Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review scores: what's your stance on them?

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
Astral Chain is out an RPG Site gave the game a 7/10. Lo and behold, a comment on the site's feed:

Trying to get the clicks by being one of the lowest scores huh? Well it worked, congrats!

There's this idea that if a reviewer gives a popular game a "low score" (anything that isn't a 9 or a 10) the reviewer is baiting for clicks.

This idea that any game scored lower than 9 is simply "good" and if it is lower than 8 it is not worth your time is illustrated in this chart:

kj3gFME.jpg
The Codex, for instance, leaves scores for the videogames it reviews at the very end, using the same font and size as the rest of the review. Most of the time it outright omits them, as it is up to the reviewer in question to rate the game, usually preceded with "if I had to give this game a score".

That is how Codex reviews work, but I'm interested in what the userbase of the Codex thinks. Personally, I use a chart similar to the bottom one, and most of my favorite games rank anywhere between 6 and 8. "Average" to me is "mediocre" and only worth playing if you are interested in the game; games with lower scores are worth playing only if you are desperate to play them, regardless of the game's quality (such as when you are a fan of the IP, say Digimon). Functional but terrible/glitchy games get very low scores, and those that don't work at all (refuse to launch) are not rated until fixed (if the dev is still around and updating the game), or rated 1 (if the dev is gone).

Personally I'm also against having review scores at all. By reading a review you get a good idea of what the reviewer thinks of the game. Saying "yeah well the combat is very average and repetitive" and then slapping a giant TEN OUT OF TEN doesn't help the reviewer's credibility at all.
 

Belegarsson

Think about hairy dwarfs all the time ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Patron
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
1,261
Location
Uwotopia
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I write game reviews for a moderately popular blog in my country in free time, I really hate score but for the sake of readers' interest, our site still use it. For me, the minimum score I ever used is 3 which indicates games that have very few merits and are just flawed to its core to the point that they're unsalvagable - I actually gave 2 games a 3/10 this year, Anthem and Wolfenstein Youngblood. The lowest score that my colleagues use is 5.

4/10 is reserved for games that have something interesting going on, maybe a fun but not deep gameplay loop or good atmosphere but mediocre storytelling, but overall the entire thing doesn't work too well due to lack of cohesion, etc... the most recent 4/10 for me are Rage 2, A Plague Tale: Innocence, Close to the Sun, Strange Brigade, Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

5/10 is average, I generally find these games enjoyable for the most part and devs behind these games clearly put their effort into them, but their flaws still overwhelm their strengths. Most recent 5/10 for me are Bard's Tale 4, The Banner Saga 3, Vampyr, Battle Chasers Nightwar.

6/10, good stuffs, nothing groundbreaking but greatly enjoyable, probably lack polish and might feel uneven at places but depend on the games, these are the ones that I start recommending, eg Orwell, Deep Rock Galactic, Sunset Overdrive, Darksiders 3, Hand of Fate 2.

7/10, solid as hell. I usually use this score for sequels that improve greatly from their predecessors (The Division 2, Deadfire, Vermintide 2) or gems that are so unique you can overlook their more noticable flaws (Pathologic 2, Mutant Year Zero, Rock of Ages 2, Hard West).

8/10 are games that I start slamming my hands on a table, point at it and say "fucking play this shit bro". These are the ones that deserve D1P no matter how buggy they are, eg Pathfinder Kingmaker, Mordhau, Kingdom Come Deliverance, ELEX, Resident Evil 2 Remake.

9/10 are steeping into my own bias territory, the ones that stuck with me long after playing and just overall made me feel satisfied, whether in core gameplay, level design, theme/atmosphere or storytelling. Most recent 9/10 are Devil May Cry 5, Blood Fresh Supply, Sekiro, Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney trilogy.

10/10 are games that make me throw racist words at you if you dare to shit on it, eg Return of the Obra Dinn, DUSK, Prey, Yakuza 0.

But honestly overall the way I give score depends truly on my feeling toward that game, these baselines are never applied all the time, so I always ignore the motherfuckers that clearly ignore the text and just complain about my review based on the score given :rpgcodex:
 
Last edited:

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,464
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
They can be useful as a rough benchmark.

If a game gets uniformly review bombed, it's probably really shit. If it gets uniformly 9/10s and 10/10s, it's probably either a bought score or mayhaps really good. If it gets 6/10s and 7/10s, then it's likely worth to scrutinize deeper for hidden gem qualities.
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,538
Location
Nottingham
They are handy as a guide.

The trouble is folk review the game and not their experience with the game, which is essentially what becomes the review. I'd much sooner reviewers say they're into certain types of things, then pass an opinion and rating based on their experience of the game, rather than "this game is X good". 10/10 is commonly slated as shit because "it's not a perfect game", but that doesn't mean someone can't have a perfect experience with the game. My 2nd & 3rd Witcher 2 playthroughs, my 1st through 5th Deus Ex playthrough, and my first Monkey Island Trilogy playthrough were all 10/10 experiences. They're all flawed games, but if I were reviewing them I'd give them 10/10.

Jaz Rignall & The Mean Machines crew had it nailed for me. Funny stuff, but you knew their personalities and most mags started with an introduction of their prefered genres etc. if you didn't. You got to know their tastes first, and who was in to what so you could trust their POVs on games.

Like everything, it was better before.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
556
I ignore all professional urinalist reviews completely and only look at user reviews. If those are low then I look into why rather than just using the score flat-out.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
A review score is not a huge problem for me, because the only reviews I read are from Codex and other veteran players I know and trust.

Why would you ever read a journalist review for an RPG, for example, if you have been playing them since Gold Box days? You know enough about the genre and the marketing, etc., that a 30 second glance at the game's features, maybe 20 seconds of the gameplay footage, usually tells you whether it's in your ballpark or not.

The only benefit of an 'in depth review' is if you want to know how the game really holds up after 20 hours, and, say, how robust the systems are when played by a veteran instead of a Chris Avellone. You won't get that in 99% of reviews. If anything, reading them muddies your information even more, because you'll find morons who claim Oblivion was a masterpiece alongside ones who say Elex is too difficult and Blackguards needs more animu story or whatever.

I'm genuinely curious why some people spend a lot of time watching those 60 minute "analysis" youtubers or 40 minute preview vids or reading media reviews. Just for fun? Or do you really feel it gives you information you can't get elsewhere?
 

Curratum

Guest
It's really simple.

I don't touch games that receive anything below 7.5, I don't buy anything that is below 8.5 before a deep discount, 8.5 and up I usually buy soon after launch.
 

RuySan

Augur
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
777
Location
Portugal
The second chart is revisionism bullshit. Most magazines back in the day were almost as bad as today.

So much that Amiga Power had a recurring joke of the "73%" game, which was the equivalent of average in most magazines (while Amiga Power used the whole 0-100 scale, and gave average games 50/100).
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
Here's a good example of why I don't trust reviews.
Disclaimer: I have played Shin Megami Tensei and gave up roughly past the halfway point of the game. Here's a section of a review that rates the game :5/5:

If the gameplay is not perfect that is only because of the age the game was released, what I mean is that we have the typical little flaws early Snes rpgs had like the lack of information about what you are buying in the shops as well as the utility of our spells, items, weapons, etc, then we have to be constantly looking at our map and we have press a lot of buttons to open it because there are`t any hotkeys or anything, then we have the insanely high encounter rate, and things like that. These are more annoyances than a flaws, and fortunately the good guys who translated the game also included a list with all the spells and most of the items, so don`t forget to check it out.

The auto-battle option is truly a bless, I would even say that without it this could have been a nearly unplayable game, later in the game the encounter gets so annoying that you will just want to finish as quickly as possible, something that can only be done with this option.

My interest in this section is how:
  • All the major flaws of the game are called "annoyances" as opposed to "flaws".
  • Yet another major flaw of the game is called a "bless".
Why? Because:
  1. Buying and selling items at shops is a massive pain in the ass. It's so slow and clunky that eventually I just let my inventory clutter up because you had to sell items one by one: you can't even sell a stack of the same item, let alone sell multiple stacks. You also can't buy items in bulk. This is something that Final Fantasy had already done.
  2. You don't get ANY information of the items you are buying, aside from their price, and whether male or female characters can equip the items. That is: no info on attack rating, defense rating, bonuses, alignment limitations (as in Shin Megami Tensei, your alignment limits what items you can equip).
  3. You don't get ANY information of the spells you have, aside from their MP cost. So you have to rely on a guide and memorization before you can play at your own pace without pausing the game just to see what the hell does a certain spell due. This is partially to blame on the name of the spells, which are unintuitive (Dia = Cure/Heal; Zio = Lighting/Thunder; Bufu = Ice), but mostly due to the game's lack of in-game descriptions.
  4. The insane encounter rate relies on the Autobattle feature to be manageable, which means you are essentially letting the game play itself. At that point, why not simply reduce the encounter rate by four and let the player play the battles themselves?
Overall my opinion on this game is that it is a solid 2.5/5, if not 2/5. I'm not about to claim that user didn't have a beautiful experience with the game, but saying it is a 5/5 in view of all the flaws the game has is disingenuous.

The conclusion of that review is the best part, though:

Shin Megami Tensei is full of annoying flaw, bugs, it is very difficult, and slow as hell, and maybe giving it a perfect ten is crazy, but considering how old it is, considering that it was one of the first rpgs on the Snes, considering how great its plot is, and considering how deep and innovative the gameplay is, even with its flaws, Shin Megami Tensei is one of the coolest games I have ever played, I just can`t wait to play more games in the series, because if this one was good I don`t even want to imagine how good the other two for the Snes are going to be, hope they translate them soon.

My game reviews tend to be harsh because I firmly believe in the idea that a 10/10 is a near flawless game. Any game that could easily be improved does not, ever, deserve a 10/10.
 
Last edited:

Kliwer

Savant
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
215
Nowadays reviewers and bloggers are mostly retards so all those scores are used very poorly…

For me, in 1-10 scale:

4-5: It is mediocre product, but someone who likes the genre could have fun. For example Gorasul: Legacy of the Dragon is very mediocre cRPG, but I like cRPGs and something just average is good enough for me. It’s strong 5.

6: Something just good (Summoner). Or something with flash of genius, but also with tons of bugs and broken mechanics (Arx Fatalis). Or something which is objectively good but I do not like it for some reasons (System Shock 2).

7-8: Obviously good games, but with some perceptible flaws. For example they are too short (River of Time), too simple (The Quest), are not in my style (Fallout 2), have some boring parts (Might and Magic VII) end so one. The “7 threshold” for me is passed when I wish to replay this game from time to time. Some my favorite games are 8’s. They are not perfect, but they have something that I can’t find in other, even better, titles: Battle for Wesnoth, Baldur’s Gate 1, Pillars of Eternity 1, Might and Magic X: Legacy.

9: Almost perfect games, but without “something” (Gothic 2). Or broken diamonds… (Arcanum). Or just master crafts (World of Xeen).

10: Perfect games which I like even more, for some unclear reasons. I have only 4 games in this category: Baldur’s Gate 2, Planecsape: Torment, Majest: Fantasy Kingdom Sim, M&M 3: Isles of Terra.


I do not value novelty very high – a standard but well-executed idea is better for me than something only original. I do not judge graphics at all (it is unimportant for me), but I prize art style. For example M&M 3-5 are beautiful for me – not only games, but also maps, manuals… I like things like interface graphics (M&M 6-7 spell books) or some moody static pictures (Realms of Arkania 2: Star Trial).
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,471
I don't even know the scores of most of the games I play. They are a distraction, only measuring mass appeal. If it's a game I'm interested in I watch some gameplay videos and read opinions online. Older games often get extensive critiques which don't give scores at the end but are more helpful than initial reviews.

It's really simple.

I don't touch games that receive anything below 7.5, ...
There are some truly great games with a metacritic score lower than 75.
 

Kev Inkline

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
5,074
A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I think the mapping from 1-5 scale to 1-100 scale doesn't quite work mentally the same way metacritic aggreagates the scores.

Say, a site scores 4/5 for a game, this translates to 80/100.

For me personally, 80 feels a lot lower score than 4. Anyone else feel the same?
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
This dumbshit idea of slapping a random number pulled from the depths of the reviewer's rectum so we can all avoid the terrible task of reading a small text should have died with gaming magazines and reviewers writing under radical pseudonyms, at least those were entertaining.
 
Self-Ejected

theSavant

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
2,009
Yeah, modern review scale is ridiculous. They might as well only give 3 ratings: Thumbs up, Thumbs down, Thumbs middle.

You could argue that "thumbs middle" becomes the new "shit", but the steps are so rough, that it's maybe officially accepted as "mediocre" and not "shit".
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
review scores are pointless, because it makes people buy into the idea there's a way to objectively measure the worth of a game, when its all just gut feeling and individual taste
 
Last edited:

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
I think any score above 0 should mean the game/movie/whatever is somehow good. A score of 0 means the game is no good while a negative score would mean the game is bad enough to annoy the player or to show significant lack of skill by the designers or is somehow so flawed in some department as to spoil the whole experience.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom