-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Final Bosman Show
- Thread starter iNvid02
- Start date
Link here: Review Scores Are Good, and You Know It
Eh, Not really feeling this episode.
I mean, the contradictions in the new system are stupid, but I don't know what's the issue of turning a 0 to 10 scale into a 0 to 4 scale. And Defending metacritic? kyle pls. If I want to see multiple reviews in one place I'll take a negoaf review thread.
I get his points and what's behing it, but I don't think this is really to something to get worked up about. (And now I'm really curious about the original topic of the episode)
Eh, Not really feeling this episode.
7.8
I mean, the contradictions in the new system are stupid, but I don't know what's the issue of turning a 0 to 10 scale into a 0 to 4 scale. And Defending metacritic? kyle pls. If I want to see multiple reviews in one place I'll take a negoaf review thread.
I get his points and what's behing it, but I don't think this is really to something to get worked up about. (And now I'm really curious about the original topic of the episode)
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
He's completely right in at least one point: While I like Eurogamers decision to go without scores, they still do it. As Kyle said, it's just a 4/4 score. "Essential" is a 9-10, recommended is a 7-9, etc etc. Get rid of the catchwords under a review, and get rid of the silly medals, and I buy the premise.
Ideally you don't need any numbers or scores.
Ideally you don't need any numbers or scores.
srsly, what is up with the metacritic hate?
especially when gaf, as you said, has a review thread for every major release, which is just the same?
Fbh
Member
Good episode.
Personally I like review scores and don't see such a big issue with them.
And I agree that if a site wants to stop using them it's a valid point but they should eliminate any sort of rating at the end of the review, otherwise you are only swapping review scores for undercover review scores.
I think a good solution to summarize the general tone of the review without having to use a score is what IGN does with "The veredict", which is basically a tl:dr version of the review
And what's the big difference that makes one acceptable and the other so terrible and hated?. In the end you are using both for the same purpose, which is to see the scores of several sites in one place
Personally I like review scores and don't see such a big issue with them.
And I agree that if a site wants to stop using them it's a valid point but they should eliminate any sort of rating at the end of the review, otherwise you are only swapping review scores for undercover review scores.
I think a good solution to summarize the general tone of the review without having to use a score is what IGN does with "The veredict", which is basically a tl:dr version of the review
And what's the big difference that makes one acceptable and the other so terrible and hated?. In the end you are using both for the same purpose, which is to see the scores of several sites in one place
I dunno. I like the site. it's a quick way to measure how a game has reviewed.
I think they all know their time is limited.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Metacritc (or RottenTomatoes for that matter). It's the importance placed on the singular Metacritic score by some people/developers that is more of a problem. When people refer to it as a singular thing instead of the aggregation it is like "Metacritic score it a 75" or "RottenTomatoes gave it a 60%." No, they didn't! That is merely the aggregation of all the reviews! Metacritic or RottenTomatoes merely present the trend of reviews for a particular thing. They include all the reviews counted, clearly visible, for a reason. Tying employee bonuses to things like Metacritic score is disgusting, but that isn't Metacritic's fault.
Robottiimu2000
Member
Fbh
Member
It's not that rockets aren't cool.
It's just that city + plants was just so much better
The thing is, neogaf threads don't add all the numbers using weights, making the opinion of some people more important than others. Completely disgusting.
Robottiimu2000
Member
Ok. You have a point there. That was a very good background.
But assuming he can't use that background for some reason anymore, with the changes in GT or what ever (I think there was a reference at some point about some new music library not having any enjoyable music in it after the change.)... AND this is the only background option we have, then from the alternatives (A) just curtain (B) just rocket (C) rocket & curtain.. I'll take (C)
But what we really need, is that Final Bosman lore expert to tell us what is going on with the backgrounds!
Uno Venova
Banned
Spot on again, there's no problem with review scores, it's simply the immature reaction that gamers have towards them, an the importance publishers put on them. They aren't going anywhere either.
Yes, they're just not numerical and there's less piles the game can put in.
Edit: I think Kyle makes a good point that it's partially a good thing that Eurogamer have ditched numerical scores but they've done it for the wrong (possibly trendy) reason.
Gentleman Jack
Member
That Huber quote is amazing.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Wow, he's REALLY worked up over this @_@ I don't think I've seen him this mad before ^^;
OdysseusVA
Banned
Spot on Mr. Bosman, spot on.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I agree with him that half-assing it by still assigning stars that show up in google searches is really stupid. Other than that, I disagree with most of the stuff he's saying this week.
I'm not so harsh on metacritic but they do have problems:
1. They consider some reviews more valuable than others.
2. The user reviews section is the worst ever. There needs to be some sort of verification to make a user review. Simply linking to your psn/xbl/whatever account and parsing to see if you have actually played the game should be enough.
3. Using it for bonuses is fucking stupid
Game publishers and some developers tie bonuses and contracts around scores. I've seen some job offerings requiring someone to have been on a development team for a game with an 80 or above Metacritic score.
It's just a really shitty end all-be all system to rate a game's worth and by extension an industry professional's worth.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
I'm not into anyone's opinions being treated as gospel on games, and the numbers don't help for reasons people have stated millions of times... but Kyle's right that Eurogamer's explanations and non-number system just seems even more reductionist and declarative than numbers. It's like Dr Seuss's On Beyond Zebra, but for numbers, and all the new numbers are pretentious instead of whimsical.
GAF will use Metacritic to defend a game they like and discredit it when it suggests a game they like is badly received.
curiouscharles
Member
i hear you, but i kind of agree with him.
i think he's getting more worked up by eurogamer's "pretentious self-contradictions" [for lack of a better expression] than anything else.
edit: that being said though, he also contradicts himself near the end - so i'm feeling rather conflicted about this all myself.
i never liked eurogamer's scores / reviews anyway, so i'm probably biased towards anybody pointing out their flaws at the moment.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Has there every been an episode without a bonus bit before?
I agree, he's more annoyed by the attitude of 'oooo isn't this soo much better than what we had before it makes sooo much more sense' and the general reaction which has been 'yes this makes Eurogamer a more respectable and upmarket media outlet'.
Ultimately review scores don't amount to a hill of beans, have them, don't have them, it doesn't really matter, a 100-point scale isn't really that much worse or different from a 5 point scale in any real way and the sooner people just stopped talking about them as if there's some crisis that needs to be solved, the better.
Ultimately review scores don't amount to a hill of beans, have them, don't have them, it doesn't really matter, a 100-point scale isn't really that much worse or different from a 5 point scale in any real way and the sooner people just stopped talking about them as if there's some crisis that needs to be solved, the better.
plasmawave
Banned
He brings up great points.
Eurogamer just replaced numeric scoring with medal scoring.
They are pretty much the same thing essentially.
Eurogamer just replaced numeric scoring with medal scoring.
They are pretty much the same thing essentially.
OdysseusVA
Banned
This Episode of Final Bosman is
Nice
The last few months have been rough.
I definitely do not understand why people are averse to detailed scores.
If a game gets a 9.34, people are going to say "Why the .34? How can you even calculate that?"
Who cares? The message is that it's a great game. The scoring system gives room for nuance. A four star system gives practically no room for nuance. You are either "Great, Good, OK, Bad". There is so much room for variation in games. There aren't four categories of quality.
If you're going to get rid of scores in your review, fine, but I absolutely agree with Kyle that a medal system is the same exact thing, except with less room for nuance, which Eurogamer claims to value.
If a game gets a 9.34, people are going to say "Why the .34? How can you even calculate that?"
Who cares? The message is that it's a great game. The scoring system gives room for nuance. A four star system gives practically no room for nuance. You are either "Great, Good, OK, Bad". There is so much room for variation in games. There aren't four categories of quality.
If you're going to get rid of scores in your review, fine, but I absolutely agree with Kyle that a medal system is the same exact thing, except with less room for nuance, which Eurogamer claims to value.
Azure Dream
Member
There was a bonus bit, it was just extremely short.
Arguably that medal system is far worse due to the way the medal graphic instant seeks to identify itself as some sort of official award with the wreath and the gold and silver gradient treatments. It does a far more effective job of leading reader attention astray with its graphic design than any numbers after the review ever would.
I respect Kyle for his other opinion pieces, but he really dropped the ball here.
A score so low to that room's smell? Absolutely pathetic.
Granted i haven't smelled that room myself, yet (will do on D1 though) but it's pretty clear this was more done to get controversy going, get attention and clicks.
There's a reason why they don't let this guy write reviews and this is why, i'll wait for more serious publications to chime in on the aroma, before i take any of this shit seriously.
I'm still incredibly hyped to smell that room, despite the seemingly ceaseless stream of hate that lately has been "oh so cool", to direct at it.
A score so low to that room's smell? Absolutely pathetic.
Granted i haven't smelled that room myself, yet (will do on D1 though) but it's pretty clear this was more done to get controversy going, get attention and clicks.
There's a reason why they don't let this guy write reviews and this is why, i'll wait for more serious publications to chime in on the aroma, before i take any of this shit seriously.
I'm still incredibly hyped to smell that room, despite the seemingly ceaseless stream of hate that lately has been "oh so cool", to direct at it.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Gentleman Jack
Member
I didn't take it as a slight against MK8, more that a word like 'essential' is a poor way in the aggregate to describe a library of games that comprise 'the best.' It homogenizes the highly rated games even worse than the 'traditional' 1-10 scale.
The Antitype
Banned
Ugh @ the newest episode.
It's always depressing seeing somebody aggressively fight for the right to be intellectually lazy.
'Rather that put together a compelling argument and ask you to weigh my points against your knowledge of my personal tastes and how they align or diverge from your own, please enjoy this arbitrary number!'
It's always depressing seeing somebody aggressively fight for the right to be intellectually lazy.
'Rather that put together a compelling argument and ask you to weigh my points against your knowledge of my personal tastes and how they align or diverge from your own, please enjoy this arbitrary number!'
Your argument is a fallacy. Nobody is asking for review scores instead of text.
In Eurogamer's case it's not even that, as they're just replacing the review score with a worse one.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Yeah, seriously. Is there any review site or publication that doesn't have written or video exposition that explains whatever the rating is? Even metacritic links to whatever available explanations are being aggregated.
Personally I'm not really a fan of review scores in their application but I do have fun messing with Gamerankings numbers and statistics. That being said I agree with Kyle's opinion in that Eurogamer's new system is dumb.
The one point I really disagree on though is that you can enjoy something and give it a low score, which is what he said when he was talking about Jupiter Ascending. IMO, if you're going to use a score it should be a reflection of your enjoyment of a product, or how much value you think a product has. You shouldn't try to use a score as some weird hybrid subjective-objective measurement of a game's quality. I don't think that's what Kyle necessarily really meant there but he wasn't entirely clear.
The one point I really disagree on though is that you can enjoy something and give it a low score, which is what he said when he was talking about Jupiter Ascending. IMO, if you're going to use a score it should be a reflection of your enjoyment of a product, or how much value you think a product has. You shouldn't try to use a score as some weird hybrid subjective-objective measurement of a game's quality. I don't think that's what Kyle necessarily really meant there but he wasn't entirely clear.
This isn't actually true by the way. PES for example got a 9 from them, but is retrospectively changed to a "Recommended" and not an "Essential", as your theory would suggest. They take in to consideration other factors when giving out the recommendations, that may not necessarily correlate with numerical score values.
Great points by Bosman. He's right about all of it.
Do you think Mario Kart 8 is "essential" for every person who plays video games to play? I've had a blast throughout at least 50+ hours of it. But is it "required playing" for anyone who wants to be a part of the conversation on video games? Is any game? Fuck that notion, is what Kyle is saying. No publication should be trying to tell readers exactly what is "essential" to play. It isolates the reader and turns them into sheep over what they "have to" experience.
How so?
Do you think Mario Kart 8 is "essential" for every person who plays video games to play? I've had a blast throughout at least 50+ hours of it. But is it "required playing" for anyone who wants to be a part of the conversation on video games? Is any game? Fuck that notion, is what Kyle is saying. No publication should be trying to tell readers exactly what is "essential" to play. It isolates the reader and turns them into sheep over what they "have to" experience.
i hear you, but i kind of agree with him.
i think he's getting more worked up by eurogamer's "pretentious self-contradictions" [for lack of a better expression] than anything else.
edit: that being said though, he also contradicts himself near the end - so i'm feeling rather conflicted about this all myself.
i never liked eurogamer's scores / reviews anyway, so i'm probably biased towards anybody pointing out their flaws at the moment.
How so?
SlowRevolution
Member
the room paid him off. kyle bosman is a hack.
Haven't kept up with the Eurogamer change, so had NO idea that removing review scores meant adding medals and google star ratings. Just assumed they were text-only reviews now. So yea, a weird trick to segregate from Metacritic under the guise of earning added cred among hardcore gamers...that isn't so transparent or noble as intended. I haven't paid attention to the discussion to see where, at least this forum, mostly stands.
Good episode and mostly agree with him-- outside of kind of ignoring some of the inherent problems behind Metacritic. Diving deeper into the pros and cons of Metacritic would make for a great follow-up episode though. Sadly the idealized framework for the aggregate site that Kyle positions in this episode isn't quite how it works out.
Good episode and mostly agree with him-- outside of kind of ignoring some of the inherent problems behind Metacritic. Diving deeper into the pros and cons of Metacritic would make for a great follow-up episode though. Sadly the idealized framework for the aggregate site that Kyle positions in this episode isn't quite how it works out.