Eurogamer replaces x/10 review score system

Sauce

Well they did have a x/10 system which isn't as good as a x/5 system imo. Now they have some sort of recommendation system where they'll have a summary followed by a recommendation of: Essential, Recommended, Avoid or not provide a recommendation at all.

What's your thoughts on this duders? I know Jeff has hated the review system for years. Do you think GB will follow or not bother changing at the moment. Is a pro and con system better? Do you think this will even last at Eurogamer?

GB's system works great. No need to fix what aint broken!

The five star system is literally perfect.

1. Sucks.

2. Gotta love it to try it.

3. Its ok maybe worth your time if you like the genre.

4. Above average even if you don't like genre give it a look.

5. Buy it now.

I think a five star system is just about the perfect amount of granularity if you're going to have a numerical rating system of some kind. It's really not all that different from the system Eurogamer has now adopted which is essentially a four star system (Essential = 4/4, Recommended = 3/4, N/A = 2/4, Avoid = 1/5), the primary difference just being that their system has no explicit numerical component and Giant Bomb's does.

That's good. Would be better if it was just the summary. Ratings are dumb and subtract from writing a big-ass essay about the game. Suppose it's about what you're going for. If it's informing customers about what to spend their money on, the recommendation thing makes a lot more sense than a score. If it's actually writing about video games then it might as well not be there because then people might not read what you wrote. I've ran a film website for two years now. We never used ratings in our reviews. Yet we have lots of readers. Ergo I certainly don't think ratings are essential to cultivate a readership.

Meh, I think it's fine. Whatever. I honestly don't think this shift away from review scores is gonna change much of anything though other giving sites a chance to show off how progressive they think they are. I agree much more with Jeff's sentiment that reviews in general are arguably becoming less relevant as a whole.

The five star system works fine; it provides enough granularity to distinguish games without being ambiguous. A four star system would be even better, but it's probably not worth the hassle at this point.

@dudeglove: I've seen that video probably a hundred times and the "i've never played this game before, but I know you're full of shit" line still gets me every time haha

I do t know why people harp on the 10 scale system so much. I think it affords a bit more clarity through scoring that the 5 point scale simply lacks. There is a difference between a 6 and a 7 just as there is between a 7 and an 8.

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

I honestly just need a number and could do without any of the written text in the review. It'd save a lot of time for the reviewer. A 20 point system works best, but some people's loins are weak and unable to perceive subtle differences in quality between games, which is a shame.

I think "Essential" is a pretentious word to use in the review of an entertainment product...

I'm a firm believer that video game journalism should be done solely through motherfuckin' rap beef between video game reviewers. That's how you get a fair score. Hell, you might even not written a review for this game, everybody's gonna get BLAT BLAT BLAT

So they are going to have to come up with a new way to rate everything 8/10

I can't say I ever really visit Eurogamer. Maybe I should change that?

No he hasn't. He has issue with the 10 point, 19 point and 100 point scales, as well as component scores such as graphics, sound, etc, but he thinks the 5 point system is perfect for their needs and their audience's needs. He's not one of those championing for no review scores like Schreier. If he was he would have changed the system years ago. They won't be changing.

Actually Jeff recently said that no reviews would be something he would do.

Cool, scoring systems are restrictive and suffocate nuanced critiques.

I miss review scores with decimal places. Watching people complain that 9.6 out of 10 was too low a score for their favorite game was never not funny to me.

Essential is pretty bold word - I find it hard to think of any game I'd really consider 'essential'.

So they have a 4-point scale now. I still think a 5-point is best, but hey. Everyone does it differently. It's still an improvement over a 10-point number scale where games in the 7-9 range dominate. (If you're going to have a point system, use all the points, dammit!)

Their use of the word "Essential" is funny to me, though. I think Gamespot uses the term better for games that go beyond the top tier.

People spend too much time freaking out over a number versus a review's content anyway.

As long as there's an explanation as to why the score, they can rate things puppies/kitten farts for all I care.

This is fine.

A bold step and a pretty cool one. That said; I really do like Giant Bomb's 5 star scale, and wouldn't want to see them follow suit.

@mosespippy:
I should've worded that to 'I think Jeff mentioned in a bombcast' rather than put words in his mouth but meh it was late and sleep was needed so I didn't proof read.

@dudeglove: That's the greatest thing I've seen since the Star Wars teaser.

I like the 5 star system. I'd be kinda bummed to see it go. Not that I rely on it but its like a cherry on the top much like those staff pics they used to add back in the day.

Someone should ask Jeff Green what happened to his magazine when they got away from review scores.

I don't want any website telling me that Dragon Age Inquisition is 'essential'. Essential if you like being bored perhaps.

Okay. That works, as long as reviewers don't end up feeling hamstrung by it, it's fine. But I honestly don't have a problem with a 10 point scale. I think that works just fine, same as a 5 point scale. Sometimes you want to be that bit more specific, more specific than what the 5 point scale offers. All depends on the preferences of the reviewers though.

Always hated number based reviews, whether it be out of 10 or 5. I even think reviews shouldn't even exist anymore with the rise of Quick Looks and Let's Plays. If there are reviews though I would much prefer for them to be more abstract and just have the reviewer discussing what they liked and didn't like about the game, and of course pointing out technical issues and stuff. Feel like that style of review reinforces the fact that a review is simply an opinion.

I hate all systems! sooo nyeah! Sup now? F all the stars, n'ah mean?

Anyways I barely ever visit Eurogamer, much less for reviews.

Interesting though. Feel "review systems" have been coming up more and more as a "thing to improve" on many websites these last few years.

Polygon just said the other day they are going to tag reviews as Provisional until they are certain of the "real world" performance of a game and that Provisional reviews won't go on Metacritic. Frankly - and coming from a dude who does not especially enjoy polygon.com - I think that's probably the best change anyone has introduced to review systems, within the existing, appreciated framework.

2015, the year of experimenting with removing review scores.

I'm fine with it. I don't think review scores are true anyway- since whether or not you'll like a game (whether it is technically good or bad) is subjective, and most reviewers (most noticeably even more now than ever) have no technical proficient knowledge of how games really work/are made and have no basis of merit on whether a game is technically good or bad beyond whether or not they enjoyed playing them.

I don't mind. I rather read the actual review. That said, the five star system on Giant Bomb is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be replaced. It's granular enough to distinguish an average game from a good game.

Man, a lot of people seem to like the five point scale a whole lot and I can't disagree more. If you're going to sum up an opinion with a number representing how much you liked the game, it needs a little more subtlety than just five stars. I've played quite a few games that don't deserve a five, but four just winds up feeling like I'm underselling the game.

Having no score probably is ideal, but it's impractical, as a whole lot of people skim the review and look at the score to find out what the reviewer thinks. If there's no score, there goes all your attention-deficit "readers".

Review scores are stupid so this makes sense.

I find the 5 point scale or a bullet point summary is most effective for getting a quick idea of, or just nicely capping, a review.

This seems fine.

Call me crazy but I think x/6 would be the best review scale.

A review score tells me nothing about a game, other than the reviewer's final opinion. The essay fleshes out why they enjoyed it, or not; this is highly informative for my own choices, as it breaks down gameplay, story, positives contra negatives, etc. A quick look tells me if they are enjoying the first few hours of a game, as that is usually the point where us, the audience, get to see the GB crew play through a chunk of gameplay, along with commentary. That still is not a final, nuanced opinion that has been mulled over for more than a few hours.

A thoughtful review is still essential, in my mind.

I find reviews by going to Metacritic and looking at what sites I know have reviewed the game. Now Eurogamer won't even show up there. I don't see what people have against putting a score, it is a good indicator. Just as long as you don't get too crazy about just looking at that. Most games I buy have Metacritic scores in the yellow range rather than the green. I just avoid red. Score or not I wish they would show up there because the way I find out about reviews is through Metacritic.

Reviews only matter if you care what the critic has to say about games. You have to know their tastes and how they line up with yours. Like with GB's score, only 1 and 5 even mean anything to me. 2, 3, and 4 are still just degrees of personal taste.

When reading a review, I want answers to the "what", "why", and "for whom."

What is this game?

What is it trying to do, successfully or otherwise?

Why is it good? Why is it bad?

For whom is this game?

That's the reason why I value text reviews. I want the review to articulate the game.

A binary thumbs up/down is too nebulous, but a high gradient (i.e. out of 10, decimals) leads to so much grey area to pin a definitive overall quality. But, something like a five star scale (no half stars, don't be crazy), will definitively indicate a game's overall quality and value.

Then, if you want to get to the minutae, I find that the quick text bullet points of positives and negatives quickly encompasses all major points. This is probably the only thing I would recommend that Giantbomb should add. The small flavor synopsis does the job, but doesn't necessarily highlight exactly the good and the bad.

All that combined would give you: a general feel of the review, some general points, then the actual finer details. You can get the gist in a few seconds, then you can dig for details if you so prefer. THAT, to me, is the complete review package.

So, I am all for this change by Eurogamer. I already love Giantbomb's (with that one possible improvement).

A lot of internet kids just want validation for the games they'll already love and defend, and there's not much you can do about that. The best kind of review any editor can write, I think, is to craft one for those of us discerning enough.

It's interesting, and different. I like it!

It covers my basic thought process when buying a game:

Essential: Buy it even if I don't like the genre or concept.

Recommended: Buy it if I do like the genre or concept.

Avoid: Avoid:

No Recommendation: Actually read the review to find out if I can deal with the flaws. Which is what I would do anyway if I heard that a game was a mixed bag.

This seems A-OK to me.

I'd be interested if an "Essential" score could only be given out 10-15 years after the games release.

And certified 'essential' by both people that played it recently and by people that played it within a year of release.

Seems designed to be anti-metacritic rather then designed to help their readers. While 10 point scales are pretty useless a good 5 star scale lets them use every number on it and have each one mean something. Oh well, I don't read many reviews anymore anyways. Usually I only read the 2 or 3 star reviews for games I'm interested in to see what problems the reviewer had with the game and see if they are things that would bother me or not. Quick looks and let's plays usually let me know all I need to decide if a game is designed for me or not.

I really don't love review scores, but I find the the smaller the range of scores the better. The standard 100 point scale (1-10 with decimal points) is like splitting hairs. One tenth of a point doesn't give the reader a lot more information, and 1-10 scales seem to be more like 6-10 scales these days. Review content is much more important to me than the number that comes at the end... not that I base my purchases on reviews anymore anyway. I think a lot of us are pretty informed on a game well before it comes out and we read reviews either to agree or disagree with them.

I don't read Eurogamer, but that decision seems pretty bold. The more interesting part of this, to me, is that they've chosen only to review games from full retail versions and that online games won't get a full review after they're released. Seems kind of like acknowledging that their audience isn't actually basing purchases off of reviews anymore and that no one cares too much for day 1 editorializing. Maybe now they see their reviews more as an intellectual endeavor and less as a means of informing an already well-informed consumer.

Either way, they're putting the quality of their editorials ahead of posting first and ahead of popular but not very informative review scores. I hope it works out well for them.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that what Joystiq did right before they were shuttered. I'm not saying they're related but there is a reason scores exist.

Jeff having issue with /10 scores is kinda daft given that the five star rating is effectively that. Although it could be argued a five star rating is weighted differently. You also have to wonder about a game site's readership and just how many turn up for scores compared to editorials.

As most games reviewers embrace their subjectivity, reviews that replace numbers with these qualitative words seems pretty misguided. Saying that a game is difinitively "recommended" carries a weird context that something like "4 out of 5" is never burdened with.

Maybe they're bucking the writerly trend and going with hardcore consumer advice?

@shindig: The glaring problem with x/10 systems is that scores are inevitably skewed to be on the higher end. I think it has a lot to do with the insidiously stupid ways that exams are graded in the US as letter grade signifying a certain x/100%. 100-91 = A, 90-81 = B , 80-71 = C, 70-60= D... and there's the problem. Any percent below that is generally regarded as failing. It doesn't matter if you get a 32 on a test rather than a 22. And we see this lack of clarity in how review scores are interpreted. A 5 out of 10, when you have 4 possible layers on top of that. seems like a "bad" score, not just in the middle. What's the difference between a game getting a 2 or a 3? Or more stupidly "controversial" a 5 vs a 6?

The beauty of the 5 point scale is that it is inherently simple, with no room for confusing granularity.

5 - Amazing

4 - Pretty Good

3 - Average

2 - Pretty Bad

1 - Horrible

Perfect.

Is that interpretation not up to the reader, though? Especially if they're viewing an outlet that whacks a number on a review with little or no summarising?