More Fun W/ Review Scores - Dennis Dyack Wants to Get Rid of Number Ratings

[Maklershed]

In the 2/21 episode of the 1upyours podcast, Silicone Knights CEO Dennis Dyack (famous for being the man in charge of the Too Human project and the guy who thinks there will be a 1 console future) says that he thinks numbered reviews are biased and inaccurate due to reviewers being influenced by pr and marketing spin. He goes on to say he wishes the numbered review system was eliminated and that reviewers would just give a thumbs up or down .. an "I recommend this" or "I dont recommend this". What do you think? Is this a good idea or bad?

[jer7583]

A review scale of 3 is all that is really needed. Bad, Meh(For fans), and Reccomend.

That's all people pay attention to in the end anyway. 1-5=Fail, 5-7=Meh, 7-10=Good. It's already in place.

[Dr Mario Kart]

How does a scale with lesser points, like a thumbs up/down, solve that problem?

Can the powers that be not just buy or influence the thumbs up in a similar fashion?

[jer7583]

I don't think the buying of scores was related to the score change idea. They were two separate points in the podcast, made at different times.

[Maklershed]

I don't think the buying of scores was related to the score change idea. They were two separate points in the podcast, made at different times.

He says he feels reviewers get wound up in the hype of the pr and marketing. He then summizes that's why he hears a lot of reviewers, a few months after the fact, wish they could go back and change their score and it was scored higher/lower than it should have been.

[lordxixor101]

He says he feels reviewers get wound up in the hype of the pr and marketing. He then summizes that's why he hears a lot of reviewers, a few months after the fact, wish they could go back and change their score and it was scored higher/lower than it should have been.


If this is true, I wish the reviewers would go back and re-review the game. Some people don't buy right away, so at least they can see the redone review.

After that Jeff Geursterman (sp?) fiasco, I have to say that I have a hard time looking at a review score with any accuracy. I know question whenever they say something new works really well, whether it does, or if they are just kissing up. Sure, a game with a very strong review (positive or negative) is easier to take, but anything that is an 8/10, hard to say.

Though, I'm against this. The number is some flexibility to show that one game is better than another. With a thumb up, the problem is that a Bioshock (or other game of the year type game) will get the same rating as a very average game, and that doesn't seem right.

[Maklershed]

I dont have an opinion on his comments but I can think of at least one game which may be an example of Dyack's comment: Perfect Dark Zero. There is no way that game should have ever received a score more than an 8 on a scale of 1-10 and the scores it did get probably were somewhat a product of the hype and/or newness of the 360.

[VanillaGorilla]

Dyack also said in the current games industry, it's hard for 3rd parties to make money....well Dennis, it's hard for YOUR company to make money, if you release one game every 5 years. He came off as such a douche in that podcast.

[Strell]

If the review mechanism is so broken, a new scale won't fix it.

Get more people to review more games. The feeling I get is that it's highly mechanical - someone plays the game for many hours a day while under a deadline. Then they have to write out a review on it, which requires all sorts of editting and whatnot. It's lifeless and calculating.

Instead, get twice as many reviewers and put them on a staggered scale, so that there's always new material coming out from people who get to really delve into the game.

Also, match up people with games they want to play. Don't stick an FPS goon with a sports game, and don't let a puzzle gamer play an action game.

It doesn't help that (as alluded to elsewhere) that reviews almost always come off as being bought these days.

Sounds like the whole beast is dead and rotting away, it's just that some body parts are doing it more rapidly than others.

[VanillaGorilla]

If the review mechanism is so broken, a new scale won't fix it.

Get more people to review more games. The feeling I get is that it's highly mechanical - someone plays the game for many hours a day while under a deadline. Then they have to write out a review on it, which requires all sorts of editting and whatnot. It's lifeless and calculating.

Instead, get twice as many reviewers and put them on a staggered scale, so that there's always new material coming out from people who get to really delve into the game.

Also, match up people with games they want to play. Don't stick an FPS goon with a sports game, and don't let a puzzle gamer play an action game.

It doesn't help that (as alluded to elsewhere) that reviews almost always come off as being bought these days.

Sounds like the whole beast is dead and rotting away, it's just that some body parts are doing it more rapidly than others.Dyack is just an idiot. It sounded like he wanted to cater to the granny that goes into a store to buy Mario Galaxy for her granddaughter, but is CONFUSED by everything she sees. Ok Dennis, let's cater to the demographic that buys 1-3 games a year, instead of the one that buys 20+. Dumbass.

Why is it, when discussing this whole thing, people always assert that "it's too confusing for the consumer, 3 different consoles!" Not really. If sonny boy tells you to buy him a new Xbox 360 game, then buy the box that HAS THE BIG FUCKING XBOX 360 LABEL ON IT. Honestly, how stupid do these people think the modern consumer is?

[Strell]

I don't disagree, but don't underestimate the outright retardedness of the average American consumer. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but there are braindead "how did you get dressed this morning" idiots out there in droves.

It's funny you mention the three different consoles thing. Dyack is a HUGE supporter of the one-console idea.

[Kendal]

This is the first time I agree with Dyack on anything. I am not one to look at scores. I read the review to see what was liked and disliked. I think scores are pointless. Buy it, rent it, leave it. That is how I see reviews. They also don't mean much to me. I like to get feedback from my peers here at CAG. I agree with the idea, but probably for different reasons.

[VanillaGorilla]

But a lot of people probably see a review score, and are attracted to that, and that's how they first find out about a game. Example:

I had never heard of The Red Star. Had no idea what it was. And here I see it getting a bunch of pretty good review SCORES, so after seeing that, I decide to check it out. I rent it, play it, and it's great. Without those numerical representations of the games quality, I would have never played it.

[dastly75]

A review scale of 3 is all that is really needed. Bad, Meh(For fans), and Reccomend.

That's all people pay attention to in the end anyway. 1-5=Fail, 5-7=Meh, 7-10=Good. It's already in place.

But a lot of people probably see a review score, and are attracted to that, and that's how they first find out about a game. Example:

I had never heard of The Red Star. Had no idea what it was. And here I see it getting a bunch of pretty good review SCORES, so after seeing that, I decide to check it out. I rent it, play it, and it's great. Without those numerical representations of the games quality, I would have never played it.

Are you talking about the average score number that is assigned to a game based on upon many reviews? I don't really see the difference between a number or the good, meh, bad system. I guess if you are really stingy on something being absolutely unanimously well reviewed and "top tier", then it might make a difference. But at the same time, you might miss out on some good games if you do that because theres plenty of awesome games that aren't reviewed unanimously high since reviews are just opinions anyways.

For me, I just figure out if it's good or meh, weigh the other factors like price, content, etc. and then go on from there.

[jer7583]

But a lot of people probably see a review score, and are attracted to that, and that's how they first find out about a game. Example:

I had never heard of The Red Star. Had no idea what it was. And here I see it getting a bunch of pretty good review SCORES, so after seeing that, I decide to check it out. I rent it, play it, and it's great. Without those numerical representations of the games quality, I would have never played it.

How would those "good scores" be any different than a "recommend" or "thumbs up" rating?

Dyack is a much smarter guy than most people give him credit for, and it was a great episode of an awesome podcast. As for Perfect Dark Zero, it's a great example of a game that worked for the time it came out, having online co-op and big multiplayer games, but after launch when other stuff came out, it's not really worth it anymore. I know a LOT of people played PDZ at 360 launch just because it was online and had some of those new features. But once other games started coming out, PDZ lost its luster. I think that's pretty well known, though.

[mrchainsaw]

I think the current rating system most places use is fine. I might miss a game because it doesn't get high review scores but if it isn't getting high scores across the board, then it isn't one of the best games out there. With the little money and time I have, I only want to play the best anyway.

[wubb]

I like scores. But if sites did dump them there are places like metacritic that would translate the text into a score and still aggregate it all into one master number.

[hostyl1]

This is the first time I agree with Dyack on anything. I am not one to look at scores. I read the review to see what was liked and disliked. I think scores are pointless. Buy it, rent it, leave it. That is how I see reviews. They also don't mean much to me. I like to get feedback from my peers here at CAG. I agree with the idea, but probably for different reasons.

QFT!

This is exactly what I'm looking for in a review. Is it something that should be bought, rented, or avoided. Though I give *much* less weight to the "score" than to the actual text of the review.

But this is Dyack's point: If a game gets a score of an 8 (1-10 scale) the reviewer is saying that the game is something that should be bought, but people see an 8 and think it is significantly 'worse' than a game that same reviewer gave a 9.5. But in reality, the reviewer thinks both are great games.

This leads to some confusion, because, for whatever reason, many ppl only look at the scores and not the text. And a game that gets an 8 (or worse yet a 7) while being a good game in the eyes of the reviewer, will just get summarily dismissed from consideration by those buyers.

Moreover, as a matter of personal preference, the buy/rent/avoid would help to get rid of the silliness of OMGz!!!! Zelda *only* got a 9.5, it shud B @ ten!!!!1111 type crap that we see on fourms (not here on CAG of course :applause:). Because really, whether a game is a 9, 9.5, or 10 it's considered a game you should play. An really, isnt that what a review is supposed to be used for? A guide to whether you will buy, rent, or avoid a game?

[KingBroly]

People use school ratings for games, plain and simple. That's how they were brought up, that's how they look at it. Every ratings system is subjective.

But seriously, this guy...he really needs to shut up and do his job. If his games are crap, I'm not buying them. He just wants more sales, and with a review system like he's suggesting, more often than not, I'd be buying crap.

[dmaul1114]

Thumbs Up and Thumbs down is too limited IMO.

As a person with not that much free time and many hobbies besides gaming (a few of which I prioritize over gaming) I try to only play the cream of the crop in the genres I like. I don't even have time to get to all of those, so I see little point in delving into many non-AAA games.

You really need a 5 or 10 point scale (or a letter grade system) to clearly differentiate the cream of the crop. If you just have thumbs up or thumbs down, then you're probably going to have games that would get like a 7.0 getting a thumbs up making them harder to distinguish at a glance from 9.0-10 games. Yes you could use review text, but I seldom bother reading reviews (again, little spare time and I really don't care about any one person's opinion on games, movies etc.) and tend to just go by the aggregate sites like Gamerankings for a game I know nothing about.

If it's a game I know a lot about and I'm pretty confident I'll think it's an AAA game I'll just buy it without reviews. For a game I know little about, I like to see just the general reviewer trends on it to check it out--and a thumbs up/thumbs down just isn't that useful to aggregation of scores.

[dmaul1114]

...but people see an 8 and think it is significantly 'worse' than a game that same reviewer gave a 9.5. But in reality, the reviewer thinks both are great games.

There is a difference though, at least when I score games. For instance, I'd give Bioshock a 9.5 and Half-Life 2 an 8.5. I think Bioshock is MUCH better than Half-life 2. Or it can work across genres, I'd give Zelda Phantom Hourglass an 8.0 (would be lower if it wasn't zelda) and it's a game I could certainly have lived without playing in hindsight as I just didn't enjoy it as much as I did the other big games of 2007 (and there's some I haven't gotten to yet that I'd probably like more).



Moreover, as a matter of personal preference, the buy/rent/avoid would help to get rid of the silliness of OMGz!!!! Zelda *only* got a 9.5, it shud B @ ten!!!!1111 type crap that we see on fourms (not here on CAG of course :applause:).

You give the fanboys here too much credit! :D There was indeed a thread bashing Gamespot for giving Zelda: Twilight Princess an 8.8 or whatever it was. Thread made it to several pages.

[hostyl1]

Yes you could use review text, but I seldom bother reading reviews (again, little spare time and I really don't care about any one person's opinion on games, movies etc.) and tend to just go by the aggregate sites like Gamerankings for a game I know nothing about.

I can see where you're coming from, but to me, if I am looking at a review to help guide my choice, I want to know what's *in* the game and you just dont get that from scores. There have been highly rated games that, even though they had high scores, the review convinced me *not* to buy the game because the text said that it would not be the type of game i'd typically enjoy. OTOH, some of the mediocre-score games I bought because the text said that the game fit me. Different strokes I guess.

Oh and about the "not here on CAG" thing, I actually started to use a :roll:...but thought that would be a little harsh :D

[dmaul1114]

I can see where you're coming from, but to me, if I am looking at a review to help guide my choice, I want to know what's *in* the game and you just dont get that from scores.


Well, I will read text if it's in a genre I don't know a lot about. If it's a sci-fi setting FPS and getting 9.0 across the board, or a platformer with that average etc. I can be pretty damn sure that I'll like it.

I generally know the types of games I like from years of trying different shit, so now all I need is some gauge of quality within these genres to help me select the cream of the crop in each to prioritize the limited time I'm willing to set aside for gaming. Aggregate scores work well for that purpose.

If it's some new quirky game that's getting a high average review score and a lot of hype on here, then I'll seek out some reviews to read to learn more. But in general, I don't try many odd ball games these days as I tend not to like them and find I'm better off just sticking in my FPS/platformer/rpg comfort zone.

[javeryh]

I like scores.

Me too! While I don't agree with all scores that are given to every game they are essential in order to weed out the crap and also get me to play games I might not have otherwise played (Hotel Dusk anyone?). I don't rely on one site/magazine for scores though - I prefer places like gamerankings and metacritic to get an aggregate score as well as message boards to get a general feel for what people are thinking. Reading multiple reviews usually gives me an idea of both the good and bad parts about games and then I just make the decision myself.

At the end of the day though there's really no way to tell how good or bad something is unless you try it yourself. For example, I really enjoyed Shadow Man for Dreamcast but it only scored in the mid-70s but I think Star Fox Adventures is one of the worst games I've ever played - EVER - and it scored in the low-80s. There's no magic formula.

[jkanownik]

Get more people to review more games. The feeling I get is that it's highly mechanical - someone plays the game for many hours a day while under a deadline. Then they have to write out a review on it, which requires all sorts of editting and whatnot. It's lifeless and calculating.

Instead, get twice as many reviewers and put them on a staggered scale, so that there's always new material coming out from people who get to really delve into the game.

That's exactly what metacritic is for. I could give a rats ass what any individual review site wants to do with their scores.