I was wondering what you guys and gals thought of the rating system on Eurogamer. I tend to agree with the ratings that are appointed but I think it could benefit from some other information. For example I think it would be nice to break the score down into categories (narrative, graphics, controls etc), just tyo get a feel as to what drive the score.
My main point though is when I start reading a review I get quite excited to hear the good and bad points of the game. The thing I want to see last is the score so that I can make my own min dup on the review. It would be a nice touch if the score had the spoiler type alert so that you cannot see the score unless you roll over it.
I know this is a very minimal.
kenzie316 14 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 8 years ago
Benno 11,104 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 11 years ago
Its 8/10 8/10 times
I used to like seeing the separate scores, but actually now I prefer just having an overall score that encompasses the whole.
After over a decade I still find Edge's scores to be the ones I agree with most.
Metalfish 8,962 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 10 years ago
Scores are bollocks. Read the words, ignore the number.
All games should be rated with pictorial representations of an animal.
@Metalfish Not really. Most people like a score to clarify and summate what the words have said.
For me Famitsu's idea of getting four scores and totaling them is a better way than one score, but to dismiss a score out of hand is a bit of a snobbish attitude really.
@Aargh. A bit like Zzap's images of the reviewer to express how they feel about it. I'd take that instead of a score...
andy10 135 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 5 years ago
I see the merit of your argument (harking back to the 1990's console magazine days of graphic equalisers on graphics, sound, gameplay etc). But what I've always liked about Eurogamer is that the reviews are incredibly well written and worth reading in full. The final score is almost a footnote (hiding it could be interesting though). I like to think they credit us with having slightly longer attention spans than the average IGNer.
@andy10 ...and that's the best way. A text that explains it in a detailed way but a footnote to clarify things.
nickthegun 64,854 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
Interface = Kempston
Cjail 12 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 6 years ago
EG should remove scores altogether IMO.
Also scores penalize greatly developers and customers alike.
Obsidian din't get a bonus for Fallout New Vega because the metacritic was 1 point lower: ridiculous and sad.
Skiyim got several perfect score and was unpalatable for 3 months on PS3 tanks to the rim-lag...which was exposed not by reviews but by Digital Foundry, but technical experts.
Then games like Dead Space, winch I deem a great game, received a ridiculous 7/10 from EG...a new IP, with great gameplay and mechanics, downgraded for nothing.
Many game on Wikipedia or Metacritic will be remembered for scored they din't deserve.
We are alos bless by the fact that Digital Foundry handles all the technical analysis here so reviews should not bother with scores, not when half of the job is done by others.
Without score this industry would be a better place for everyone.
I personally use reviews to confirm my impression, my feeling on a VG, and this year if I had trusted scores I would have lost many hours of fun.
Edited by Cjail at 11:01:02 20-09-2012
DFawkes 26,479 posts
Seen 20 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
I've never really felt scores are helpful. It's just a fact that a numerical value will never clarify and summarise a well formed opinion in any meaningful way. It's not like I want them to go anywhere, they're a pretty standard thing.
As has been said, there are alternatives, that I've always been surprised don't catch on more as reviewers tend to like writing - seems like a small summary would be an ideal way to prove their efficiency.
For people that don't want scores, just don't read the number tacked on the end of the review (like MF said). There are a lot of things that scores just can't account for, such as a sequel that's only a minor improvement on the last one - higher score surely if it's a better game? But then it's not fair on people that owned the first. Little things like that render scores problematic at best. Small written summaries like Rob described in ZZap would help.
It just seems like scores are designed more for management and marketing types, to give them something measurable, despite being relatively meaningless. Given they're the ones that are in control of who gets review copies, I can't see scores going anywhere, even if us consumers all decided we wanted change!
I'll admit it might be silly were I, or anyone else, to suggest scores no longer be used as some of the games buying public still seem to enjoy them. But no-one has suggested that. So in summary, keep them, as they're optional, but I prefer text
Edited by DFawkes at 23:49:48 20-09-2012
mal 24,486 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago
(A number of years ago) the writers for the site felt that it'd be a good idea to not have scores on reviews, but unfortunately publishers like them, and won't send you games if you don't score them.