http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/ If there' s a good counter-argument to that I've never heard it.
Regardless of how you feel about scoring reviews, this really doesn't read to me as 'dropping' review scores at all. They're simply using a different scale, with three levels. One could easily translate them numerically into a 1/3 for Avoid, 2/3 for Recommend, and 3/3 for Essential. As @Patman 's quote addresses, scores do have their place (despite my issues with how it's written). However, they obviously should not be cited or trusted on the mere basis of the number -- if anything, a 7/10 at a site like IGN is different than a 35/40 from Famitsu. The industry is really controlled by these arbitrary review scores and I'm not okay with that... ... but so far I haven't seen any sites replace them or innovate in a meaningful way. But then, I also don't read reviews often and am not up on the major sites' scoring systems. In fact, IGN, which is the juggernaut of the "x out of ten" review system, names their numbers: 10.0: Masterpiece 9.0 - 9.9: Amazing 8.0 - 8.9: Great 7.0 - 7.9: Good ... and so on I don't see how Eurogamer's choice is any different than this, other than that they're obfuscating the numbers now. A lot of people looking for review scores just want a tl;dr version and are judging a game based solely on the number. That won't change by simply changing numbers to words or vice-versa. I'm a reader so I'll always want to read the review to hear why they gave it the score they did -- what they liked and what they didn't -- and that's the same whether there's a review score or not. What we really need to do is remove this idea that so many gamers hold that a game review score is an objective quantification of the game's value. Reviews are subjective because they are based on opinion, and the scores are therefore also subjectively and often arbitrarily determined. This issue is, after all, what caused mass outrage after Polygon down-rated Bayonetta 2 for exploiting women. Eurogamer is (unjustifiably) patting themselves on the back for addressing issues with gaming journalism. Good news about reviewing retail copies, though.
Yeah, the rampant problem with scores is the inanity of the decimal scale and the dishonest disparities between the scores and the reviews themselves (describes a 2, gives it a 3). I' m not expecting reviews to stop being subjective anytime soon, honest and coherent will do.
Err ... no I expect his score to tell me real quick if he liked it or not. Or put another way, to encompass the technical aspects he mentioned, would you/do you regret buying it ? Yes, not really, no ? It' s really not rocket science.
I personally don't mind review scores, that and a small summary can give a good idea of what the reviewer thinks of the game. But I can see why publications may want to get rid of it. They can cause so many pointless arguments by people who don't really understand what a differing opinion is, so to save the hassle and potential backlash they ditch it. When it comes to Metacritic, it should be harmless, but the industries huge reliance on it is worrying. While a bit ****** Bethesda's New Vegas bonus stuff isn't a huge deal in my eyes, companies often set benchmarks for their projects which can affect their bonuses, and I'm pretty sure Metacritic wouldn't have been the only benchmark in that regard. Also it was a bonus, it's not like they lost all their pay. If I had performed worse then expected I wouldn't expect my bonus. Now the idea of using Metacritic as a benchmark is a different can of worms. As a metric is has too many unknown factors and outside influences that can affect it, making it unreliable. Edit: Also knowing that your review may have an affect on the sales/representation of the final product and therefore the developer is to be expected. Work for a big publication? Score a game low? Don't be surprised if that publishers/developer takes a small hit. It comes with the territory.
The only way I can ever see review scores as numbers actually mattering is if those scores are coming from one person. It is nigh impossible and thus kind of pointless for organizations of multiple people with multiple perspectives to try being consistent with numbers.
I really like how you explained your stance on this, especially as someone who is also currently studying journalism and hoping to eventually move to California to report on the industry. It's not at all hard to understand that people don't want to or simply don't have the time to read full reviews, so scores do help get the broad idea across. Though I still do think (much less strongly than before) that having scores from groups of people with differing perspectives can serve to cause confusion. Also, your evaluation on point systems has given me ideas on possibly changing my own dinky blog of game reviews...though I think I do it fine as is, since I let personal preference fuel my X.5 scores (such as if I prefer the music of one game to another, even if I like both games' soundtracks)
