Review scores and perceptions

[Erik_Twice]

I thought this would be a fun topic to discuss. What do you consider a "fair" score for a game? How high is a 5 and how low is a seven? This is not a thread to discuss if review scores are useful or not, but to see what perception we have of them as a scale.

Here are some questions. I won't give names!

1) Out of ten, what score should be given to a good but unspectacular game?

2) Out of ten, what score should be given to a really great game but not one of the best of gaming?

3) Out of ten, what score should be given to a technically competent but completely uninteresting game?


Let's see what happens.

[Ack]

I thought this would be a fun topic to discuss. What do you consider a "fair" score for a game? How high is a 5 and how low is a seven? This is not a thread to discuss if review scores are useful or not, but to see what perception we have of them as a scale.

Here are some questions. I won't give names!

1) Out of ten, what score should be given to a good but unspectacular game?

2) Out of ten, what score should be given to a really great game but not one of the best of gaming?

3) Out of ten, what score should be given to a technically competent but completely uninteresting game?


Let's see what happens.

1) 6 or 7 - The game is good, meaning you will get enjoyment out of it. But it's only better than average. At least that is how I perceive what you are asking.

2) 8 - No game is perfect, so 10s won't appear much, and 9 should be held up for what you consider to be some of the best in gaming. 8 is for a great game that may not necessarily be ground breaking but is still awesome in its own right.

3) 5 - The game functions, which makes it average. But it has no further appeal.

Anything below 5 should mean there are growing technical issues or poor engagement. A game with poor mechanics but which is still enjoyable can still rise above this, though likely only to a 6 or 7. A game that has amazing mechanics but fails to engage the player will also be unlikely to rise much higher.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

1) - 8
2) - 6
3) - 10

[J T]

Everything is a 10. I'm just too nice. I don't want anyone to feel bad.

Except for the developers of Pit Fighter. Screw those guys.

[Erik_Twice]

I made a poll at Boardgamegeek and Ack seems to fit with the majority:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/13533238#13533238

I copy pasted my thoughts on the results:

Most seem to be very kind of blandness and uninteresting games, much more than I am, which is the cause for the "Four point scale". If the middle of the scale is as tasty as gravel, the entire lower half must be dedicated to several levels of awful, which pushes anything reasonably decent to the sevens.

In fact, I would say that the entire inflation of scores in gaming is simply caused by how high terribly uninteresting games are rated, as if having a working game were some kind of marvel and Michael Bay deserved respect for making the camera point to the characters in Transformers.

Note how utter blandness and interesting but flawed games compare. There's a lot to think about that. I suspect "kind" reviewers will rate them similarly while "harsh" reviewers will put the interest flawed game in front.


On the other hand, most seem to oppose the idea that a game that isn't "perfect" should get the highest score, which to me is simply quite a silly endeavour.


If you wonder, I rated them the following way:

Good but unspectacular: 6-7
Really great but not the best: 9-10
Technically competent but uninteresting: 2-3
Amazing game, practically better than anything: 10
Flawed game: 4-5
Unremarkable game: 2-3
"Average" game: 2-3

[ZeroAX]

Seeing how people got mad over GTA V getting some 9s/10, we are still a loooong way from the community being able to accept a 7 as a good/interesting game.

Also it's really funny that on Metacritic the green scores for films start at around 50-60 but for games it starts at 75-80. Just proves how stupidily high gaming scores have become.

[BoringSupreez]

1) Out of ten, what score should be given to a good but unspectacular game?

7

2) Out of ten, what score should be given to a really great game but not one of the best of gaming?

8.5

3) Out of ten, what score should be given to a technically competent but completely uninteresting game?

6

9 and above should only be for games that are lots of fun and seem like they'll stand the test of time. 8 for great but not outstanding games, and games that may not have so much fun value when they're old, like yearly sports titles and MMOs. 7 is for good but not great games as I already said, but also for titles with technical or design issues but enough redeeming elements for many people to look past and see the entertainment value, for example, the original Sly Cooper, or the Phoenix Wright games. 6 is for the technically competent games that just aren't engaging, or games with good design but too many technical issues to be very fun. I would only give 5 and below to games that are hampered by both technical issues and design flaws at the same time, to varying degrees.

[Gunstar Green]

Seeing how people got mad over GTA V getting some 9s/10, we are still a loooong way from the community being able to accept a 7 as a good/interesting game.

Also it's really funny that on Metacritic the green scores for films start at around 50-60 but for games it starts at 75-80. Just proves how stupidily high gaming scores have become.

I think a lot of that also has to do with the volume of critics that a film usually has to go through compared to a video game.

Unless it's one of the really huge game releases that are likely to be scoring super high anyway it's probably harder for a film to score highly on aggregate sites just because there's a larger volume and broader spectrum of opinions being thrown around.

Movie reviewers aren't exactly innocent of score inflation though. Studios are likely to only pre-screen their films with critics that they know are going to be receptive to their film which is why you often get really high Rotten Tomatoes scores when a movie is about to come out that take a sharp nose dive once the film is released to the general audience and other critics.

I think those sites can be useful in some cases to see lots of differing of opinions but it's best to ignore the numbers.

[Gamerforlife]

I thought this would be a fun topic to discuss. What do you consider a "fair" score for a game? How high is a 5 and how low is a seven? This is not a thread to discuss if review scores are useful or not, but to see what perception we have of them as a scale.

Here are some questions. I won't give names!

1) Out of ten, what score should be given to a good but unspectacular game?

2) Out of ten, what score should be given to a really great game but not one of the best of gaming?

3) Out of ten, what score should be given to a technically competent but completely uninteresting game?


Let's see what happens.

1) 7 - This has to be a game that is fun to play, but has significant flaws that kind of drag the fun factor down a bit
2) 8 - Like the above, but with a much smaller number of notable flaws that don't really drag the game down much, but are still annoying
3) 5 - Competent game, but does nothing inspired or different from anything you've seen before

Absolutely fantastic game with some very minor flaws = 9. This is the sort of the game that is so good that what I call "flaws" becomes subjective and might be considered by others to be trivial things not even worth mentioning

I'd give a 10 to a literally perfect game, or a game that is so mindblowingly amazing and unlike anything I've played in years that I know it's going to be an influential classic. Any game that I think is complete average or mediocre but has at the very least one thing that is kind of interesting or fun would get a 6 from me. Basically, a game that is just barely above average. Anything under a 5 is just varying degrees of crap in my view. The lower the number, the greater my hate for the game.

[EvilRyu2099]

1)1
2)1
3)1

One for EVERYTHING.. All games suck PERIOD.. Only Bible Black deserves a 10