Comments on: Meaningful Review Scores

By: Jazz Brousseau

Jazz Brousseau — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:16:47 +0000

I like.

Now where’s that Mirror’s Edge review, huh?

By: Travis

Travis — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:25:04 +0000

As I mentioned before, I don’t think the histrionics category is really a good idea. The point of reading a review is to see whether the hype is true or not, often enough. Writing a review means distancing yourself from the hype as much as possible.

The fact that reviews DO include the hype in their scores already does not justify it. It simply describes a fact that is a problem. What your review system does is create the illusion that the hype score has been distilled from the other scores, when in fact it has not.

If you are inevitably and inseparably influenced by the hype, as we all are, then your other scores will be influenced by it. And if that’s the case, then creating a separate hype score is an attempt to deny that influence on those other scores that undermines the value of the whole review. You are still trying to “escape” the influence of hype, but all you’re doing is masking it even further.

By: ethdem

ethdem — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:35:22 +0000

I like the whole thing. It’s great. The histrionics meter is perfect because it acknowledges that present hype is actually being employed and 5 years later when the game isn’t even a footnote it can be yanked in two seconds to provide a score of the game’s more immutable qualities.

Really the only thing that could make this scale more honest would be to post the number of advertising dollars re: this game on your site. You could create a score deflator!

It’s not gonna be implemented on everygame though, is it? (The histrionics score would only apply to like 5 titles and we’re not super serious. STA HIDDIN YASELF)

By: Wardrox

Wardrox — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:33:48 +0000

A very interesting idea. I would worry though that the results would be skewed in rather unorthodox, and potentially inaccurate ways. Giving GTA 4 a base line extra 25% because of it’s hype I think is dangerous.

Accounting for hype yes, but to actually give a game a merit based on the hype (or money spent on PR), I don’t think it the best idea.

Still, I would very much like to see you review a few games using this method. Just to see what types of games it favours.

By: Matthew Gallant

Matthew Gallant — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:07:51 +0000

I’m not sure I understand the purpose of the 6/5 rating, it strikes me as “it’s one louder” mentality. Is it because giving a 4/5 implies that there’s something wrong?

If I may continue to be contrary, I strongly disagree with the “histrionics” category. Some games get a free ride because they’re heavily marketed (GTA4) or critical darlings (Ico)? If a game is something “anyone who talks about games needs to play”, then I think its value should be reflected in one or all of the three previous categories.

Otherwise I really dig your review scale. It gets to the heart of what games fun, which is something most reviews fail utterly to do.

By: Katrina

Katrina — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:53:46 +0000

Fantastic scale, breakdown, and naming system! It’s always taxing trying to figure out how to categorize things, but it looks like you’ve got this down to a very fine art.

Cheers!

By: .tiff

.tiff — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:40:06 +0000

I like this. I think the point that appeals to me the most is the escapism rating, since it broadly covers all ranges of game immersion, whether it has a narrative of not.

I’m curious to hear more about your definition of hype (in the ‘histronics’ category), or rather, how do you judge a game that has no hype at all. I would imagine this is somewhat loosely defined by your personal expectations of the game + the blaggosphere’s expectation of the game… but what if none of those exist prior to playing something?

Either way. Good show! If I review any games on my blaggo, I’ll try your method out!