In Defense of the Review Score

This latest season has seen a ton of excellent video games coming out to accomodate for just about every set of tastes.  Whether you're into shooters, role-playing, or even stealth, it's hard to be disappointed with this lineup. 

However, with every new release comes the dreaded review score, and many gamers are going into outrages when games like Battlefield 3, Uncharted 3, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword get a few reviews below the average.  Plenty of people, including Jim Sterling, have already talked at length about the ludicrousness of being upset that a game you were anticipating got an 8.0 at a website. 

The gamers claiming that the websites are only doing it to get attention are also the same ones giving it said attention. I think the most logical reason behind this backlash is that people like games, and they want the games they enjoy to get the most sales, so more games of that type will be made.

Lower review scores drive down potential sales.  However, this doesn't account for standard human nature, and ultimately it's impossible to please everyone, and people have different tastes. If anything, reviewers like Yahtzee seem like the only ones willing to be truly critical of a game. L.A. Noire in particular got extremely high reviews upon release, but on reflection, that game could have been so much better.

There has been talk that review scores should be abolished altogether, similar to how Kotaku does their reviews.  Adam Sessler has talked repeatedly in the past about review scores he has given games, and that he really wishes he didn't have to, and let the words of the review speak for itself.  While I admire this line of thinking, and prefer it to the standard "out of 100" scale, I don't think review scores necessarily need to be abolished.

CheapyD complained on his latest podcast that reading a review of Saints Row the Third, a game he was largely anticipating, he was spoiled on a section that now won't have the same impact.  They came to the conclusion that if you were already planning on buying the game and the scores are fine, you can skip reading the reviews, and that you should only read the reviews for games you're on the fence about. 

If there were no scores at all, it would be hard to tell how good the reviewer thinks a game is just at a glance.  It's true that people write those reviews because they want them to be read, but do I really need to study up on my reviews to see if Assassin's Creed: Revelations is going to be good?  A quick glance at GameRankings and skimming one or two reviews is enough to tell me everything that I need to know to decide on a purchase.

However, I do think that reviewing games on a 100-point scale, or even a 10-point scale is ludicrous.  People say that there's a significant difference between an 7.8 and a 8.4, but even though both of those scores would roughly translate to 4/5 stars, either way the game is worth checking out.

Even if a highly anticipated game would only get three stars, would that deter you? Gamespot may have given Skyward Sword a 7.5, but that won't affect my personal opinion on the game, and seeing as how that's on the low end of the review scores, it's still an impressive set of reviews.

I think the biggest problem facing reviews is that reviewers seem to try to be "objective" and as a result games get scored on their technical merits, not the overall quality. Let's go back to L.A. Noire.  The game was widely complimented for its realistic face capture technology, and the detective setup was a new and innovative way of playing a GTA-style game.

The game looked great, and the setting was well-realized. However, the shooting and combat felt awkward, and the story could have been much better written and paced. Cole Phelps felt like a boring character, and the game's attempt at tugging our heartstrings just felt weird.  Technically impressive, sure, but not a game I would recommend without hesitation.

Another problem with reviews is probably a reaction to fan backlash.  With the exception of Duke Nukem Forever, hyped games tend to get good reviews because they are hyped, while lesser known games get much more modest reviews.  This was especially visible last year in Metroid: Other M.

Nintendo fans had been anticipating this game for quite a while, and review scores were mostly positive. I believe X-Play was the only place to give the game as low as a 2/5. Fan backlash ensued, but then something interesting happened. Nintendo fans HATED the game due to its poorly written story and awkward controls. I've never seen such a disparity between professional reviews and fan reception. It really calls into question just how trustworthy we can be of reviews.

Ultimately, the problem with reviews is not anything about the general structure.  The 5-point scale is a great way to get a point across quickly, while the text of the review is how to talk specifics. Even arguing that a complex opinion can't be represented numerically, I think there's nothing wrong with review scores on their own. However, reviewing based off of hype or technical merits is the wrong way of doing things, and unfortunately it's the most prevalent. Gears of War 3 may be impressive with its graphics and four-player co-op, but at the end of the year, I'll have far better memories of smaller games like Ghost Trick, Radiant Historia, and You Don't Know Jack.