I think review scores should be eliminated. If people want to know if a game is a good value, then they should read the full review. It's the only way to give every game a fair review. One of the reasons I don't write reviews here is because I don't want to use the required scoring system; same with Amazon, Goodreads, and plenty of other sites where ratings or scores are required.

Dvader said:

The thing is most people have their own review system but I always find it somewhat useful. The words in the review is obviously the most important part but sometimes I simply want their genreal take of where that game fits into the general gaming landscape and the score gives it a reference point. Issues come up when different reviewers from the same site use the scale differently but it generally gives good idea where a game fits.

I try to make a system where all my games are kind of ranked, its not always as simple of compaing scores but those scores gives you an approximate level of my enjoyment of that game which you can compare to others.

That's one way of scoring things.  I can't shake the feeling that the review I referenced in my original thread was scoring the game based on how well that game achieved what it set out to do.  Seriously, for the love of god, I can't see a game like that score a perfect 10 when you're using a score to fit it into the general gaming landscape.  Then again, how can you score something like Dragon Age and Bayonetta on the same scale?  The more I think about it, the more I can only see a dual scoring system covering all bases.  One score purely being bang per buck, the other being more of an indication of the quality of the game both in terms of technical mastery and gameplay.  People who want a significant return on their investment would lean more on the first score, while those that fancy the genre or are more in it for the experience, coud rely more on the latter.

Still, it's always a personal matter.  Limbo for example failed both in terms of length and gameplay for me personally, but that didn't keep it from garnering critical acclaim in most places.

Eww, God no. If you're going to do something as silly as a score, then let's have some variety in the silliness. Yoda's hilariously complex rating system is fun. If everyone used it it would be less fun. If it did not exist because he had to use whatever scale was universal, then it wouldn't be fun because it wouldn't exist.

SupremeAC said:

Or, should a rating system judge a game against what it sets out to achieve, or should it be an unbiased scale against which games can be compared against one and onother?

This is something I've thought about in the past, but came to the forefront with today's Eurogamer Never Alone review.  We're used to grading stuff objectively.  We all receive grades in school based on how we perform on tests.  It doesn't matter if we're a bit of a thicky or not, we're all graded objectivley.  Even money is a sort of objective scale.  A Ferrarri is more expensive,better than a Citroën.  But that doesn't hold up once we start talking about media, or to take it even further, art.  Here it's all about what the director aims to achieve.  If he succeeds in clearly conveying his message, and the way in which he does so isn't broken on some base level, it's perfectly acceptable to grade the work high.  Each work is rated for what it is, not how it compares to others.

The only objective grading in school is a very simple "correct" and "incorrect" question and answer system. When it comes to anything more abstract (which many aspects of school grading are) then there is little objectivity. Even in slightly more complex things that should be easy to grade objectively, such as the grammar of an English essay, an objective grade requires the teacher to be highly knowledgeable and skilful in the subject they teach. Obviously not all teachers are going to be either skilful or highly knowledgeable. Even if they are, they must be conscientious enough to give each piece of work they grade the same amount of attention, and ignore any personal or social or aesthetic biases. Good luck with objective school grading for anything that requires abstract input from the teacher.

I don't agree with the Ferrari and Citroen example, either. The Ferrari is objectively faster. The Citroën is objectively more practical. "Better" is not an objective statement, even if based on objective qualities.

In short: the comprehension of objective qualities is a necessary aspect of any good critique. But the expectation that the comprehension of objective qualities leads to an objective editorial statement is idealistic.

I personally think many reviewers, especially nowadays, get way too in depth with a review. I don't need a 5 page novel telling me every little detail about a game, and the last time I cared to read something like that was probably 10 years ago. Is it good or not? What are the general pros and cons? That's all I need to know.

I've always liked the point by point scoring system because even though its a bit anal, its also a good way of quickly and effectively telling people where you feel a game ranks among the rest...I think that's what Davader was saying too. Back in the Gamespot Kasavin days I remember them giving Halo and Metroid Prime both a score of 9.7, which I always liked because its a good way to say "this game is incredible BUT, its still not perfect". I prefer that over just giving out 10's and acting as if something can't be any better. So, I've always used that 9.7 as my base in scoring. That is what I will generally give a game that I feel is a pinnacle title. Now, some games are close but not quite there so I'll give them a few points less, so on and so forth.

Better boot space, cheaper, easier to drive, more comfortable for multiple passengers, higher undercarriage, easier to park, cheaper insurance, cheaper to insure. They're not just redeeming features, they're features that make it beter than a Ferrari.