Log in or sign up to comment
  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by PenguinDust

Didn't Gamepro used to include "Fun Factor" in their accumulated list of scores?  And doesn't Gametrailers still include some sort of intangible along side graphics, control, sound, etc?  I don't think any "subjective" addition score needs to be published since invariably, the objective and subjective review scores will be averaged anyway to find an "actual" score.

Posted by darkmoney52

Honestly, I think the idea of being objective in game reviews should be ignored. Instead, just make it clear what you're preferences are so that I can get an idea of if your opinion is relevant to me. If you rate a certain game high but also note that you love Final Fantasy and hate Diablo and the Elder Scrolls than I would know that your reviews do not apply to me.

Posted by gike987

Why not spit it into technical and gameplay instead of objective and subjective. 
Technical  is for the graphic and bugs.
Gameplay is for how fun it is to play. 

Edited by Jeust

Dagas that is a nice idea, but it has a big problem. Whatever angle you might look, grades are made to be easily understood by consumers.
I say embrace the subjectiveness of the question. 
Classify games according to and with: bad, mediocre, average, good and great.
There isn't the problem of considerating a game with grade "great" a  perfect one, as it happens with 100% or 5*'s, and it is comprehensible.

Posted by ShaunassNZ


Posted by Icemael

Reviews already have a second dimension. It's called text.

Edited by Johnny5

I like how some people are just throwing out a "no" contributing jack all to the discussion. Its quite clear that review scoring at the moment is kind of iffy and its worth talking about.  I think the reason why the OPs idea is kinda bad is that the score is meant to be the quick glance option and people who want a more in depth analysis have the text, so that kind of defeats the purpose of the score anyway. (Consumers specifically as above, its a utility right?)
From my view I dont think we should aim to be completely subjective or objective but taking a strong middle ground and making a judgement based on the experience as was mentioned above. In regards to breaking it down, it still makes sense to include graphics if they did have an impact though right? 
Sites that use a concrete Gameplay, Sound, Graphics, Story etc rating system are flawed in that way. Like, if the game experience is a 9.0 regardless of the graphics being say a 6, then it shouldnt have an impact. You could mention it in the text but the overall score shouldnt change.

Posted by pause422

No we actually dont.

Posted by sup909

I disagree, in fact I think things should be simplified even more. Why can't we go to the ebert style of film ratings and just say thumbs up or down? At the end of the day all that really matters is a recommendation of buy it or not. The rest is all conjecture by an individual that may or may not hold similar tastes to you. I have played 8+ rated games that I hated and 7_ games that I loved. 

Posted by Delta_Ass

Objective reviews don't exist, because games aren't mathematical equations.

Posted by Magresda

Here's the thing: When I read a review, I usually know all the basic facts about a game. I know that there are XX amounts of weapons, XX amounts of levels and that the story continues from the prequel. I'm not at all interested in reading a review that is basically a summarization of all the features of the game. What I want to know, however, is how fun those weapons were. I want to know if the levels were well-designed and paced, and I want to know if the story was captivating (Obviously that is just a few examples).   
Preferably I want this to come from someone whose opinion I respect, which is exactly why I come to GB. 
However flawed they are, I think most reviews need scores. Only the best writers can write a good review without scores, and every day I read reviews without scores where the author fails to summarize his feelings about the game. Sure, you can write several pages of good and bad points, but the important aspect is how they all come together. Did the numerous bugs ruin the experience, or were they easily overlooked in light of the addictive gameplay? A good writer can easily replace scores with a small paragraph, and yet so many fail to do so.  
That is why I prefer writers to just give a score. The problem is, of course, that many people then completely overlook the review itself in favor of just checking the score. But hey, that's not my problem. If they wish to submit to stupidity then that's their own loss.