Support NeoGAF

[Elfforkusu]

You can understand the meaning here through simple math though. It's just a conversion from one system into another one, retaining the integrity of the numbers themselves.

Right, but if you multiply celsius by a constant, you're in for a bad time.

There is (one assumes) a sensible conversion of a 5 point score to a more traditional x/100, but linear scaling isn't it.


I feel like some bored statistician has to have figured this out...

 

[Bloodworth]

You can understand the meaning here through simple math though. It's just a conversion from one system into another one, retaining the integrity of the numbers themselves.

Sure, but you have to know the correct conversion method. You can't just add 32 to go from Celsius to Farenheit. Similarly, you can't just x2 to get from Stars to Metacritic. As I suggested on Twitter, a better conversion could be to add 4.5 to each star. Although 1 star covers a wide range below that, and five stars covers above that.

 

[RiverKwai]

Dunno how I feel about blaming metacritic for using numbers in the way they should be used.

Numbers can be used in a variety of different ways.

3.5 feet, for example is not the same as 7/10ths or 70 percent of a meter. 3.5 stars is not 7/10 points in the same way - the scale is different.

 

[Holundrian]

Numbers can be used in a variety of different ways.

3.5 feet, for example is not the same as 7/10ths or 70 percent of a meter. 3.5 stars is not 7/10 points in the same way - the scale is different.

My point with that was that 3.5 stars isn't even 3.5 stars when you switch sites(giantbomb etc).

It's not even necessarily consistent when you switch the reviewer on the same site, I mean it's games that's not that easy to quantify to a number.

With your examples the system stays consistent in itself. 3.5 feet is always exactly 3.5 feet and it's provable that this statement is true. The number retains integrity.

 

[samueljustice00]

I feel like the actual problem is metacritic, not individual score systems. That metacritic is incapable of more nuance than X/100 is not (IMO) a reason to recalibrate your score system to being out of 100.

I like 5 stars, really I'd prefer to not even have half stars. But I like EZA's system anyway!

Metacritic is a horrible, outdated, clunky POS. The 5 star system is nice and easy, I wish people would stop trying to compare it to a 10/100point system (just don't do it, it's that easy) and take it for what it is. The reviews themselves have the substance you're after, if you need a score to justify your purchase, then you're doing it wrong.

The post above also nails it as the points given are entirely based on that one persons perception of the game. Something so statistical and to the point has never sat right with me when it's based on a loose opinion.

 

[RiverKwai]

With your examples the system stays consistent in itself. 3.5 feet is always exactly 3.5 feet and it's provable that this statement is true. The number retains integrity.

Ah, but that's scientifically untrue. 3.5 feet is only a constant measurement at rest. At even a tenth the speed of light, 3.5 feet is shorter than 3.5 feet at rest due to Lorentz contraction. So there goes that argument.

 

[timmyp53]

Merely comparing numbers without understanding their inherent meaning doesn't make sense though.

It's pretty sad but that's exactly what 99% of people who use metacritic do.

A positive reception according to metacritic falls somewhere between 75-89 and a mixed review falls between 50 - 74.

Anyone looking at their review of ratchet on metacritic would see a fat 50.

4 things EZA can possibly do:
Keep doing what they are doing. -Nothing wrong with this.

Change back to 10/10(100) point system. - Accomplishing nothing.

Like Karu said trusting people to treat Score Systems of websites as individual, self-contained entities. - but ... Most people don't use logic.

Or dropping review scores all together -best option in my opinion.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Not sure what the hate for metacritic is all about. Having a one stop shop to get a feel for the general consensus on new and old media is not a bad thing. It's a great archiving tool, and they always link back to the original reviews where you can easily go if you're looking for more context. Obviously some people use metacritic in the wrong way, and metacritic doesn't do an amazing job aggragating all scores under one consistent metric, but they never claimed to be the final say on anything. Just take them for what they are: a tool used to gather information and approximate relations, noting more. They are not a bane on the industry, that's such hyperbole.

With Easy Allies though, I don't know. I definitely wouldn't change the scale to appease metacritic or stop salty youtube comments, it's metacritic's job to make the conversion and consumers' job to understand the review and make an informed decision with the provided opinion, it shouldn't be up to EZA, or any other reviewer, to dumb anything down for anyone.

With that said, if I were them, I would absolutely get rid of the star system. If each score directly coordinates to a specific descriptor, then why bother with the middle man of converting stars to the proper descriptor anyway? Why not just show "recommended" or whatever at the end of the video instead of the stars? I think that type of review tends to bring in less views, but those don't really matter too much anymore with a patreon system anyway. Just come up with 5 more descriptors for each half star and leave it at that. If viewers only have a summarizing word at the end instead of numbers I think it forces them to consider the content of the review more, which will lead to less reactionary comments and better discussion all around.

I don't know, if by its very nature your rating system isn't consistent with others, or even necessarily with yourself, since you have multiple reviewers, adding math into the equation seems like just being too bothered to step away from the "norm." I don't really get the positives of that type of rating system, but maybe that's just me. I've seen reviewers try to defend it many times but they've never seemed to offer much insight. If it's not for comparison between a consistent one reviewer, like Roger Ebert's thumbs up or down, then it feels pointless.

Not that the stars really bother me either. I honestly don't really care now that their weight has been established, and I really enjoy EZA reviews (GT always had my favorite reviews, even long before I was into any of their other content). I also really like that nice swiping graphic that introduces the score. And half-star memes. So it has its upsides, it just also seems like an unnessecary headache to me.

Whatever, EZA, you guys do you.

 

[fastmower]

Wow. People sure do have a ton of time to overthink the star system.

I think it is a nice and succinct system that shouldn't be paid to much attention to. It's the actual words of the review that matters.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Wow. People sure do have a ton of time to overthink the star system.

My homework's not going to procrastinate itself.

 

[rtcn63]

I mean it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. EZA likely put a lot of thought into their scoring system, creating their own categories in a way that reflects how they view things should be. One of the positives of not having anyone higher up (other than their Patreon supporters and general audience) to answer to. But they can't change (at least not right away) how the outside world views numbers. So either they stay the course, give in, or look for some sort of middle ground. They seem like receptive folks, I'm sure they'll come up with something (or just say fuck it- respect either way). Progress takes time.

 

[RiverKwai]

Wow. People sure do have a ton of time to overthink the star system.

I think it is a nice and succinct system that shouldn't be paid to much attention to. It's the actual words of the review that matters.

Well what else are we gonna do? We sure as hell aren't going to play video games!

 

[MrMette]

Sure, but you have to know the correct conversion method. You can't just add 32 to go from Celsius to Farenheit. Similarly, you can't just x2 to get from Stars to Metacritic. As I suggested on Twitter, a better conversion could be to add 4.5 to each star. Although 1 star covers a wide range below that, and five stars covers above that.

Like I said here before, I think the rating system is good (I don't see anything wrong with it), but I think it can for a lot of people help by adding the rating Masterful, Excellent, Recommended, Lacking or Poor below the stars on the score screen in the video's and not just in the description box.

If people see recommended as well, they will feel differently then only seeing a 3/5 stars.

But I suspect this was already discussed at the EZA meetings and as far as I have read, it was a heated/long discussion.

While I don't think a score is that important overall as it is the review itself which shows what the reviewer is thinking about the game, a lot of people are used to comparing scores, so maybe this will help (also they will keep converting unfortunately, it is just human nature).

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

I think it's funny the game that sparked this chatter is R&C. A game Huber admitted during the RE2 stream to beating 3 to 3.5 times already.

 

[Brainfreeze]

I think it's funny the game that sparked this chatter is R&C. A game Huber admitted during the RE2 stream to beating 3 to 3.5 times already.

Which, as we all know, Is the equivalent of 7 times for any other reviewer. He must really love it!

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Why doesn't Rotten Tomatoes do Gaming as well, so everyone can just move away from Metacritic?

Oh right because every game would be certified fresh and in the 90's percentage.

 

[timmyp53]

With that said, if I were them, I would absolutely get rid of the star system. If each score directly coordinates to a specific descriptor, then why bother with the middle man of converting stars to the proper descriptor anyway? Why not just show "recommended" or whatever at the end of the video instead of the stars? I think that type of review tends to bring in less views, but those don't really matter too much anymore with a patreon system anyway. Just come up with 5 more descriptors for each half star and leave it at that. If viewers only have a summarizing word at the end instead of numbers I think it forces them to consider the content of the review more, which will lead to less reactionary comments and better discussion all around.

 

[Servbot24]

I don't understand why scores need to be succinct. If someone has the ability to deliberate upon the merits of a game and calculate their opinion to a 1/10000 score, I say go for it. The people who can't comprehend that can easily convert it into a 1/10 or 1/5 score so that they can understand the smaller number. Everyone wins.

 

[Deleted member 465307]

I think it is a nice and succinct system that shouldn't be paid to much attention to. It's the actual words of the review that matters.

I 100% agree with this, which makes me also mostly agree with this:

With that said, if I were them, I would absolutely get rid of the star system. If each score directly coordinates to a specific descriptor, then why bother with the middle man of converting stars to the proper descriptor anyway? Why not just show "recommended" or whatever at the end of the video instead of the stars? I think that type of review tends to bring in less views, but those don't really matter too much anymore with a patreon system anyway. Just come up with 5 more descriptors for each half star and leave it at that. If viewers only have a summarizing word at the end instead of numbers I think it forces them to consider the content of the review more, which will lead to less reactionary comments and better discussion all around.

However, not having a score prevents you from getting on review aggregate sites, right? Perhaps there's a business incentive (as in, relations with publishers) to having a score? Just me making random speculation.

I'm up for whatever they do.

 

[Wiggy]

Easy Update was really funny this week, already watched it a few times.

 

[timmyp53]

I 100% agree with this, which makes me also mostly agree with this:



However, not having a score prevents you from getting on review aggregate sites, right? Perhaps there's a business incentive (as in, relations with publishers) to having a score? Just me making random speculation.

I'm up for whatever they do.

That's a good point that I never actually considered. I don't think it would necessarily be a problem for bigger pubs but it could definitely be a determining factor for relations/incentives for smaller games or self published games.
The fight against Metacritic is such a sad and uphill struggle.

Easy Update was really funny this week, already watched it a few times.

Yeah great stuff.
This moment right here got me so good.

Kyle's sudden realization how evil/awesome this game is:
http://i.imgur.com/OIKZzPV.gif

 

[Myggen]

However, not having a score prevents you from getting on review aggregate sites, right? Perhaps there's a business incentive (as in, relations with publishers) to having a score? Just me making random speculation.

I'm up for whatever they do.

I know that Jeff Gerstmann of Giant Bomb has said that part of the reason they still do reviews is that being on Metacritic makes it a lot easier to get early copies of games from a lot of publishers. I think Metacritic requires you to have scores if you review games, but there's movie reviews on Metacritic from publications like The New Yorker that do not score any of their reviews. If you think Metacritic can be arbitrary, check it out when they assign scores themselves to reviews just based on the text.

 

[dickroach]

In a 10 point scale of most (of all) of the gaming review media, a 6 would never be a recomended game.

so everyone's using a 5 point scale. they just start their 5 point scale at 6/10 instead of 1/5.

also, if I was looking at reviews I'd totally be more inclined to play X over Y just because it had a 81 on metacritic over a 72 on metacritic. I don't know why, but I would. and on that scale, a 3.5 is a 70 :\
but I hardly look at score anymore. if a game looks cool to me I'ma get it.

 

[Tankard]

 

[luchadork]

so everyone's using a 5 point scale. they just start their 5 point scale at 6/10 instead of 1/5.

also, if I was looking at reviews I'd totally be more inclined to play X over Y just because it had a 81 on metacritic over a 72 on metacritic. I don't know why, but I would. and on that scale, a 3.5 is a 70 :\
but I hardly look at score anymore. if a game looks cool to me I'ma get it.

i honestly just check the sentiment of the community. neogaf especially has steered me towards some low reviewed gems. plantsvszombies, madmax, wolfenstein.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

I don't mind their new scale, but I wish it had just been 5 stars instead of having halves too.
I can see many 4.5s in the future because they want to keep that 5 for something super special, while with just a 5 scale system then 5s would become more abundant and the stigma if it having to be a "perfect game" would have washed away.

The current system is superior to 100 though. One of the most horrible things I heard on a gaming podcast was IGN editors arguing over the difference between 7.8, 7.9 and an 8.0
Whole thing was a mess and that shit should be scrapped by everyone.

 

[SeanTSC]

I don't mind their new scale, but I wish it had just been 5 stars instead of having halves too.
I can see many 4.5s in the future because they want to keep that 5 for something super special, while with just a 5 scale system then 5s would become more abundant and the stigma if it having to be a "perfect game" would have washed away.

The current system is superior to 100 though. One of the most horrible things I heard on a gaming podcast was IGN editors arguing over the difference between 7.8, 7.9 and an 8.0
Whole thing was a mess and that shit should be scrapped by everyone.

Yeah, I'd be okay with just a 5 point scale too.

And I can't believe that there was an argument over the differences in 7.8, 7.9, and 8.0. That must have literally been one of the most stupid conversations recorded in the history of humanity.

 

[Isaccard]

Easy Update is like a worse ManUp Nights, and I liked a nights

 

[ito007]

Wow. People sure do have a ton of time to overthink the star system.

I think it is a nice and succinct system that shouldn't be paid to much attention to. It's the actual words of the review that matters.

Indeed. No matter what scale you use, most games that are reviewed are going to get "average" to "pretty good" scores because most games that are worth reviewing are going to be at that range. The only thing that using stars helps them to do is make it easier to get a quick snapshot of quality.

 

[Uno Venova]

😴 😴 😴

 

[Conezays]

Bosman inspired me to pull out my 3DS and attempt to best Wozniak's score in Tetris as well. So far he is definitely doing better than me, Lol.

 

[Don Draper's Hat]

Bosman inspired me to pull out my 3DS and attempt to best Wozniak's score in Tetris as well. So far he is definitely doing better than me, Lol.

But how many stars would you give it?

 

[GamingOblivion]

This fucking thread lol

 

[KRaZyAmmo]

Bosman inspired me to pull out my 3DS and attempt to best Wozniak's score in Tetris as well. So far he is definitely doing better than me, Lol.

3Ds has gba Tetris?

 

[PepperedHam]

Finally got around to listening to this week's podcast and I'm really happy with how good it is. Ben's Nosgoth story was hilarious. Between EZA Podcast, Frame Trap, and PS I Love You I haven't been this happy with my gaming podcast lineup in a long time.

 

[Hasney]

Finally got around to listening to this week's podcast and I'm really happy with how good it is. Ben's Nosgoth story was hilarious. Between EZA Podcast, Frame Trap, and PS I Love You I haven't been this happy with my gaming podcast lineup in a long time.

Don't do PS I Love You but yeah, all this content has just slotted in so nicely with the other stuff I listen to.

 

[dickroach]

ew. i just listened to 2 minutes of the Patron D&D thing. my mic was so shit. so bad. I gotta get something good.

3Ds has gba Tetris?

3DS had GB Tetris. got pulled from the e-shop

 

[Deleted member 465307]

3Ds has gba Tetris?

3DS doesn't have GBA games apart from the Ambassador releases, which didn't include a Tetris game. On 3DS, as far as I know, there's Tetris Axis, Tetris Ultimate, and Tetris (GB VC). I believe both Tetris Axis and Tetris (GB VC) are delisted from the eShop now, so if you want those games digitally, you have to already have bought them prior to the delisting.

 

[kami_sama]

When will be getting a new episode? I'm itching for more EZA.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

Not gonna lie, angry Joe's review of quantum break makes me not wanna trust Huber's opinions on games. He obviously doesn't have the same critical view as I do.

 

[Hasney]

I mean cool and all, but I'm the opposite of that and don't touch Angry Joe's reviews with a barge pole. It's just finding the reviewers that you share the same subjective opinion as and going with them.

When will be getting a new episode? I'm itching for more EZA.

Cup of Jones today for backers.

 

[kami_sama]

I mean cool and all, but I'm the opposite of that and don't touch Angry Joe's reviews with a barge pole. It's just finding the reviewers that you share the same subjective opinion as and going with them.



Cup of Jones today for backers.

Awesome. Cup of Jones is always great.

 

[dickroach]

Angry Joe is everything I hate about youtube videogamers :.
I get his character. I like positive vibes. That's why I love eza.

stoked for a cup of Jones later

 

[brotkasten]

And I can't believe that there was an argument over the differences in 7.8, 7.9, and 8.0. That must have literally been one of the most stupid conversations recorded in the history of humanity.

That's how I feel about review scores in general.

I just don't understand how people can be so obsessive over them.

 

[dickroach]

That's how I feel about review scores in general.

I just don't understand how people can be so obsessive over them.

IMO it's just the fact that that they exist... A 7.9 is better than a 7.3, right? I'd be terrified to be a reviewer
I get why they're doing what they're doing but in this metacritic world its rough

 

[Fahzgoolin]

I don't care for angry Joe's stuff, but I watched his QB review because of a recent ongoing thread.

He pointed out the terrible AI, inconsistent powers, ridiculous plot points, terrible show performance, and more.

Huber just presented it like it was Alan Wake level of good and it looks to be far from the truth.

 

[dickroach]

I don't care for angry Joe's stuff, but I watched his QB review because of a recent ongoing thread.

He pointed out the terrible AI, inconsistent powers, ridiculous plot points, terrible show performance, and more.

Huber just presented it like it was Alan Wake level of good and it looks to be far from the truth.

have you played Quantum Break? or Alan Wake? ( Ihave not)
just from seeing the game in itself (QB) i think it looks super cool. Huber's review kinda solidified that (me thinking its cool). is that good or not? i dunno

before any reviews, I think people have preconceived notions. and a review is just kind of a reassurance.

 

[Heartfyre]

That's how I feel about review scores in general.

I just don't understand how people can be so obsessive over them.

Considering we're on GAF, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were developers who, in the past or currently, have bonuses tied to Metacritic scores. Which is a tier of BS that goes a long way to hinder any kind of scoring reform. I'm delighted that EZA are doing it their way, but with Metacritic as it is, I hope they stay off it.

 

[MrMette]

Considering we're on GAF, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were developers who, in the past or currently, have bonuses tied to Metacritic scores. Which is a tier of BS that goes a long way to hinder any kind of scoring reform. I'm delighted that EZA are doing it their way, but with Metacritic as it is, I hope they stay off it.

I don't think they can go on metacritic with just a youtube channel (so without a specialized website with the reviews on there). I don't really care if they are on there or not, but a lot more people will get to know EZA if they are.

 

[brotkasten]

I don't care for angry Joe's stuff, but I watched his QB review because of a recent ongoing thread.

He pointed out the terrible AI, inconsistent powers, ridiculous plot points, terrible show performance, and more.

Huber just presented it like it was Alan Wake level of good and it looks to be far from the truth.

Or maybe it's Joe who's wrong and Huber who's right? How would soneone know, without having played the game? You just have to trust that person's opinion. I don't happen to agree with much Angry Joe says and I can't stand his shtick in general, so his review has no value to me and can be easily dismissed from my point of view.

That's why I'd always take a Just Played discussion about a game over a review with a score. To me, it gives me a little more insight into the thought process and is more in-depth.