Does a Perfect Score Mean a Perfect Game? @ Games Radar

[magerette]

GamesRadar (http://www.gamesradar.com/us/pc/game/news/article.jsp?releaseId=2006032219817514003&articleId=2007100919021828033&sectionId=1006&pageId=20071009191826640084) asks a number of gaming magazine editors about what it takes for a game to score a perfect ten. Almost everyone seems to agree there's no such thing as a perfect game, but the slant on what drives a perfect score varies from platform to platform and editro to editor. Here's a PC sample:
Kristen Salvatore, Editor in Chief, PC Gamer (US):

GR: Do you think that a perfect score makes a perfect game? If a game gets a 10, does that mean it’s perfect?

Kristen: I think it depends on what you mean...
Our score goes to 100. We don’t do a 1 to 10 score, we do a 100-point scale. I don’t think we’ve ever given any game a 100%. I think the reason is... for us, a perfect 100 would be the perfect game, and I don’t think there’s any such thing.

GR: That gives you a lot more leeway if you just do 1 to 10. Which leads to our next question… Are 10s or 100s dished out too easily, not necessarily at PC Gamer, but just in general, throughout the industry?

Kristen: I think that every outlet should be treating their score scale according to the audience that they’re serving. So if you’re talking about an outlet that is a little more casual and is trying to guide a sort of more middle group of readers - as opposed to a harder-core group - toward how to spend their money, then maybe they do hand out their 10s more liberally, but that’s OK. What they’re trying to say is, if you are not somebody who spends all your money on games, you just want to know the best games, then it’s cool. And I think they’re probably doing a good job.

When it comes to the readers that we’re serving and the harder-core, I think you’re not serving your readers if you’re handing out those scores too liberally. In that case, I think there are certain outlets that are handing out ...their 10s too easily...If the whole idea is to tell people, 'if you are a gamer, you absolutely must spend $60 on this,' I think in some cases, yeah, they are being thrown around a little liberally.
And from Tony Mott, Editor in Chief, Edge(U.K.) :
GR: Does a perfect score mean a perfect game?

Tony: What we used to do a long time ago was assign a word equivalent to each score from 1 to 10, and at that point 10 represented 'revolutionary'. And more recently we realised that having the scores spelled out like that was, in a way, holding us back from using the full scale – by definition we could only give a game 10 if it really was revolutionary, and we wanted to be able to use the whole scale.

If next to 10 on our reviews intro today it said 'perfect', then that's what 10 would mean. We changed all that because we'd get people arguing about whether or not games we had given 10 were actually revolutionary. So we deliberately changed it and said that the numbers on the scale were simply the numbers on the scale, so 1 = ‘one’, and so on. It was a slightly tongue-in-cheek thing to do, and we took some flak for it, but ultimately it helps to simplify the process, and it removes a lot of the unnecessary dialogue that can surround these things.

So now we just say, the scale is 1 to 10 and a 10 is a 10. You should be able to interpret that as you will. The fact that we've only given a small number of games 10 out of 10 speaks for itself. Ultimately I’d hope, as we all do, that when your review of Halo 3 consists of four pages of text, your readers would pay more attention to what the writer has to say about the game rather than the little digit at the end.

More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=6702)

[Brother None]

Everyone agrees except the reader.

Gaming media must be the only media where they expect the reader to adapt to the style and preference of the editor, rather than vice versa.

I seem to recall that perfect scores used to be rarer, too. I can remember the first time the Dutch magazine Power Unlimited gave a perfect score, which was in the mid-90s.

But hey, whatever. More games are getting perfect scores more and more regularly and constantly without deserving it (BioShock, Halo 3, Oblivion, Gears of War). They're just pushing themselves in a corner, no skin of my back.

[txa1265]

I thought that was an absolutely worthless read in many ways, yet also essential. It failed to really address the issues with scoring that gamers and reviewers face on a regular basis.

Also, it struck me in the blurb and still stood out when reading the article ... when Kristen Salvatore from PC Gamer said "Our score goes to 100. We don’t do a 1 to 10 score, we do a 100-point scale." I read it in the Spinal Tap English accent - 'our scores go to 11'. :D

[woges]

Top scores do depend on who is grading the subject matter though. That's why you have game reviewers and not critics, because games just haven't reached a level as an art form. Though they have reached well into the form of a product that is to be sold.

Expert reviews are just reviews by people that have played a lot of games. So they are basically just points of view. Thus you try to find someone who has similar tastes to yourself.

[TheMadGamer]

Brother None is correct with his analysis making the article and the debate pedantic at best.

Most publications, both print and web-based are 6-feet under with the seeking and acquiring of 'exclusives'... which requires a lot of 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.'

I've read so many reviews for games where the author seems to be wiggling his way this way and that way to say good things about a game when, after you have finished reading the review, you have this sense that the author in fact really despised the game... but nonetheless gave it a good score. And I've read the reverse of this too.

Too many agendas. Too much politics. Too much money at stake for any single review of a game to be too credible anymore.

When I'm really interested about a game, I just read as many reviews as I can about it... it's through the reading of many many reviews that you'll get the best picture of a game without actually plunking down your hard earned cash.

[Squeek]

The whole point of a review is to provide the reader with information he can use to make his own decision, in this case whether or not to buy a game. Ranking on a scale of one to whatever is kind of a shoddy way of going about it, IMO. It's even a bit of an abomination, when you think about it. But some readers want it.

So I'd have to say the review itself shouldn't consider the reader, but the scale thingamajig should since its just catering to certain readers' demands anyway.

[magerette]

It comes down to the unpleasant fact that game reviews so easily can get turned into just another marketing tool. Having a game get a score of 10 or 100% or 110% sells games.So a lot of reviews become a list of relatively meaningless negatives or superlatives.

But at least if you read enough of them and if you can read between the lines maybe you can pick up that feeling that TheMadGamer mentioned--what the reviewer really thought and felt about the experience, above and beyond the numbers at the end. Sometimes you can tell what's the truth even when you're listening to lies. :)

@mike: loved the accent ;) (and you're right, it's a fairly shlocky article, but an interesting subject.)

[Gallifrey]

I pay no attention at all to game review scores. I'll read the review, and come to my own conclusions based on what the reviewer has said. Far too often I'll read a review that's largely luke-warm to merely agreeable, but the review ends up as something like 85/100 or whatever. Conversely I've seen many reviews where the reviewer was quite positive but the final score comes out low.

I don't see the purpose of a numerical score for a game review, other than to spare people the effort of reading the reviewers actual review. Numerical scores are, to me, more of a disservice than a boon. Can readers not use critical thought to understand what a reviewer is saying? Do reviewers lack the necessary language and writing skills to convey their thoughts? It really does puzzle me why video games have such a preponderance of numerical scores attached to reviews.

The lack of a score would completely do away with even having to ask the question this article asks, would save publications from having to justify their scores as well as future embarrassment when they inevitably speak poorly of a game 5 years down the road that they gave 98% to back when it was released because they bought and supported the hype, and would prevent glaring inaccuracies between a score and review content.

[zakhal]

I have an interesting problem when I have to choose my purchases between PS2 and PC. There are many games on PS2 that have like 90% scores but how do they measure up to PC games? Is a PS2 95% (superb) game better than PC 85% (mediocre) game (genre is the same)?

Imho it isnt always so and I have to take that into consideration when buying games for both platforms.

[Gallifrey]

I have an interesting problem when I have to choose my purchases between PS2 and PC. There are many games on PS2 that have like 90% scores but how do they measure up to PC games? Is a PS2 95% (superb) game better than PC 85% (mediocre) game (genre is the same)?

Imho it isnt always so and I have to take that into consideration when buying games for both platforms.

So don't look at the numbers. Read the reviews for the different platform releases and make your decisions based on the information you find there.

[VPeric]

I don't see the purpose of a numerical score for a game review,

Agreed. I'm more in favor of a short pros/cons list, or any other list, than a score, if there must be something (the usual "excuse" for having a score is that the readers need to be able to just take a glimpse and figure something out - a short list does this just fine).

[zakhal]

So don't look at the numbers. Read the reviews for the different platform releases and make your decisions based on the information you find there.

That was my point actually. Scores are dependant on so many things (genre, professinalism of reviewer, standards of reviewsite, platform, etc) that impossible to make clear estimates with scores alone.

I do read a lot of reviews. As for scores I use only score averiges of dozens of different sites and genre specific scores (like rpg for rpgsites) but its definetly very time consuming thing to do. Also playstation2 reviews (just as all console/pc reviews) are generally made in mind that platform they are reviewed on is the only gameplatform you have.

There are lots of ps2 games that are praised and made to look good on reviews but are lacking if you take account the world outside playstation2. Of course there are exceptions aka som ps2 games that actually are that good and that just makes it all more harder to figure out.

[Icefire]

I hardly ever read reviews. I browse a games forum and see what people who have bought and have been playing the game are saying about it.

[Risine]

Maybe the problem of the perfect notation has also something to do with the bottom limit notation.
You are talking about a 1-10 or 1-100 notation system, but the fact is that more and more, year after year, minimal notations are going up, especially with blockbusters and big licences.
And as we are at a point where games notations are going in the range of [6-9], and that there is no way for magazines and websites to get this range down ( hey, what would they do that for? what would be the advantages ? Only drawbacks ! ), the perfect 10 has to be sacrified.

[txa1265]

I don't see the purpose of a numerical score for a game review
I think that a 'yay / meh ' blech' scale would suffice quite well.

[Corwin]

For me, the name of the reviewer is the important consideration. I prefer to rate reviewers, rather than games. That way, if reviewer X with whom I usually agree gives the game a good score, then I know I will probably enjoy it!!

[txa1265]

For me, the name of the reviewer is the important consideration. I prefer to rate reviewers, rather than games. That way, if reviewer X with whom I usually agree gives the game a good score, then I know I will probably enjoy it!!

So you're searching for Matt Peckham's review of NWN2: MotB to decide whether or not to buy it? :D

[Corwin]

True, if he hates it, I won't!! :)

[txa1265]

True, if he hates it, I won't!! :)

Yep - it is a Willie Wonka thing - Strike that, reverse it!!! :)

[Gallifrey]

For me, the name of the reviewer is the important consideration. I prefer to rate reviewers, rather than games. That way, if reviewer X with whom I usually agree gives the game a good score, then I know I will probably enjoy it!!

That is actually a very good way to read reviews. Whether it's a review for a book, game or movie, knowing certain reviewer's biases and so forth and finding ones with whom you both identify and utterly disagree with is a solid foundation upon which to get the most out of the reviews you read.

[kleon777]

For me, the name of the reviewer is the important consideration. I prefer to rate reviewers, rather than games. That way, if reviewer X with whom I usually agree gives the game a good score, then I know I will probably enjoy it!!

The problem with that is the influence editors have on the final score and even wording. I've seen examples of many freelance writers who've had their video game reviews changed considerably after submitting them.

[Corwin]

Good point, but then what other option is there? At least here that isn't done. Dhruin may disagree with me, but rather than change what I've written, he'll just add a paragraph or two outlining his opinion. I think doing that makes a site review much more worthwhile!!