The problem now is that so many games have been given tens that developers almost expect to receive them, and they respond with stuck up disappointment when they don't. The entire situation with CliffyB is a perfect example, where you had a developer (a developer that I happen to respect, for the record) who was practically swimming in tens, but was still disappointed because two websites gave him an eight. Another rather gross (and recent) by-product of this development is that now you have websites like Yahoo Games giving Arkham City scores like 11/10. Apparently giving a game a ten isn't enough to imply importance anymore - now we have to start handing out scores that don't even make sense.

Jim Sterling actually had a great analogy where he compared 10/10 review scores to PhD degrees. So many PhD degrees are being handed out nowadays in the academic world that the concept of a PhD has become devalued. The exact same thing is happening to 10/10 review scores.

[Fourjays Veteran]

What I've thought is part of the problem for some times is that they rate games relative to the previous game, or previous generation. So if the predecessor got an 8, and the sequel is better, it has to have a 9. Then when a new series comes out, that is even better than that series that got a 9, it has to have a 10.

I don't really pay much attention to rating systems. I'll read user reviews and watch trailers to make my mind up. I watch the GameTrailer reviews but don't give any weight to the opinion of the reviewer... they have come up with some strangely biased arguments.