Maybe they actually decided to start using the entire scale.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Dany said:

Stop caring about review scores and start caring about the game.

You are not the protector of these games, you are not the publisher.. The most a person should get out of a review is "I disagree with him about X, Y but I agree with Z"

Also, critiquing a score before touching the game is the dumbest shit people do when a new review is posted.

I do think there is a valid reason and purpose behind review scores. They effect a lot of people in the industry and people should take care to create them carefully. They also help guide people to what they should spend their hard earned money on. Readers should also take care though that they understand scores appropriately. Unfortunately, I think the "reading" element of "readers" seems sorely lacking, which leads to the, "You gave it X score!? You're awful! Clearly you should be fired!"

The reactions that come up constantly in the comments of reviews are childish mostly. I don't see the movie industry using rotten tomatoes to make decisions, the game industry shouldn't use metacritic for game reviews.

@iAmJohn said:

@big_jon said:

@christ0phe said:

@Klei: Actually on a 10 point scale, a 5 would be a completely average game

Not really, that is like saying that 50% is an average grade score in school, that does not make sense.

False equivalency.

A score of a five out of ten is not an "average" game, the scorers have their own numbering system, and usually a score of half is not worth your time.

Unless you are meaning to imply that the average game is bad.

Broken and unplayable should be a 0 or a 1. So yeah, I disagree with you. I know this is not how reviewers normally do it, but I welcome any change to a more critical way of scoring. A 5 should be slightly worse than an average game. A 9 or 10 should be a game pretty much anyone should play, a 7 or 8 should mean a must play for fans of the genre.

@SeriouslyNowsaid:

OP paid money for both games.

What? I'm just analysing the subject of the day, that's all. I'm also drinking coffee.

i think it's great that "terrible" games are given a 3 and not merely a 6.5 or what have you.. it lends a bit of credibility to a fundamentally broken scoring system. also, when you say you want facts, it isn't really clear what you mean.. you can tell from the videos the aesthetic qualities of a game, but a review is like watching a game through a filter.. you're never going to get an unmediated look into the game. this is why it's best to take the lowly-reviewed games as one part of a whole picture and not just depend on one site for all you need to know about a game.
 
 it's really unhelpful if a game is invariably scored around the same average number, but if one reviewer gives a low score and another gives a high score to the same game i can look at these reviewers' other works for insight as to why. it's then pretty obvious if his/her overall disposition towards this style of game is similar to mine, and i'll have that much more of an understanding as to whether or not i'd enjoy the game. but assuming that any one review is goign to be an accurate and factual representation of a game's "quality".. well, that's just naive.

@Dany said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Dany said:

Stop caring about review scores and start caring about the game.

You are not the protector of these games, you are not the publisher.. The most a person should get out of a review is "I disagree with him about X, Y but I agree with Z"

Also, critiquing a score before touching the game is the dumbest shit people do when a new review is posted.

I do think there is a valid reason and purpose behind review scores. They effect a lot of people in the industry and people should take care to create them carefully. They also help guide people to what they should spend their hard earned money on. Readers should also take care though that they understand scores appropriately. Unfortunately, I think the "reading" element of "readers" seems sorely lacking, which leads to the, "You gave it X score!? You're awful! Clearly you should be fired!"

The reactions that come up constantly in the comments of reviews are childish mostly. I don't see the movie industry using rotten tomatoes to make decisions, the game industry shouldn't use metacritic for game reviews.

But I love Rotten Tomatoes! It is a great way to get a quick critical consensus (assuming you hit "Top-Reviewers") and I use it constantly to determine whether or not I'll be dropping money on a costly movie ticket. If the reviews aren't good, but I'm still curious about the movie, I'll delve into the reviews of reviewers I respect, like Roger Ebert, to see the reasons and rationales behind those negative opinions. If after that I still think I'll enjoy it, I'll go buy my ticket. I think it's a good way to make an educated bet on whether or not I'll be spending my money wisely.

I'm not saying the game industry should or shouldn't use metracritic when making decisions, but as a consumer, I think there is a worth to it.

everything IGN does is to make you click as much as possible and get nothing out of it.

@BrockNRolla: As a consumer yeah. But we know the lengths publishers and developers use review scores for raises, to allow a game to start development or not. That creates the relationship that a bad review score means a sequel probably won't be made.

The relationship between review scores and publisher influence is too damn high and the consumer feels like they need to insert themselves in the equation.

The entire scale argument is bull shit.
 
Anthing 3 or lower should be a game that is broken, not one flawed in design or execution. I haven't played Ninja Gaiden 3 yet, but everything I've seen and read about it seems to indicate that it is definitely not that fucking bad.
 
IGN is a terrible site that has always, with very rare fucking occasion, used reviews for major releases as a way to generate hits. Giving Ninja Gaiden a 5 or 6 wouldn't do much, giving a 3 to the third (or 5th?) entry in a franchise like Ninja Gaiden is definitely going to draw attention.
 
And you're right, for the consumer this shouldn't matter. However with all the recent bull shit with Obsidian I find it hard to take this shit lying down when great developers are losing money because of terrible people.

@big_jon said:

@iAmJohn said:

@big_jon said:

@christ0phe said:

@Klei: Actually on a 10 point scale, a 5 would be a completely average game

Not really, that is like saying that 50% is an average grade score in school, that does not make sense.

False equivalency.

A score of a five out of ten is not an "average" game, the scorers have their own numbering system, and usually a score of half is not worth your time.

Unless you are meaning to imply that the average game is bad.

No, I'm meaning to imply that suggesting that trying to suggest that five isn't the mid-point in a ten-point scale because schools don't work that way doesn't make sense for a multitude of reasons. One reason is that schools use a completely different scale (A through F instead of 1-10). Another reason is that the scales have different purposes and are therefore handled as such; 75% being the average in a school context makes sense because the average level of intelligence they are trying to set is being able to understand and execute on 75% of the material. Try applying that logic to reviewing a game.

Maybe the game sucks

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions.

There is absolutely no reason to read beyond this sentence. The review is ONLY an opinion

Maybe they're just using all of the numbers in their scale instead of 6-10.

Do you think they God Handed those games?

@Dany said:

@BrockNRolla: As a consumer yeah. But we know the lengths publishers and developers use review scores for raises, to allow a game to start development or not. That creates the relationship that a bad review score means a sequel probably won't be made.

The relationship between review scores and publisher influence is too damn high and the consumer feels like they need to insert themselves in the equation.

I agree. The publisher-side manner of using reviews seems sleazy, but a critical consensus is still important for many consumers.

HOW DO YOU OBJECTIVELY REVIEW A PIECE OF ENTERTAINMENT? Other than I put the disc it, it worked with my equipment all reviews are based on subjective impressions. The importance is that the reviewer can establish themselves as someone, say like Jeff, who has a rich history of playing a ton of games so as to understand their relative values as pieces of entertainment. The only other important hing is the text. the score should be a reflection of the text impressions. it would be trolling if the guy said in the text that the game was perfect and that he thought it was entertaining but then gave it a 3 or whatever the new fake internet crisis is.

@louiedog said:

Maybe they're just using all of the numbers in their scale instead of 6-10.

But it's IGN, the 7-10 scale became their trademark basically. Maybe they are sick of the trash-talk about them. Hopefully, the new "we use the whole scale" approach will be applied to hyped AAA games from big publishers, too (but I doubt it).

I don't know how you people live life without seeing conspiracies everywhere and going insane. High reviews means the reviewer was bribed, low reviews means they're click whoring. Reviews aren't some maniacal death machine for making your life worse, they are opinions. Sometimes they have a different opinion than you. It might hurt you a little to see something you like get a low score but at the end of the day it means literally nothing. If you like it, go for it, don't let some random person's opinion affect you. If it does affect you that much, maybe you don't like it as much as you think you do. Maybe you like the name of the game more than the game itself. And if you haven't even played the game, complaining about a review is about the most idiotic thing you could possibly do.

who the fuck cares? when Jeff gave Catherine a 2 star rating I still bought the game anyway, if you still wanna buy it than what do arbitrary scores matter?

@iAmJohn said:

@big_jon said:

@iAmJohn said:

@big_jon said:

@christ0phe said:

@Klei: Actually on a 10 point scale, a 5 would be a completely average game

Not really, that is like saying that 50% is an average grade score in school, that does not make sense.

False equivalency.

A score of a five out of ten is not an "average" game, the scorers have their own numbering system, and usually a score of half is not worth your time.

Unless you are meaning to imply that the average game is bad.

No, I'm meaning to imply that suggesting that trying to suggest that five isn't the mid-point in a ten-point scale because schools don't work that way doesn't make sense for a multitude of reasons. One reason is that schools use a completely different scale (A through F instead of 1-10). Another reason is that the scales have different purposes and are therefore handled as such; 75% being the average in a school context makes sense because the average level of intelligence they are trying to set is being able to understand and execute on 75% of the material. Try applying that logic to reviewing a game.

Consider this quandary. If the average intelligence a school may look for is 75%. And the average intelligence of someone shouting about games getting the wrong score without actually having played them is well below 75%. And the number of people who understand that a review is an "opinion" rather than an objective fact seems to be around 50%. At what time will people stop posting complaints about low review scores on the forums?

Logic that one out, Mr. Smart-iAmJohn.

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

wat

how about you read the reviews and learn what the person thought OF the game isntead of looking at a number. Hell I might just end reviews for shit now with random great cat names like cheetah or lion now. Whats to say a Cheetah isn't better than a Lion?!?!?!?!?!

I prefer it when the review is purely opinion, as long as it has some examples backing it up. If you know the reviewer and you know their tastes you should be able to understand the difference in your opinions and base it off that. Plus if reviews weren't opinions they would just be a formula and some checkboxes with a number at the end, anything with substance would not be objective.

@Bwast said:

I don't know how you people live life without seeing conspiracies everywhere and going insane. High reviews means the reviewer was bribed, low reviews means they're click whoring. Reviews aren't some maniacal death machine for making your life worse, they are opinions. Sometimes they have a different opinion than you. It might hurt you a little to see something you like get a low score but at the end of the day it means literally nothing. If you like it, go for it, don't let some random person's opinion affect you. If it does affect you that much, maybe you don't like it as much as you think you do. Maybe you like the name of the game more than the game itself. And if you haven't even played the game, complaining about a review is about the most idiotic thing you could possibly do.

So you say. I would probably think that too, if I weren't wearing this tin-foil hat to block out the corporate brainwashing waves.

IGN in bad review shocker.

@Ben_H said:

@Animasta said:

who the fuck cares? when Jeff gave Catherine a 2 star rating I still bought the game anyway, if you still wanna buy it than what do arbitrary scores matter?

Great example. I loved Catherine. Just because Jeff doesn't like it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to. It's amazing how these opinion things work.

The difference is, I trust Jeff, even when my opinion vastly differs from his. I don't trust IGN because they work too closely with publishers and their business model is too focussed on early access which opens it up for shady publisher influence.

The OP and this topic are dumb.

@Klei said:

What is a game inferior to 5, for you? To me, and most people, it means that it's simply broken and unplayable. A game that is downright busted, with less than sub-par graphics, bad control response and horrible level design, if not downright unfinished.

What? No. A 5 is simply an average game, making 4 and under a below average game. What you're talking about sounds more like a 1/10 or even a 0/10.

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions.

Good luck with that. A review is an opinion piece, it is quite literally unable to be anything else.

I, myself, write reviews for a french website, and I recently reviews Uncharted : Golden Abyss. To be honest, I thought it was a really bad game. How did I score it? With a 8 out of 10.

Why on Earth are you giving a game a score that you don't agree with!? This is dishonest editorial and is what is making review scores redundant. Hating a game and giving it a high score because it has pretty visuals and tight controls is the highest order of bullshit.

@Bwast said:

It might hurt you a little to see something you like get a low score but at the end of the day it means literally nothing.

Well...

Obsidian Fallout New Vegas deal with Bethesda meant bonus payment only with 85+ Metacritic

How dare a game reviewer give crap games shit scores! I'd be more concerned with their journalistic integrity had they reviewed any of those games as good.

The problem, I maintain, is that in the school system, a 7/10 or 70%, is average. Anything below is bad/failing, anything above is better then average.

Also, if you think game reviews are inconsistent, Try music reviews. Pitchfork is the worst as far as consistency - and they use a hundred point scale. But they also use the full spectrum. A 5.0/10.0 is average.

Find it funny that people hate on sites like IGN for giving games scores like 8 or 9 too often, yet when they start to be critical on games and give lower scores they still complain. Video games people, video games..

To be fair, sure, reviews are opinion. BUT, if you're gonna give a game a 4.5, you better be ready to give me a constructive argument for that opinion than simply saying "these controls are horrible" or "this game looks ugly". Would it hurt to include some details? It's fine if you think that, but if you're gonna sound like a whiny baby, then why should I give a damn? The I Am Alive review was riddled with these, and even if a game review was just an opinion, the argument they conveyed was, to be frank, shit. I'm so sick of people saying "it's just an opinion". Even if it is, does that excuse a shoddy explanation of the details? If these people wrote these reviews on a message board, they'd be eaten alive for a lack of sources or explanation. Also, they're always terribly definitive with they're opinion. They seem incapable of playing the devil's advocate, like they're opinion is the only one that actually matters. That is the symptom of an egotistical douchebag.

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

in a perfect world yes, but reviewers are not robots. You can't expect reviewers to keep their feelings and opinions out of a review, its impossible not to as human beings. A review IS an opinion and if someone feels a game is a big letdown then by all means give it a 3. and for the record IGN are not the only ones to have slated NG3

To a hardcore Ninja Gaiden fan, yeah, NG3 is probably a 3 on the IGN scale. Not a single change was made to accommodate that fanbase. On the contrary, every single thing that Team Ninja changed was in service of an attempt at expanding to people who didn't like Ninja Gaiden. Then you have the scenario of Jeff and Ryan, neither of whom is, to my knowledge, really into these kinds of games, doing a quick look and being completely underwhelmed by what they're playing. It all begs the question: Who is Ninja Gaiden 3 even for?

Is that game really a 4, guys? Really? Come onnnnnnnn. It's a six at least! Numbers.

@MariachiMacabre said:

What the fuck does Gears 3 have to do with NG3? They have nothing in common. First off, NG3 looks shitty compared to NG and even the disappointing NG2 and Gears 3 was a huge step up in quality from GoW2.

I agreed with you until you brought up God of War II.

Klei making recent troll thread to gain more attention? I think so.

You're a fucking idiot. Your argument basically boils down to: "WHHAAA NG3 GOT A 4???THEN GEARS OF WARP DESERVES A 6!!!! WHAAAA!"

Reviews are ALL about opinion, and it seems you didn't even read Mr. Dyer's review and why he scored it so low. Robots such as yourself aren't reviewing games....yet....an if I were to take your word and bought the well scoring 8/10 Golden Abyss I would have called you a moron and a bad reviewer for recommending me a sub par Uncharted product on which I spent a ton of money on.

@zels said:

@Klei: How do you propose one factually assess the graphical quality of a game, its soundtrack or the gameplay?

Oh well, this model has 20 mil polygons, therefore 10/10 graphics. The soundtrack was composed by an orchestra of 200 people using over 50 different instruments - 7/10 soundtrack, gamplay involves pressing 4 buttons - 1/10.

This guy says it best. I'm sick of people being pissed off at every review score that comes out; how the fuck does it affect you if you're going to post a 3 page dissertation on how the reviewer is "wrong" anyway?

@Vinny_Says said:

You're a fucking idiot. Your argument basically boils down to: "WHHAAA NG3 GOT A 4???THEN GEARS OF WARP DESERVES A 6!!!! WHAAAA!"

Reviews are ALL about opinion, and it seems you didn't even read Mr. Dyer's review and why he scored it so low. Robots such as yourself aren't reviewing games....yet....an if I were to take your word and bought the well scoring 8/10 Golden Abyss I would have called you a moron and a bad reviewer for recommending me a sub par Uncharted product on which I spent a ton of money on.

@zels said:

@Klei: How do you propose one factually assess the graphical quality of a game, its soundtrack or the gameplay?

Oh well, this model has 20 mil polygons, therefore 10/10 graphics. The soundtrack was composed by an orchestra of 200 people using over 50 different instruments - 7/10 soundtrack, gamplay involves pressing 4 buttons - 1/10.

This guy says it best. I'm sick of people being pissed off at every review score that comes out; how the fuck does it affect you if you're going to post a 3 page dissertation on how the reviewer is "wrong" anyway?

You don't need to be an aggressive bitch and call me names because my point of view is different from you. I didn't attack you and I remained calm and respectful to everybody. People like you are stains the giantbomb community.

@Milkman: lololololololol

@Timing said:

@Bwast said:

It might hurt you a little to see something you like get a low score but at the end of the day it means literally nothing.

Well...

Obsidian Fallout New Vegas deal with Bethesda meant bonus payment only with 85+ Metacritic

This doesn't happen if people don't freak out every time a game they like or don't like gets a score they don't agree with.

@big_jon said:

Arbitrary numbers woo!

It is really fucking stupid how the word "troll" is so over used now, just because someone's opinion is not the same as yours does not make them a troll! Grow the fuck up people, Giantbomb is above this shit.

@Klei said:

@Vinny_Says said:

You're a fucking idiot. Your argument basically boils down to: "WHHAAA NG3 GOT A 4???THEN GEARS OF WARP DESERVES A 6!!!! WHAAAA!"

Reviews are ALL about opinion, and it seems you didn't even read Mr. Dyer's review and why he scored it so low. Robots such as yourself aren't reviewing games....yet....an if I were to take your word and bought the well scoring 8/10 Golden Abyss I would have called you a moron and a bad reviewer for recommending me a sub par Uncharted product on which I spent a ton of money on.

@zels said:

@Klei: How do you propose one factually assess the graphical quality of a game, its soundtrack or the gameplay?

Oh well, this model has 20 mil polygons, therefore 10/10 graphics. The soundtrack was composed by an orchestra of 200 people using over 50 different instruments - 7/10 soundtrack, gamplay involves pressing 4 buttons - 1/10.

This guy says it best. I'm sick of people being pissed off at every review score that comes out; how the fuck does it affect you if you're going to post a 3 page dissertation on how the reviewer is "wrong" anyway?

You don't need to be an aggressive bitch and call me names because my point of view is different from you. I didn't attack you and I remained calm and respectful to everybody. People like you are stains the giantbomb community.

You mean "I didn't attack you and remained calm and respectful to everybody... until I called you an 'aggressive bitch.'"

Sounds like someone might need to consider whether or not they might also be a stain on the Giant Bomb community.

@Bwast said:

@Timing said:

@Bwast said:

It might hurt you a little to see something you like get a low score but at the end of the day it means literally nothing.

Well...

Obsidian Fallout New Vegas deal with Bethesda meant bonus payment only with 85+ Metacritic

This doesn't happen if people don't freak out every time a game they like or don't like gets a score they don't agree with.

Why doesn't it happen?

Expecting reviewers to review games without basing their reviews primarily on whether they enjoyed the game is a retarded idea. It would lead to every review being practically identical and would make it impossible for a game to be less or more than the sum of its parts. Also, it's entirely possible that IGN gave the games low scores because the reviewers felt they deserved them.

The entire scale argument is bull shit.  Anthing 3 or lower should be a game that is broken, not one flawed in design or execution. I haven't played Ninja Gaiden 3 yet, but everything I've seen and read about it seems to indicate that it is definitely not that fucking bad.  IGN is a terrible site that has always, with very rare fucking occasion, used reviews for major releases as a way to generate hits. Giving Ninja Gaiden a 5 or 6 wouldn't do much, giving a 3 to the third (or 5th?) entry in a franchise like Ninja Gaiden is definitely going to draw attention. And you're right, for the consumer this shouldn't matter. However with all the recent bull shit with Obsidian I find it hard to take this shit lying down when great developers are losing money because of terrible people.

@MrRedwine said:

Reviews are not impartial, they are the opinion of the reviewer.

Thank you. I don't understand how this is such an abstract concept for people.

I forget what podcast I heard this on, but someone brought a good point. If you were truly confident in a game(or anything for that matter), reviews would ultimately mean jack shit to you. You're confident in your opinion and you don't need anyone or anything to reaffirm how you feel. Every time a fuss is made about a review, I can't help but feel that it's because it confirms the accusers doubts and they somehow can't accept that.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Klei said:

@Vinny_Says said:

You're a fucking idiot. Your argument basically boils down to: "WHHAAA NG3 GOT A 4???THEN GEARS OF WARP DESERVES A 6!!!! WHAAAA!"

Reviews are ALL about opinion, and it seems you didn't even read Mr. Dyer's review and why he scored it so low. Robots such as yourself aren't reviewing games....yet....an if I were to take your word and bought the well scoring 8/10 Golden Abyss I would have called you a moron and a bad reviewer for recommending me a sub par Uncharted product on which I spent a ton of money on.

@zels said:

@Klei: How do you propose one factually assess the graphical quality of a game, its soundtrack or the gameplay?

Oh well, this model has 20 mil polygons, therefore 10/10 graphics. The soundtrack was composed by an orchestra of 200 people using over 50 different instruments - 7/10 soundtrack, gamplay involves pressing 4 buttons - 1/10.

This guy says it best. I'm sick of people being pissed off at every review score that comes out; how the fuck does it affect you if you're going to post a 3 page dissertation on how the reviewer is "wrong" anyway?

You don't need to be an aggressive bitch and call me names because my point of view is different from you. I didn't attack you and I remained calm and respectful to everybody. People like you are stains the giantbomb community.

You mean "I didn't attack you and remained calm and respectful to everybody... until I called you an 'aggressive bitch.'"

Sounds like someone might need to consider whether or not they might also be a stain on the Giant Bomb community.

No, I stand by my post. He did act like it. As for me, even by re-reading my comments, I was always respectful and calm with my point of view. I didn't shove it down anybody's throats, I just created an analysis thread because it's kind of the subject of the day.

Look, it's obvious you don't like my point of view, since you've been nitpicking everything I've said since the beginning. And it's fine, but remember, as adults, we can all have conversations without spitting at those who don't share our views.