Ben-DutkaWhat 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?
Ben,
Serial downvoters are like fleas on a dog, nothing more than a itch to scratch.
True, sadly.
Great point about an iphone game being evaluated differently depending on the platform.
Well when it comes to an x out of 10 rating, you're really just reading someone's opinion…. that always needs to be kept in mind. One man's 5/10 is another's 8/10.
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
off topic
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.
Not sure how I feel on the grading scale. Mario is a great game, and considered one of the best of all time. Now, is that game overall more enjoyable than Uncharted 2? Of course not, but without Mario Uncharted 2 wouldn't exist. So, they are both great games but for different reasonless. This is what makes me leans towards the idea that a different gaming scale should be applied, as long as it's not too drastic of a change from the current system.
Perhaps an added "Qualification" system would do. Mario: 10 Casual, Uncharted 2: 9.8 Intense. Somethin like that.
PS3 and 360 should be rated on a 1 to 10 scale.
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?
I think the rating scale should be the same, for a sense of uniformity. It's the comparison of non competing systems that's flawed, and causes confusion. I want the game to be judged on it's own merits and not how it could perform on another system that I don't own.
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.
I think games still get a more unbiased review than most movies do with their stars and heavy opinions.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 5/31/2010 7:16:18 PM
Overtime I've come to understand that values dictate reviews. Values that are weighed against ever changing standards. A review is relative in nature. What was impressive years ago isn't so impressive today. Classics are typically born out of significant strides in design that exceeded the expectations relative to it's respective era. "Legends in their own time," so to speak. The greatness of a classic is encapsulated in the memory of those who witnessed the game experience at that time. Many critics identify tangible quality indicators such as graphics, game-play, sound, replay value, fun factor etc. And often times, the sum of those individual parts add up to an overall rating that attempts to measure the exact quality of a title.
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.
Dude the fact that you can talk about a triple axel (*and* spell it correctly!) in the same comment as everything else about gaming just elevated your standing in my personal estimations. I'd say you just pulled of a triple axel, triple toe loop combination and stuck the landings perfectly. Scores – technical 10.0, artistic interpretation 10.0.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/31/2010 11:32:44 PM
I'm with TheHighlander. Good comment, very well thought out.
The rating system should be made odd so that there is no "average" scoring game. It's either bad or good. After all, everything is in subjective taste. It all has to come down to FUN FACTOR. I mean, why would you play something if it wasn't fun? Sure, Demon's Soul is hella hard, but that's what made it sadistically fun. Flower was fun but in a relaxing way. Tetris was fun but in a strategic puzzler way. it can all come down together in one factor: FUN. But let's face it, it's all subjective. That's why we go to sites like PSXE–the people here know what they are talking about. They aren't some 13-year old kid who barely knows what he's talking about.
@World,
I like the idea of the qualification system but the qualifications themselves might be a bit tricky to standardize
People writing novels (figuratively speaking, of course) on forums just goes to show that you've struck gold for a topic. Now for my two cents.
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.
They just need better parenting. PARENTS GET INVOLVED WITH YOUR KIDS LIFE!!!
Wrong ratings
tis a very sensitive subject.
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.
I really think there should be separate scores for the single player and multiplayer aspects of games. The multiplayer may be fantastic when the game first comes out, but a year or two later nobody's playing it any more, and the fun factor has gone way down.
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.
ya hate games geting good scores just for mutiplayer
or trashing a game for the lack of it
ive always thought that the "rating breakdown" section of reviews should be more complicated than a universal "graphics, gameplay, sound, etc." story is nowhere near as important to an FPS as it is to an rpg, and the physics engine isnt as important to your run-of-the-mill RPG as it is to an FPS.
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?
Games are as diverse as the people that create them, and trying to create a review system that is complex enough to fully encompass the intricacies of each genre, yet simple enough to be understood quickly and easily by those new to the hobby is a Herculean task.
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.
Ben,
<<<<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
I play games that are rated fair and up. Bianca and Jamey for me.
Honestly I think people are over thinking this argument. I mean, you don't compare two vehicles and say "Oh, I'm going to get that Ford Pinto because it got 10/10 while that Ferrari only got 8/10" It's a Pinto, no matter how amazing it is, it in no way compares to a Ferrari. Yes, They are both cars, you drive them, you enjoy them, and if you're lucky you can have a Claire-Louise in the passenger seat with you. The same goes concept applies to games. You can't expect a game made for Crapple iSheep to compare in any way to one made for PS3, other than the enjoyability factor. If you look at the Pinto, even if it is the GREATEST Pinto ever made, it will never have the power, luxury, or status of a Ferrari, Porsche, BMW or whatever top-of-the-line automobile you are partial to.
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…
I don't give a crap what reviewers/critics have to say, I have come across very few others who have the exact same views on what is fun and what isn't fun. Does that mean I have bought some "bad" games, I have probably bought many according to others, according to myself, only 3 in all my gaming (which goes back to Atari 2600 days) life. Unfortunately to many people don't think for themselves and are little more then sheep, or sheeple if you prefer…