| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Skewed Reviews? @ NWN2News |
|
Rhomal from NWN2News dropped us a line to say they have a new editorial online, this time on whether major sites have <a href="http://www.nwn2news.net/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=18" target="_blank">skewed reviews</a>:<blockquote><em>This got me thinking, looking at the major online PC gaming sites, I am hard pressed to recall more then a couple games within the recent past months that had a below average rating. Now unless we are going though a new golden age of PC gaming shouldn’t it be quite difficult to get a rating above 75%? More then 75% indicates to me a way above average game. A game with new ideas, a fresh approach to old ideas or just fantastic game play. A game in the top 25%, and especially top 10% (90%+ rating), should be reserved for the elite few in my opinion. And I am pretty sure I am not alone in thinking a 80%+ rating shouldn’t be handed out like candy.</em></blockquote> |
Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:04 am |
|
|
abbaon
Guest
|
That complaint just never gets old. Hey Rhomal, if you guys need a target for your next rant, you might like to take a shot at painting-by-numbers editorials. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:12 am |
|
|
FrancoTAU
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 5
|
Although he isn't breaking any new ground, i do like the statistically breakdown. Pretty funny that IGN and Gamespot rate half the games as 80% and above. I wonder what the numbers would be if you took budget titles out of the picture. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:38 pm |
|
|
Wildefire
General Goods Vendor
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1
Location: USA |
It is widely accepted that the bigger gaming sites tend to rate on the high side, but if you know a site's tendency, and you know how much you agreed with their previous reviews (the reviews, not the scores), you can often still get some meaning out of their scores and reviews by adjusting them with your own 'handicap' for that site.
I would like it if all sites and magazines clearly stated their reviewing policies. I've noticed a couple of the print mags doing it recently, and I hope this continues. Things such as whether they only review final games, whether more than one person has a say in the final score, and whether the reviewer is required to actually finish the game (or in the case of MMOs, minimum level reached or hours spent) can all affect how accurate and reliable a review will be.
_________________
For each toon kills the mob he 'groes, yet each toon does not die. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:42 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
I don't think most people associate a grade of 50% with average. In school, 50% is a failing grade and 80% is only decent. I believe that is the system most people rate games on. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:53 pm |
|
|
mogwins
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Jan 2002
Posts: 99
Location: Wales |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
I don't think most people associate a grade of 50% with average. In school, 50% is a failing grade and 80% is only decent. I believe that is the system most people rate games on.
But your example relates to a physical quantity - e.g you got 8 out of the 10 answers correct, thus 80%. I don't think anybody really believes that most games are 80% perfect?
Rating all games between 80% and 99% just seems pointless - why not "up the contrast" and normalise these numbers so that they fall between 0 and 100? |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:01 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
While that is true, I still think people are hardwired by the academic system to think of percentages in those terms. If you actually ready the reviews, if a game does get a 50% the review is usually pretty consistant with an F. While if a game gets a 70% it's consistant with a C-. I think for most people, that's just the most intuitive.
Plus many would say that if a game does do 50% of everything wrong, that would be grounds for a failing grade. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:31 pm |
|
|
mogwins
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Jan 2002
Posts: 99
Location: Wales |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
While that is true, I still think people are hardwired by the academic system to think of percentages in those terms. If you actually ready the reviews, if a game does get a 50% the review is usually pretty consistant with an F. While if a game gets a 70% it's consistant with a C-. I think for most people, that's just the most intuitive.
Plus many would say that if a game does do 50% of everything wrong, that would be grounds for a failing grade.
Fair 'nuff. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:23 pm |
|
|
Ectoterrestrial
Guest
|
I agree. I think the school grading system is engrained into the American psyche from which many game reviews are produced. Reviewers elsewhere are forced to operate within a similar construct.
That being said, I would like to see a breakdown of review scores by month of the year in which a game is released. Are reviews higher scoring in November and June, (Holidays and end of school year) than say, July and February? That might show the trend of market forces more clearly, although it wouldn't distinguish cause and effect. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:18 pm |
|
|
Amelia
City Guard
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Ong's Hat, New Jersey |
For the most part, I think numerical scoring systems are too ephemeral and generally useless for any sort of objective review and I eagerly await quality magazines or review sites that won't find them relevant. |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:53 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Wildefire
It is widely accepted that the bigger gaming sites tend to rate on the high side, but if you know a site's tendency, and you know how much you agreed with their previous reviews (the reviews, not the scores), you can often still get some meaning out of their scores and reviews by adjusting them with your own 'handicap' for that site.
I would like it if all sites and magazines clearly stated their reviewing policies. I've noticed a couple of the print mags doing it recently, and I hope this continues. Things such as whether they only review final games, whether more than one person has a say in the final score, and whether the reviewer is required to actually finish the game (or in the case of MMOs, minimum level reached or hours spent) can all affect how accurate and reliable a review will be.
The problem is much , much bigger. Read this blog post and tell me if one can come to any other conclusion than that professional (= paid) reviews are faulty by definition. A fair review under such circumstances is nothing more than a coinincidence.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:24 pm |
|
|
Wolfie_
Guest
|
I like what Wildefire mentioned, a declaration of review process / policy. Personally, I don't give much credence to a gaming "score" (like a game is scored 85%, 85% of what? Does 100% mean the perfect ultimate game? Doesn't exist, the games industry is a continually evoluting process). Often by reading the words in a review, you can get a sense of what a reviewer's "stand-point" is and so can then understand why a particular score has been given. However, if a formal critera is layed oit, this would have the two-fold advantage of informing the reader how a score was reached, and would (hopefully) lessen the reviewers own personal bias.
Speaking of bias, one wonders how much of that bias is affected by the volume, style and sheer "loudness" of press releases, media meterials and constant "in your face" advertising generated by game publisher's marketing departments? An old saying goes: "the squeaky wheel gets the oil", the same could be said to apply to game reviewers too, they they are handed lots of sales litter ... err sorry, I mean sales literature, it makes the lazy reviewer's life easy, they can just quote the sales pitch (maybe even go to the effort of changing a few paragraphs around, a word here and there), whereas plenty of great games have come and gone without much of a blimp on many game reviewer magazines / web sites because there was not enough attention given (the original Gothic springs to mind outside of Germany and Europe generally).
 [/i] |
|
Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:38 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Just for fun, a quick graph of the number of times RPGDot has awarded each score. My explanation: we're going through a golden age of PC gaming. |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:23 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
You can´t compare this to a professional publication. Our scores represent only the reviewer´s opinion. More often than not they can´t even be seen in the context of similar games. Big publications have editorial supervision.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:01 am |
|
|
Wildefire
General Goods Vendor
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1
Location: USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Just for fun, a quick graph of the number of times RPGDot has awarded each score. My explanation: we're going through a golden age of PC gaming.
Har, I was going to quip that "Well that's because we never reviewed Dungeon Lords-" but we did! 8 out of 10? Wow. I think that's a record for that game! Seriously though, when looking through the list of RPGDot reviews, I don't see very many games that really even merit low scores in my opinion (Dungeon Lords excepted). This is because we tend to rate the games we're actually interested in playing... if a game looks like it's going to be total crap we probably won't touch it. Magazines and professional major sites try to review everything that gets released by a major publisher though (especially during dry seasons), and they'll encounter more real stinkers than we will as a result.
But like Gorath said, when you see a review here, it's the reviewer's honest opinion; not some externally-influenced propaganda or half-baked puff piece that's not even based on gameplay. If we call it a "review" then it's based on a complete play-through of the game (or, in the case of MMOs, based on enough gameplay to voice an informed opinion). Otherwise it's an 'impression' or 'preview.'[/i]
_________________
For each toon kills the mob he 'groes, yet each toon does not die. |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:37 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
