Eurogamer drops review scores

[Isengard]

Starting today with our review of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D, Eurogamer is making the biggest change we've ever made to the way we review games. From now on, we will no longer be scoring games out of ten.

In place of scores, we'll have one-line summaries for every review, and a new recommendation system whereby some, but not all games will be considered Recommended, Essential or Avoid. As a result of these changes, we will no longer be listed on the review-aggregation site Metacritic.

We are also changing (or firming up) other areas of our reviews policy, with the intention of ensuring that we always review the same experience that you get when you buy a game. This means that we will only review from final retail versions and online games will be reviewed after they've launched.

So, why are we doing this? How does it work? What does it mean? Read on to find out. (There'll be an opportunity to ask me more about this change in a live question and answer session here on Eurogamer later today.)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-10-eurogamer-has-dropped-review-scores

I for one think this is a great change and really think other publications should follow suit. Review scores have no place in the current state of games media, they mean absolutely nothing - it's the content of the review that should affect purchasing decisions.

 

[MetalSoup]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-10-eurogamer-has-dropped-review-scores

I for one think this is a great change and really think other publications should follow suit. Review scores have no place in the current state of games media, they mean absolutely nothing - it's the content of the review that should affect purchasing decisions.

Joystiq did it first, and look what happened to them a month later.

I agree it's a good thing though. Scoring systems are generally terrible anyway.

 

[Isengard]

Joystiq did it first, and look what happened to them a month later.

I agree it's a good thing though. Scoring systems are generally terrible anyway.

Haha yeah I noticed that. Hopefully whoever Eurogamers parent company is doesn't dissolve them in a month.

 

[matt]

I think this will be much better, assigning a number isn't all that meaningful, but saying it's "essential" really tells us the reviewer thinks this is a must play game, which gets the point across way better.

 

[Solitude]

For me reviews scores have been replaced by the user reviews on Steam. I used to go look on Metacritic but now I don't bother anymore.

 

[Hiro]

I was initially apprehensive about the decision to drop the scores, but Eurogamaer explained it really well and im totally on board now. the article by Oli Walsh is excellent. 10/10, would read again

 

[Saint_Dee]

I'm a firm supporter of doing away with the review score in gaming. The content usually ends up feeling like background noise in the face of the review score.

The content of a review usually gives users what they need in terms of a game being good, great, bad, or terrible, and why, along with which kind of gamer will like it (a game being good doesn't mean a game is enjoyable to all gamers). Anyway, introducing a score undermines the content because you end up with a binary summation of the game that assumes that the review score scale is perfect for every game. And with that comes the inevitable comparisons of game A and game B's scores. For me it boils down to this, games are complex and varied, so is the content usually found in reviews, but review scores are simple, binary, and they undermine the depth of review content.

 

[matt]

I'm a firm supporter of doing away with the review score in gaming. The content usually ends up feeling like background noise in the face of the review score.

The content of a review usually gives users what they need in terms of a game being good, great, bad, or terrible, and why, along with which kind of gamer will like it (a game being good doesn't mean a game is enjoyable to all gamers). Anyway, introducing a score undermines the content because you end up with a binary summation of the game that assumes that the review score scale is perfect for every game. And with that comes the inevitable comparisons of game A and game B's scores. For me it boils down to this, games are complex and varied, so is the content usually found in reviews, but review scores are simple, binary, and they undermine the depth of review content.

The way I figure it, you're trying to make a decision on whether to play a game or not, so you read the review, and then you want to see what the reviewer though overall, and it says something like 8..... that's not all that meaningful. Changing it this way means that instead of a number, you get the reviewers opinion in terms of "yes, you should definitely play this", "this is worth a play at least", or "don't even bother" (paraphrasing). That's really what you're after from a review in my opinion. The actual review itself would flesh out why you should or shouldn't, and if it's the type of game that you would enjoy.

 

[Saint_Dee]

The way I figure it, you're trying to make a decision on whether to play a game or not, so you read the review, and then you want to see what the reviewer though overall, and it says something like 8..... that's not all that meaningful. Changing it this way means that instead of a number, you get the reviewers opinion in terms of "yes, you should definitely play this", "this is worth a play at least", or "don't even bother" (paraphrasing). That's really what you're after from a review in my opinion. The actual review itself would flesh out why you should or shouldn't, and if it's the type of game that you would enjoy.

Exactly! One of my favorite movie (and sometimes games) reviewers, JeremyJahns, has one of the funniest scales for his movie reviews; Awesometacular, Worth getting no Blu-Ray, A good time no alcohol required, A good time if you're drunk, You won't remember it in t-minus 1 day, and Dogshit. Seeing similar train of thought pop up in games reviews (albeit not as creative) is refreshing.

 

[Tank]

Joystiq did it first, and look what happened to them a month later.

I agree it's a good thing though. Scoring systems are generally terrible anyway.

Not really hey. AOL closed nearly all their enthusiast blogs except for Engadget and another

 

[MetalSoup]

Not really hey. AOL closed nearly all their enthusiast blogs except for Engadget and another

Wow really? I didn't know that. I thought it was because of the scores. "whistling:

/sarcasm

 

[Snare]

I'm a firm supporter of doing away with the review score in gaming. The content usually ends up feeling like background noise in the face of the review score.

The content of a review usually gives users what they need in terms of a game being good, great, bad, or terrible, and why, along with which kind of gamer will like it (a game being good doesn't mean a game is enjoyable to all gamers). Anyway, introducing a score undermines the content because you end up with a binary summation of the game that assumes that the review score scale is perfect for every game. And with that comes the inevitable comparisons of game A and game B's scores. For me it boils down to this, games are complex and varied, so is the content usually found in reviews, but review scores are simple, binary, and they undermine the depth of review content.

I think that that rhetoric works in a perfect world where games are all completely unique in more varied and nuanced ways. Right now, however; I still think its too soon to do away completely with comparative scores because games are still, for the most part, a comparative experience.

I will not argue that the content of the review should take precedence above any binary affiliations we attach to the game; however those particular binaries can be useful to gauge the chism in excellence between 2 similar games. Let us say, for example, you are attempting to make a decision between BF and COD for the first time. If you were to read both reviews for the latest iterations and were unable to come to a definite conclusion as to which you would rather have purely based on the content of said reviews; a well aligned binary system based on numbers that are transparently understood could give you a better idea of what you want most out of the game. Obviously this logic presupposes that the system is not inherently flawed and that you have various categories to assign instead of one overarching score. However I still think there is merit to having a tangible way to relate the excellence of a game on a scale that isn't entirely at the mercy of the prejudice of the writer.

With regards to the Eurogamer system; I think that having only 3 categories is somewhat flawed in that you are assuming that every game can be encompassed within those 3. What about games that are essentially terrible but are still engaging in some way. What do we score those? Or games that are feats of technical marvel but are so contrived in their presentation as a game that they are barely playable? Also this makes it very difficult to draw comparisons between similar games if the both carry the exact same , "Recommended", tag line.

In short I don't think the problem is the numbering system. Rather that we have been asking the numbering system to do the wrong thing; that being taking the place of the review. I think the 2 ideas should exist in complements to one another. I think that it doesn't have to be a zero sum argument. We can have insightful reviews and yet still have insightful numbering system to better condense the ideas put forth in the review instead of assuming that one fundamentally detracts from another.