Topic: New idea for NWR Reviews...

[UncleBob]

I'm tired of the griping about the reviews on NWR.  So I'd like to suggest a crazy idea... How about posting reviews without "scores"?  Then people will actually have to read the reviews and form an opinion based on that, instead of reading the score first and automatically thinking the worst.

[NWR_pap64]

Better yet, why not ban ALL review discussion from the site? Just post the review and forbid anyone to discuss it.

In all seriousness, I know some have jumped into conclusions, but many of us actually read the review and form a serious opinion about it.

I know you guys have the right to post opinions, but this sounds like you want us to "deal" with the reviews and not even form an opinion of them.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Better yet, why not ban ALL review discussion from the site? Just post the review and forbid anyone to discuss it.

In all seriousness, I know some have jumped into conclusions, but many of us actually read the review and form a serious opinion about it.

I know you guys have the right to post opinions, but this sounds like you want us to "deal" with the reviews and not even form an opinion of them.

No, I think we should just ban Pap from posting replies to reviews. That would solve everything!

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Better yet, why not ban ALL review discussion from the site? Just post the review and forbid anyone to discuss it.

In all seriousness, I know some have jumped into conclusions, but many of us actually read the review and form a serious opinion about it.

I know you guys have the right to post opinions, but this sounds like you want us to "deal" with the reviews and not even form an opinion of them.

No, I think we should just ban Pap from posting replies to reviews. That would solve everything!

Golden, I know you have the tendency to "mess" around with me, but I would appreciate if you stopped doing it.

Seriously, I am trying to be serious and bring an argument to the table. I would GREATLY appreciate if you left the sarcastic wit for some other time.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I do think Uncle Bob has a point though, there are many of us (yes including me) that tend to jump all over a review without even considering what was stated, and instead focusing on the score. Heck there are even times when some of NWR's reviews have been harpooned from people who haven't even played the game (Reminds me alot of Evan's Sonic review).

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I do think Uncle Bob has a point though, there are many of us (yes including me) that tend to jump all over a review without even considering what was stated, and instead focusing on the score. Heck there are even times when some of NWR's reviews have been harpooned from people who haven't even played the game (Reminds me alot of Evan's Sonic review).

I know that we have disagreed on this issue many a time. Still, this doesn't give you the right to throw sarcastic jokes and comments about my person.

That's what annoys me the most. We disagree on this issue, fine. But I think I don't deserve to have it shoved in my face every chance you get.

[mottsc]

I think scores are still necessary so it can be included in gamerankings.com which could potentially drive more traffic to the site.

I don't think you can reasonably ban all discussion of reviews, but not making it have a talkback would reduce discussion.

How about more promotion of the Reader Reviews forum so people are more likely to post their own reviews? An automatic to a reader review thread for that game. It would create one if it didn't already exist. Or maybe a way for NWR users to have a quick ranking of what they felt of the game akin to the easily selectable stars in youtube to rank videos.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I do think Uncle Bob has a point though, there are many of us (yes including me) that tend to jump all over a review without even considering what was stated, and instead focusing on the score. Heck there are even times when some of NWR's reviews have been harpooned from people who haven't even played the game (Reminds me alot of Evan's Sonic review).

I know that we have disagreed on this issue many a time. Still, this doesn't give you the right to throw sarcastic jokes and comments about my person.

That's what annoys me the most. We disagree on this issue, fine. But I think I don't deserve to have it shoved in my face every chance you get.

Considering I was just playing around and joking (Do you honestly believe I want you banned from the NWR review topics?), but you feel the need to turn this into something more I'll be much obliged to face you on it. To put it bluntly I think it is STUPID to defend a game you haven't played based on your friends, it is stupid when I do it, and it is stupid when others do it. The opinion is 2nd hand and nothing more, the only impact your friends should have when it comes to entertainment should be in order to recommend or not recommend something, not to harpoon reviewers for fearing criticism, when you yourself have no hands on experience with what you are attacking them on.

Do I agree with NWR's reviews all the time? No I don't, in fact there is usually a big disconnect, but I RESPECT them and their opinion and feel each one has legitimate beefs regarding games, and like anything, some flaws in games will irk one person more than another. That is how people are, some people may be able to overlook or "learn" poor controls in a game, but for another it may be the turning point when it comes to creating a negative opinion. This is why reviews should be read for their content not their review score, and judged based on that. Maybe you can ask for them to clarify something if you are thinking of renting or buying the game, but for blatantly DEFENDING the game without playing it is silly.

[Karl Castaneda #2]

John Davison from Ziff Davis mentioned taking away scores from Computer Gaming World once, and that people were really unhappy about it. The reasoning for that is, people don't like to have things taken away from them. It's alright to augment the experience, but to remove from it does a disservice to the readerbase.

Review discussion in talkback is totally welcome and in no way frowned upon. When we argue with you guys (and we do, as you all know), we're not doing so because we don't respect your opinions. We do so because we disagree with what you're saying, just like you disagree with what we're saying. The only time when we have to take an administrative action is when it stops being about the game and becomes about the person.

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I do think Uncle Bob has a point though, there are many of us (yes including me) that tend to jump all over a review without even considering what was stated, and instead focusing on the score. Heck there are even times when some of NWR's reviews have been harpooned from people who haven't even played the game (Reminds me alot of Evan's Sonic review).

I know that we have disagreed on this issue many a time. Still, this doesn't give you the right to throw sarcastic jokes and comments about my person.

That's what annoys me the most. We disagree on this issue, fine. But I think I don't deserve to have it shoved in my face every chance you get.

Considering I was just playing around and joking (Do you honestly believe I want you banned from the NWR review topics?), but you feel the need to turn this into something more I'll be much obliged to face you on it. To put it bluntly I think it is STUPID to defend a game you haven't played based on your friends, it is stupid when I do it, and it is stupid when others do it. The opinion is 2nd hand and nothing more, the only impact your friends should have when it comes to entertainment should be in order to recommend or not recommend something, not to harpoon reviewers for fearing criticism, when you yourself have no hands on experience with what you are attacking them on.

Do I agree with NWR's reviews all the time? No I don't, in fact there is usually a big disconnect, but I RESPECT them and their opinion and feel each one has legitimate beefs regarding games, and like anything, some flaws in games will irk one person more than another. That is how people are, some people may be able to overlook or "learn" poor controls in a game, but for another it may be the turning point when it comes to creating a negative opinion. This is why reviews should be read for their content not their review score, and judged based on that. Maybe you can ask for them to clarify something if you are thinking of renting or buying the game, but for blatantly DEFENDING the game without playing it is silly.

First of all, I NEVER bashed the reviewers. I simply questioned their intentions and opinions. It is my belief that NWR reviews scores and reviews have been awfully negative in the past few months, which I find weird. I understand that its their opinion and their job, but that doesn't mean I can't raise an eyebrow if I see something weird or call it out.

Second, I KNOW that in the end the opinions that matter in ANY subject are mine. That doesn't mean that I can't trust some opinions better than others.

Like I explained in the other thread, I tend to respect my friends' opinions better because in the past they have been spot on with mine. That also includes movies, anime series and TV series.

Hell, even when I enjoyed a game better than they did I still find myself agreeing with what they thought about it (for example, I enjoyed Rocket Slime far more than SB did, but I agreed with him that once the game was over it was over).

Also, I tend to respect gamers' opinion better than some other reviews. So if the general agreement is that a certain game is at the very least decent and worth a try, then I'm inclined to believe that the game might not be so bad.

And no, I honestly didn't believe that you wanted me banned from reviews discussion. However, the constant jokes and sarcasm you use whenever I bring an opinion on something (generally something you disagree with) shows that part of you is annoyed by it. After all, I know that sometimes anger disguises itself as annoyance or anger.

[UncleBob]

I never meant to imply that anyone did not read the review and come up with counterpoints.  It is my opinion, however, that the majority of people who go out of their way to read a review already have an idea in their mind about what they expect from the game.  If it is a game they like (or want to like) and there's a low score posted, their initial reaction is to look for things in the review that, for whatever reason, they believe are wrong.  The opposite is true as well - if it is a game someone isn't expecting to like (or already knows that they don't) and the review has a high score, then, again, they'll go out of their way to find things they think are "wrong".

I am of the opinion that taking out the "score" will force individuals to read through the review and actually make their own determination as to what the reviewer thought of the game - instead of going into the review with a pre-formed opinion of the review.

[mottsc]

So I went back to look at the early Gamecube reviews and do a few stats. By the way, King of Fighters EX: Neoblood is listed as a GC review but it should be in the GBA section.

For the time the Wii has been out, there have been 35 total reviews, and in that same time period, 35 for the Gamecube. Good job on keeping that up!

The average Wii score has been 6.6 while the average Gamecube score for that period was 7.9.

So let's say you take out hardware reviews, that leaves 33 Wii games and 27 for the Gamecube and the scores are 6.5 and 7.9 respectively.

Now the Wii has been subject to more licensed crap and ports in this time than the Gamecube might have been so if for argument we assume that the bottom 6 are made of these and remove those to make the number of games match between the two systems match the Wii average rises to 7.1. That's not necessarily a very fair comparison though.

How about how they break down into score ranges?

Gamecube - 27 total

1. 0
   
2. 0
   
3. 1
   
4. 1
   
5. 0
   
6. 1
   
7. 6
   
8. 10
   
9. 9
   
10. 0
    

Wii - 33 total

1. 0
   
2. 0
   
3. 2
   
4. 4
   
5. 2
   
6. 12
   
7. 5
   
8. 5
   
9. 2
   
10. 1
    

Now looking at this the Wii reviews seem to better represent the average kind of bell curve you would expect from a pool of reviews. My guess is that PCG, now NWR, reviews evolved to this over time. Looking at the Gamecube review clustering I think it's biased a little high. I think the Gamecube had a strong launch but I don't believe that over 2/3 of the launch games deserved a 8 or higher, or 90% deserved a 7 or higher.

Going into this mini-analysis I figured both would turn out about the same or at least have a similar distribution pattern. Color me surprised.

[oohhboy]

A pretty good work there mottsc. I am not suprised that it worked out that way. I do agree somewhat that the launch scores for GC was judged abit too optimisticly. But the games released for the GC at the time were better than whatever else out there at the time. Alot of them would not holdup today, but given the context of the time, it was perfectly justified.

I have no beef with the review system then or now. As long as the reviewers hold themselfs up to a standard and justify what they write, they should keep doing what they are doing now.

As for joke reviews, it only social justice that we receive form of repartation for companies unleashing pain and suffering upon the world. If it stop someone from buying a bad game or provide the stimulus to turn one in to a good game, then you guys have done your job.

[TheYoungerPlumber]

Back to the original topic, PGC/NWR has considered removing scores on multiple ocaissions, actually.  I think Jonny and others on staff feel that scores are a necessary evil expected of reviews such as ours--each reviewer, each reader, and each site/magazine has a different idea of what a 8/10 or 4/5 or B+ or whatever really means.  The text is the meat of the review, and a good review should justify (directly or indirectly) the numbers given.

I think it is perfectly common to agree with a review but not its score.  For example, back when I reviewed Mario Golf on GBA I gave it a 7.5.  A week or so later a reader emailed me saying my score seemed somewhat harsh, and you know what?  I agreed.  I did not disagree with anything I had written, but felt I had weighed those complaints too heavily into my scores.  

[Bloodworth]

I think you should just use a random number generator to determine review scores.   That way when someone complains you can say, "I didn't agree with that score either, but that's how it came out."

[Plugabugz]

I suggested a dual-review setup. two people review the game (one an expert in that field, one not) and the overall scores are averaged out.

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
I think you should just use a random number generator to determine review scores.   That way when someone complains you can say, "I didn't agree with that score either, but that's how it came out."

How about a random number generator that pulls out a different number every time you load it?

[UltimatePartyBear]

As much as I'd like to think that the review text should be enough by itself, I don't think it would work.  I've seen quite a few reviews that sounded very positive about a game but gave it a middling score.  I've also seen reviews with high scores that are full of nitpicks that make the reviewer sound down on the game.  Without the scores to color the reviews, it can be hard to figure out what the reviewer really thinks.  The score is a map of how to read the review, whether that's intentional or not.

On the other hand, maybe that problem would disappear if reviewers didn't think they had to justify or qualify their scores.

[oohhboy]

They have to justify/quanitfy thier opinions. Scores are needed since gives at a minimim, a baseline for the reader to interperate a review. With out this "hard' number, all you get is a bunch words like great, excellent, good, ledgendary, amazing, crap, horrible, rubbish and other nice words that would make up an unoffical and highly speculative rating system. Atleast with numbers, it is impossible to argue which one is higher since everyone knows the right answer to that question.

The actual number that a game deserves maybe in question for any game, but it is far better than thing at all.

[UncleBob]

"Scores are needed since gives at a minimim, a baseline for the reader to interperate a review"

The problem with that idea though, is that every individual (both reviewer and reader) is going to have their own idea of what the "baseline" for a particular score is.  There are those who think anything above a 5 is "average" while there are those who don't think anything below a "7" is average.

So if you think "5" means average, but I rate a game a "7" thinking that it's average, then you're going to disagree with my review because I rated it higher than you thought it deserved.  And if you rate a game at "6" (slightly above your average) and I think it was an 8 (slightly above my average), then I'll think you cheated the game out of a good review.

Meanwhile, if I write a review that says "This game is average because..." and you write a a review "This game is slightly above average because..."

Maybe that's what needs to be done!  Similar to the VC reccomendation system, instead of raking reviews 1-10, we need a "Poor"-"Excellent" rating system.  Instead of giving games meaningless numbers that everyone reads differently, how about summing up the game in one word?

[Athrun Zala]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
I'm tired of the griping about the reviews on NWR.  So I'd like to suggest a crazy idea... How about posting reviews without "scores"?  Then people will actually have to read the reviews and form an opinion based on that, instead of reading the score first and automatically thinking the worst.

I agree... somewhat

I think it'd better if scores are removed, the Pros/Cons are not, and add the "Recommended for..." from the VC reviews (obviously a bit changed, and adding others like "Recommended for RPG purists/Anime fans/etc"). That way, there are guidelines, and no score-generated ambiguousness (as the score itself is pretty open to interpretation)

[oohhboy]

The reason why most people see "7" as average is that is the point where people feel that they are getting their minimim bang per buck if they paid full price or near it. That 7 is not the average score at all. That is the mid point on the scale of good.

Anything below 5 is already considered rubbish and degrees of rubbish. Anything above 5 is a scale of increasing good. If price is removed, then most people would be happy to play something that is 5 or above. Whether they finish the game or not is another matter all togeather. Since they got it at zero cost they can discard it at zero cost.

It is supply and demand boiled down to a single number.

[UncleBob]

...to a single number that has different meanings to different people.  Which is where the majority of the problems lie.

Don't get me wrong, I still think some individuals would have the initial knee-jerk reaction if they saw a "score" they disagreed with, no matter if it were an ambigious number of 5.5 or an clearly worded "average" ranking... but at least it would get the point across that just because the title is scred some various vauge number, it doesn't mean the person reviewing it though it was horribly bad or greatly good...

[that Baby guy]

You should rate things by different popcorn brands.

This game had a little too much salt, so I give it an Act II out of V.

[oohhboy]

Writing or doing anything for ithe insane or the extreamists isn't going to help anybody. Any review should be able to fit around 90% of it's target audience. If this site were to give 10's to every Nintendo game just because of the fanboys, then any meaning in the score would obviously be lost. It would be the same if a crap game was given a 6 just because people think 7 is the real average.

There are times where I do question the score. Anybody can and will fall out of that 90% - 95% from time to time. Everytime that happens, I reread, then I place myself in the reviewers view point in order to understand why they scored and written the review as they did. 99% of the time, unless there is some sort of hidden motive behind the review, all is well.

The problem is most people don't think anymore. Worse than sheep. Atleast sheep learn to stay the hell away from electric fences, but people have stop doing even that. Never learn, never listen, never learn from their own and others mistakes.

Without the score, nobody is going to read the review. For the masses there is nothing to hang on to and with that you might as well type the entire thing in pure 42 53.