Do We Need To Change Video Game Rating Scales?
See Full ImageWhat you see here are potential examples of perfect 10s. How we judge that is almost entirely subjective but they're all on the same scale: women. The question is, now that gaming has taken on a variety of different forms and types, should we be using the same scoring scales across the board?
There was a time when games were games. It made sense that there should be one universal scoring system and even then, several major sources strayed from the norm (the common 10-point scale) and went with either letter grades or even no score at all. It's entirely up to the source, of course. But are we misleading the consumer? This industry is more mainstream than ever, which means there are more casual participants than ever, and they simply may not understand the difference between a 9 for a standard $60 big-budget title and a 9 for a downloadable arcade game on the PSN or XBLA. We all know the differences; we sorta call this our favorite hobby and we all recognize and acknowledge the obvious drastic differences between the aforementioned products. But even if we consider that to be true, is it still okay to use the exact same scoring scale for every game, ranging from iPhone and DS to PS3 and PC? There is an argument for both sides.
On the one hand, it's clear that games on certain platforms aren't designed to compete with games on certain other platforms. It's clear that nothing handheld can, in literal reality, stand up to the best examples of cutting-edge, progressive interactive entertainment on the most powerful gaming systems. So rationally, it's difficult to support this continued trend; it's like saying we can score Tetris on the same 10-point scale as Uncharted 2. ...or maybe we can and in fact, should... Maybe it's all about awarding a score based on the game's merits, and it's the critic's responsibility to take the inherent limitations into account. And of course, we all do that; nobody is giving the latest DS game a 2 in graphics because they're comparing it to Crysis. They're comparing it to other graphical depictions on the DS. That's all fine and dandy, but how come those who review games for the PS3 and 360 tend to compare graphics - and other elements - to those same elements on the other platform? Does this not mean that we put the PS3/360 in the same category but not the DS? And does this not further mean that we can't use the same scoring scale for everything?
This is not a rhetorical question because I don't believe I have the answer. It's a legitimate question because I have no idea what to do about it. There are good points on both sides and of course, fans of the "lesser" platforms will get all bent out of shape if you suggest their favored software can't really be compared to the most advanced interactive products out there. It's just that, with 3D coming, motion sensing all ready to explode on the PS3 and 360, and a growing number of digital downloadable titles, there are more types and versions of video games than ever before. And I really don't think we see anything like this in any other entertainment medium. So what to do?
5/31/2010 12:13:00 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (77 posts)
chedison
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:24:34 PM
EDIT: sorry, Reply to lower comment ><
Last edited by chedison on 5/31/2010 1:25:01 PM
0 up, 0 down
Alienange
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 12:48:20 PM
Reply
I tend to believe that since we're talking about games, the fun factor is of the utmost importance. When Tetris came out it was wicked fun because we did not have a thousand clones of it yet.
Nowadays gamers are far from ignorant. They know that a 10 for a PS3 game is going to be one hell of an experience. A 10 on a Wii game means you're in for a very good time, but naturally the graphics and sound won't be what the other systems have to offer. That's not a problem for those who enjoy Wii games.
Hell, you can score an iPhone game a 10, gamers still know it's just an iPhone game and isn't about to blow you away. It just means it's fun. So when you're bored out of your mind and the only gaming system you can get you hands on is the iPhone, well, THAT'S the best game to play on it. Nobody on earth thinks it's going to be a better product than a game scoring 10 on PS3 or Xbox.
7 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:05:06 PM
EDIT: Plus she looks like you could have a quality conversation with her, too! Jamey doesn't look the brightest.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/31/2010 1:07:33 PM
2 up, 1 down
Alienange
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:20:11 PM
6 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:31:59 PM
If the rack gets too big, it'll affect too many other enjoyable aspects in a negative way. I wouldn't want my woman to get back trouble! lol
2 up, 2 down
SvenMD
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:43:30 PM
0 up, 2 down
Lanmanna
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:02:23 PM
Reply
Agreed. Only one I think is cute out of them.
3 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:03:36 PM
Reply
I also believe that casual gamers aren't typically the ones to read the reviews or see the scores unless it's written on the box with something like "IGN says 5 out of 5!!!".
It certainly could be misleading to someone like, say, my wife's oma and opa (grandparents), who know nothing of video games. A 10 for a DS versus a 10 on a PS3 would not be something they could discern.
I think the mainstream demographic reviewers should be catering to is the gaming population, most of which, I would imagine, know what to expect from say a Gameboy Advance versus a Wii. Similarly, none of us in the new user review section of this site, are going to go back in time to review a PS1 title and give graphics a 1 because we're comparing it to today's standards. It just isn't logical.
So, while I can understand an argument for a new rating system unique to each system, you cannot review a game outside of it's own medium. If it's a multi-platform release, perhaps the best compromise would be to review it in relation to other titles of it's own platform. You definitely run into an entire host of problems comparing the FFXIII release on PS3 to the XBOX version, and I'm not sure it's unfair to compare the two. However, while it's good to compare each version to each other, it is unfair to say, play the XBOX version and review it on a site like this devoted to Playstation. Compare away, but grade within it's own medium.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/31/2010 1:10:47 PM
4 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:28:06 PM
P.s. Mr. Downvoter, some rebuttle? I'd love to hear what's on your mind.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/31/2010 1:28:59 PM
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 2:35:55 PM
7 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 3:18:50 PM
5 up, 1 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 6:59:04 PM
</LOLcats>
Last edited by Highlander on 5/31/2010 7:01:16 PM
4 up, 0 down
Shams
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 11:27:36 PM
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:11:30 PM
3 up, 2 down
Alienange
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:21:55 PM
*runs away*
1 up, 1 down
fluffer nutter
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 8:47:40 PM
0 up, 0 down
Shams
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 11:01:42 PM
0 up, 0 down
fluffer nutter
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 11:25:55 PM
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:08:33 PM
Reply
Also you have multiplats not getting their proper dues because the exclusives are so ridiculously good.
Unfortunately, coming up with a new system would be confusing and complex so although there are reasons to do so, we should probably stick with what we have.
0 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:12:42 PM
Reply
That said, only the FINAL score can be compared.
It's simple as that for me. If the final score is above another game, then that game's just better. End of story.
---
I disagree 'bout using a different final score for games of different consoles.
PS: You can't compare a handheld game to a console game. It'd be like comparing a comic book to a full-fledged book
---
Are those all the babes Ben has conquered?
As far as how cute they are. They're all ugly, too much make up. Nice bodies though
Last edited by Scarecrow on 5/31/2010 1:14:35 PM
1 up, 2 down
SvenMD
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:51:47 PM
I just picked up Super Mario Galaxy 2 and it's alot of fun....but it is nowhere CLOSE to Uncharted 2 good. Could you give SMG2 a 10? Yeah...as a whole, the game is complete and I can't find a fault with it so far. But does that mean it's equal to Uncharted 2? HECK NO!! (see Highlanders comments below)
2 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 2:32:52 PM
You CAN compare MGS3 to MGS4.
You CAN compare FFX to FFXIII
Seriously, I think you guys are just saying "OMG a cartoony platform games can't compare to a realistic super HD game."
The graphics are better in UC2 compared to SMG2 but the game is a FULL quality (no limitations game).
Handhelds are limited to a single cartridge/UMD. They're limited in the audio department. They're limited in the control department. They're limited in the extra features department.
The Wii/ps2 are only limited by the graphics, but if you take that out, those games can compete with ps3/360 games in terms of OVERALL quality.
You really need to look away from the graphics, and consider the overall quality.
How good the level design of SMG2 is
How good the storyline in the game is
How well designed the characters/NPCs are
You add all that up into an overall score and it can easily rival Uncharted2. Might not be better than it, but it definitely challenges it.
1 up, 1 down
MyWorstNightmar
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 9:25:23 PM
If Uncharted 2 came out this year instead of last year, it would undoubtable STILL run away with GOTY. Point being, you are saying that Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't compare to Uncharted 2, but tell me, what game that released this year DOES compare to what I believe is the greatest game we have seen in years.
2 up, 0 down
totozero18
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:13:04 PM
Reply
When it comes to graphics games could be compared with games released on the same year because as time goes on developers find better ways to exploit the console engine. Of course not every multiplatform runs the same way on every console, hence FFXIII.
(I'll reply myself cuz I gotta change the box I'm working on)
0 up, 0 down
totozero18
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:48:15 PM
And the Story of the game...idk you're the critic Ben, you could find great stories in any platform.
BTW...Rebecca FTW
Last edited by totozero18 on 5/31/2010 1:49:45 PM
0 up, 0 down
Alienange
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:23:23 PM
Reply
Are you trying to tell me there's some half assers on here?
4 up, 0 down
main_event05
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:28:59 PM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
main_event05
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 8:38:55 PM
2 up, 0 down
chewy102
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:32:15 PM
Reply
What the professional reviewers need to do (IMO) is make 5/10 an average game and make EVERY review using a pre-written score sheet based on past games (so no more s*** games getting the same score as MGS4 or Uncharted 2) with only one game getting a 10, that site/mags GOTY. Example \/
graphics-
glitches/bugs-
gameplay-
controls-
sound-
game length- (no game under 5 hours should get above a 6 unless it's a pure MP game like Warhawk or MAG)
MP net code-
story-
+ anything I can't think of right now.
How can anyone trust a review that isn't/can't be based on anything but personal opinions of people that we know nothing about?
3 up, 2 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:42:41 PM
3 up, 3 down
chewy102
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 2:21:56 PM
My point is to remove personal opinions from reviews as much as possible. They have no place in any type of professional review. I also agree that a 7 is a decent score, I said that it shouldn't be what the vast majority use as average. Why do we have a 10 point system if a 5-6 is seen as a massive fail by the public?
Most to every professional review Iv ever read uses his/her personal opinion in a review. If I wanted an opinion about a game Id go read user reviews. What Im trying to say is professional reviewers NEED to base every single review on either past games or on some type of pre-written standard we can use to know why the game got that score.
p.s. That down wasn't me.
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 2:34:20 PM
4 up, 2 down
Alienange
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 4:17:46 PM
Reviewers always write the reason they are giving a particular score in any given category. Just because we may not agree with it doesn't make our point of view "more right" than theirs.
In fact, I wager to say that it is entirely possible to buy a game based on a bad review because we happen to disagree with the writer.
3 up, 0 down
chewy102
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 4:49:30 PM
When reviewers write what criteria they use for reviews and use that same criteria for every review (maybe update it time to time to fit new standards), then I'll believe that their personal opinions don't influence how they write a review.
edit-
I forgot to say that a lot of big time reviewers have let either their opinions get in the way or even taken bribes for a higher score. Just look at all of the 10s GTA4 got. No way in hell is that game that perfect with so much taken out compared to past titles. Also try to remember the $800 gift bags M$ sent out with review copies of Halo 3 (I think it was H3, might have been Halo Wars).
Last edited by chewy102 on 5/31/2010 4:59:43 PM
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 6:10:57 PM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:37:52 PM
8 up, 4 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:36:53 PM
Reply
I think that on balance I do think that it is ridiculous to compare a game on one platform to another unless the platforms are close in performance terms.
I've often posted about how the market is segmented by platform between HD and SD home consoles and hand held devices. The advent of iPhone and Android phones as multi-function devices that game just further muddies the water as does the PC. Of course when comparing hand held devices it's really not strictly fair to compare the PSP and DS since they don't really sell to the same people and the PSP is in the order of 8 times more powerful than a DS. Their software is so widely split too, you really don't often see the same game appearing on both platforms unless it comes from someone like EA, so perhaps they need to be separate as well?
To me there are really 5(6?) categories of gaming platform.
HD consoles - PS3, 360
SD consoles - Wii, PS2
PCs - PCs (Windows, Mac or Linux)
Hand helds (casual) - DS, iPhone, Android
Hand helds (hardcore) - PSP
I don't think it's fair to compare games that appear on more than one of these platforms with each other. The control interfaces are too different as are the graphics and processing capabilities of the systems themselves. Can a game that is a 10 on the iPhone really be given the worth of a 10 on the PS3? No, of course not. But within the casual handheld category I think it can.
So how much of the rating of a game is relative, and how much is absolute? Relative categories might include the sound and graphics, controls, and even the scope/depth of the game. More absolute categories might include replay value and a 'fun' score. I think that the overall score for a game really is relative because you are rating the game on it's merits, and there is no way that - for example - MotorStorm 2 on the PS3 is comparable to Motorstorm Arctic Edge on the PSP/PS2, there are too many differences. However the games are superficially similar.
On the flipside, where a game truly does arrive in exactly the same form on two platforms - PSP Minis and PS1 classics come to mind, I think it is fair to review uniformly, but those are really special cases compared to mainstream games.
How do you communicate that to buyers? Perhaps it's time to lay out the system categories as I have above, so that people know that a 10 on a game on a casual hand held, is not the same as a 10 for a game on a PS3/360? If it's the 'same' game, such as Madden NFL, do you automatically knock points off when comparing reviews? Nop, that would be ridiculous, you have to say that if the game deserves a 9 on the PSP and a 9 on the HD consoles, then it deserves a 9 on the SD consoles as well - if it is the same game on each - even though the graphics and sound on the PSP version are clearly inferior to the HD console, they may still be stellar for the PSP.
The most difficult comparison is 360 and PS3 because they are so similar in overall terms of performance and capability - with respect to running games. Of course the other difficulty is that there are vocal fanbases on each platform willing to jump at the slightest inferiority of a game on the other platform like sharks in a feeding frenzy.
I don't think you can make a distinction between them (PS3/360). When a game comes on both platforms and one version is clearly inferior, then it deserves a lower score. The definition of clearly inferior is somewhat subjective. I personally think that we make too much sometimes of minor differences such as mild screen tearing or pop-in, minor resolution differences or even small frame rate differences. When these things are not truly significant, and yet one platform is 'better' than the other there is a tendency to focus on this, despite the fact that in play the games are damn near identical. But if there are differences that make the game inferior on one platform compared to the other, it has to be a factor.
None of that helps consumers understand relative rating of games though, does it?
Maybe we need to start adding statements like "...for a casual handheld title..." or "...for an HD console title compared to an SD console title...". But that still won't help on the box.
Not an easy fix.
Oh, Bianca or Claire-louise FTW, ladies need to have something to play with, and it's relatively slim pickings on these examples. Personally I like a pretty face too, and well....none of them are setting the heather alight on that score. Is it time to use one of those phrases for handling comparative reviews now?
9 up, 8 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 5:53:21 PM
Off topic: Is someone spamming this site to downvote for fun through various accounts? I don't understand how a quality post, whether you agree or not, can get 6 downvotes with no arguments whatsoever.
Edit: Does no one else find this frustrating? lol
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/31/2010 5:55:57 PM
1 up, 1 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 6:18:13 PM
1 up, 0 down
StangMan80
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 6:34:30 PM
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 6:59:56 PM
Perhaps LV is lurking and downvoting for fun?
LOL!
@Worlds - soundtracks FTW!
Last edited by Highlander on 5/31/2010 7:02:13 PM
2 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 8:03:26 PM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 8:06:07 PM
Serial downvoters are like fleas on a dog, nothing more than a itch to scratch.
2 up, 0 down
Shams
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 11:03:59 PM
0 up, 0 down
bridgera
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:42:05 PM
Reply
If people really DON'T understand the difference between a $10 download of ZUMA and a $60 copy of Uncharted 2, well they need to learn. Fortunately I think it only takes about 1-2 cheap PSN downloads before people learn. That's a pretty cheap misconception.
So no, I don't think we need to change the scale, but people just need to learn the difference between DLC and Retail games.
Last edited by bridgera on 5/31/2010 1:44:48 PM
2 up, 0 down
bridgera
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 1:48:16 PM
I remember arguing with some 360 fanboy saying that the 360 "over 1000 games, much more than the PS3". As it turns out the only way you got that hi is by counting DLC games for the 360. So that guy counted $10 games like Geometry Wars against games like Uncharted 2... because that makes sense.
2 up, 0 down
CharlesD
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 4:05:22 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 7:14:45 PM
2 up, 0 down
pyrobomber70
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 4:59:19 PM
Reply
Downloadable games like PSN and Live should be rated on a 1 to 5 scale.
PSP and DS games should be rated on a scale of A to F.
Wii make your own scale?
0 up, 0 down
tes37
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 7:08:38 PM
Reply
If there were an agreed upon rating system for all games, I think biased opinions would give way to more accurate reviews. Although it won't eliminate it, I believe it would be an improvement.
A game like Tetris, could in my view, receive a 10 for graphics if it's pleasing to look at. I think it would be fair because you can tell when extra effort is put into something to make it look good or whether just enough was done to get by.
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 7:15:42 PM
Reply
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 5/31/2010 7:16:18 PM
2 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 10:13:23 PM
Reply
Before I explain more I think it's important to understand the purpose of a game.
Games are designed for entertainment.
Our mind process the information and messages being sent to us and we emotionally respond to them. The entertainment we experience is contingent on our capacity to understand what it is that we are interacting with. I'm reminded of a time when I was young. My older brother and father would watch football on TV while I observed from the side. I was too young to understand the rules, or the play-by-play excitement. However, I did know that moving the football into the colored in zone meant that a team scored. I knew that I should cheer and be excited when the favorite team accomplished this. It was exciting because I grasped that element of the game and respond accordingly.
To liken this to video-gaming. How many times have we tried showing off what we believed to be an awesome video-game, but this someone, unbelievably, just don't get or see what we see in the same game? They would rather play something else, like Tetris, or Wii-Fit. If their minds aren't engaged in recognizing the same values as we do they cannot be highly entertained by it.
By this perspective a teenage girl could be perfectly entertained be Nintendogs while I would be only mildly entertained be the same game.
So if we all play games to entertain ourselves then how important are game reviews?
To gamers, a lot. Usually, a gamer reviewer is a gamer. Their observations tend to reflect the same or similar values as another gamer's. Even though some critics don't recognize that trying to find "perfection" in an ever moving, ever changing set of gaming values is just like trying to a number by zero. It doesn't compute. The olympic events can be measured on a scale of perfection because their system is based on a static measurement of form. A perfect triple-axel 20 years ago is every bit as perfect today. And really, a perfect game-design was probably invented sometime in the Neolithic age with something akin to paper-rock-scissor (rock-leaf-sharpened stone?)
Functionally it's perfect.
I have disagreements when critics throw in curve-ball values. Who would've guessed that a few years ago Gametrailers would give Mario Galaxies their GotY award because it was a less expensive investment? I guess there's was a Game of the Year on a Budget award...... I like Mario Galaxies btw, but their reasoning was based on a value I don't agree with. And to continue to pick on Gametrailers.. Modern Warfare 2 snagged GotY from Uncharted 2 because their Uncharted 2 game didn't make them go back and replay it... I don't even want to even go into that ideology...
Man, I could go on forever, but I won't. And for those who kept on reading all of this, props.
4 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 11:31:53 PM
Last edited by Highlander on 5/31/2010 11:32:44 PM
2 up, 0 down
nogoat23
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 1:54:45 PM
0 up, 0 down
spiderboi
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 11:43:41 PM
Reply
2 up, 1 down
CharlesD
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 12:21:02 AM
Reply
I like the idea of the qualification system but the qualifications themselves might be a bit tricky to standardize
0 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 2:26:41 AM
Reply
Of course the way that ratings are now is skewed. Partially because, as has been stated above, gaming is an ever-evolving industry, unlike music or film, or literature, or well, whatever else you can think of. And partially, as Ben brought up in the editorial, there are so many different classes of gaming. The thing is that unless you are willing to do away with the scoring system and grade each game on its individual merit, it simply can't work flawlessly. And even if you did, then how would you offer a comparison between games besides recommendations for like games?
So the way I see it is that we can:
1) Stick with the way it is with the reviewer setting their own guidelines for how to measure what they feel they must in order to give the reader a good idea of the product. I don't see a problem with this besides the human element. Simply put, people are always biased, no matter how impartial they try to be.
2)Rate the game by a system set-up as someone above wrote. (Sorry, but I couldn't be bothered to scroll up and give you credit) Have consoles in one level and handhelds/portables in another, but there are two glaring problems with this. The Wii and the PSP (I'm not counting the PS2 because it's just about dead). The Wii is a console, and yet, by anyones standard, it is not comparable to either of the other two. So perhaps, you compare it to PSMove and Natal games when they come out? The PSP faces the opposite problem. It is far too close to consoles to rate with the DS and mobile games. It's theoretically incapable to compare it with any others.
3) Rate the games on a system by each other, and forget the other consoles. This would be a good idea, were it not for the advent of downloadable content this generation. Should we compare DL-only games to full retail releases? Not only that, but I feel it would be detrimental to the industry as a whole as it would leave no competition between consoles (except the fanboys), so it would either reignite third-party exclusives (a good thing) or bury them forevermore (a terrible thing).
I was going to write some more, but I can't remember what it was and I'm sure no-one is paying attention anymore, so Peace and Law be with you all.
1 up, 0 down
SSRGohan
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 3:12:34 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
___________
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 5:50:23 AM
Reply
if you ask me games on the ps3 PC and 360 should be reviewed on a different scale than psp iphone or wii or DS games.
simply because a game on the wii cant be anywhere near as technologically advanced as a game on a ps3 or 360 or PC, same goes for handhelds.
a 10 for a wii game is very different from a 10 from a console game.
but first people have to get out of their heads that 10 means a game is perfect, no game is perfect, perfection is a impossible thing to achieve anything can always be better.
strive for perfection so your products as good as it can be, but no one will ever get there.
a 10 does not mean a game is perfect, it means it is one of the best games out there, checks all the boxes and does all of those boxes extremely well.
this gen games (ps3, PC, 360) should be reviewed on 9 things.
gameplay, graphics, sound, level design, presentation, controls, replay value, polish and fun factor.
gameplay: obviously what is the gameplay like, is it well varied? is it repetitive? is the game linear or open world styled things like that.
graphics: well thats a no brainier, is the game crisp, is the environment well detailed, is the frame rate solid things like that.
sound: again a no brainier, but this has 2 parts to it the music and the sound effects.
those are 1 thing i think KZ2 did perfectly. the score was amazing thats why it won a award, and the sound effect also were top notch gun fire never sounded so good!!!
level design: are the levels more open, or linear? are the levels well varied or is level one a repeat of level 2 and so on? is the game repetitive? things like that.
presentation: is everything easy to understand? are the control schemes easy to understand and access? is there enough hints as to where to go next? things like that.
controls: are they easy to use? are they responsive? are they well placed? well placed as in like POP the forgotten sands some times you need to use L2 to freeze water, and while holding L2 to keep the water frozen you have to hit L1 to make a hidden object appear.
that is extremely poor control placement, i have lost count the amount of times i have died doing that because while moving my finger from L2 to L1 i accidentally let go of L2.
you have to get use to using your third finger for L2 and your second for L1, any game that forces me to use the controller differently and makes me spend half the game getting use to the controls has extremely poor control placement.
replay value: how long does the game take to finish on average? is the game so fun you will want to replay it as soon as you finish? are there things in the game that will make you want to replay it a 2nd time? are there things you can only unlock playing the game a 2nd time? things like that.
polish: is the game buggy? can i play the game for more than 3 hours straight without it freezing on me? or is it going to chuck a fallout 3 and freeze on me every 20 minutes causing me to reset my system every 20 minutes? things like that.
fun factor: to me this is the most important by far. is the game FUN to play?
overall i play games for fun, games are a form of entertainment so if i am not having fun than im sorry the game has failed to fulfill its purpose.
as i have said many times a technological masterpiece such as KZ2 can be a bad game if its not fun.
but a game thats fun cant be a bad game no matter how technologically inferior it is.
in other words a fun game will always be a good game no matter how technologically inferior it is.
and a boring frustrating game will always be a bad game, no matter how well it does the other 8 things.
a games sole purpose is to be fun, if its not fun than im sorry but its a bad game because it has failed to fulfill its purpose.
just like a car, it does not matter how flash, beautiful, comfortable or fast it is. if it cant drive 20KMs without breaking down than its a bad car because its failed to fulfill its purpose which is to get me from point A to point B.
1 up, 1 down
JackC8
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 8:04:23 AM
Reply
A lot of people don't buy every game when it first comes out - maybe they didn't even own the console then. Just look at all the people who have bought PS3's since the slim launched and there was a price cut. So they get their shiny new toy and start looking through reviews for games they might be interested in. They see that a game got a really high score so they buy it, but unfortunately the online component, upon which that high score was mostly based, is now a deserted wasteland.
That's happened to me a couple of times. You assume that there's going to be a great game there for you to play, only to discover that the single-player campaign is basically crap, and the good part doesn't exist any more. But still the 9.5 score remains.
2 up, 0 down
oldmike
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 8:50:13 AM
or trashing a game for the lack of it
1 up, 0 down
LightShow
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 8:55:47 AM
Reply
why not have specific rating breakdowns for each genre, like "physics, precision, realism" for an fps (and sports games, maybe?) on top of the generic "graphics, gameplay, sound, etc." that everyone uses?
0 up, 0 down
nogoat23
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 4:22:01 PM
Reply
I believe that the current system works. It's not perfect, but it works. I'd much rather try and educate those new to gaming about how you can't compare review scores across certain platforms or genres, than overcomplicate the current system by adding caveats and addendems to each numerical value.
However, for the sake of argument, let's take this to its logical conclusion and add the aforementioned caveats and addendems.
Let's give game X a rating of 8.5, and assign it to twenty five out of a hundred possible sub-categories that describe it. Let's say game Y perfectly fits into each of those same twenty five out of a hundred sub-categories, and it is rated a 6.5. Since the sub-categories match, the two games can be compared, and you would know that game X is better than game Y.
Now picture a Venn diagram with a hundred circles. How many games do you think will perfectly fit into the sliver of that diagram that encompasses those twenty five sub-categories? Not many is my guess.
Maybe two games match on most of the sub categories, but not all. That means that the review scores can't be compared, which is where we started in the first place.
Even if we allow games that match 90% of the sub-categories to be compared, that still wouldn't leave very many games that match. The general rule would still have to be that we can't compare review scores.
(Sequels and annual iterations would be the exception, and I always appreciate when a review includes previous games as a benchmark.)
I believe that we should keep the current review system, and encourage people to not just look at the score a game gets as the only determination of their purchase intent. People should read the review articles, play demos, watch trailers, find out what other people are saying, etc.
0 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 @ 5:12:08 PM
Reply
<<<<On the one hand, it's clear that games on certain platforms aren't designed to compete with games on certain other platforms. It's clear that nothing handheld can, in literal reality, stand up to the best examples of cutting-edge, progressive interactive entertainment on the most powerful gaming systems>>>>>.
Although you're 99.9% right for the most part, I think Kojima just might have a little something to say about that, with his PSP's Peacewalker.
Hmmmm. about the ratings situation...
I think we should keep the numbered score we have now, but since a I-phone game is nothing like any console game, I do think there needs to be some slight addition to those numbered scores.
So why not adapt a letter system to signify whatever type of unit the game is on, to be followed by the regular number score we use now?
Examples:
Consoles such as the P3 could be an "A"
Handhelds such as the PSP/DSi could be "B"
Phones such as I-Phone could be "C"
And so on....
So a great AAA game on a console would get an average rating such as A8, A9, or A10.
And a great I-phone game would get a C8, C9, or a C10 rating.
So now on to those gals, I see lots of discrimination going on there...for shame, there's not one single "REDHEADED BEAUTY" to be seen there.
***SIGH****
But if I have to settle for any of those less fairer of the species there, I'll have to go for the dual-flavored dish, consisting of....
1. Claire-Louise for her playful fun-loving look,
and
2. Rebbecca for her look of pure seductive heat & all-knowing sexuality
0 up, 1 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 03, 2010 @ 2:19:37 PM
Reply
0 up, 1 down
Meatty
Thursday, June 03, 2010 @ 3:35:24 PM
Reply
We need to change the way we look at the games, not the way they are rated. I don't think anyone in their right mind would download a 10/10 iSheep game and be disappointed when it's graphics, story, game play, or length come up lacking against an A+ or 10/10 PS3 game. If they do though they may need to be shot,in the face...
In the end it's all a matter of taste though, so what do I know...
1 up, 0 down
Caanimal
Friday, June 04, 2010 @ 12:00:52 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
fluffer nutter
Reply
Monday, May 31, 2010 @ 12:37:41 PM
I think there should be a label system next to the points/grading scale to somehow show that the author is well versed in reviewing video games and maybe can show how many games they've played that would have influenced a review of that game in that specific genre. If it is a genre blender, than show a number for how many games have great similarities to what's being reviewed. If you see there are two reviews for the same RPG, and one author has a credit of 10 RPG reviews and another has 2, which one are you going to think has more weight? Also, I would still read the content to know if they are just game dabbers and only played each game for a few hours and never got the full understanding of what makes a great RPG.