« My Portal Achievements is a Lie | Main | Tasty Links for March 6 2007 »
Why Rating Videogames Based on Numbers is Completely Stupid
I have been playing videogames for decades now, reading about them for decades and have been writing about them for several years now and I have something that I have to get off my chest about game reviews. There is absolutely no good reason to rate a videogame on a linear scale between "Good" and "Bad". Summarizing the value of a game based on letters, numbers or stars is really the exact same thing. There is no decent reason to make a simple chart from good to bad and apply it to how people might enjoy a game.
There are so many factors about a game that determine how you can enjoy it. Each team that developed a game might have a completely different goal, different budget, time schedule, hardware requirements and target audience. When reviewing a game you need to consider how successful is the game is in what the developers were trying to do and how audiences might play and enjoy it.
About the only way that I could ever see a point to a limited rating system was if there was a contest to make a Mario Kart, Tetris or Space Invader clone on the same platform, using the exact same tools.
Should a game that is short but creative game like Portal be rated lower than a formulaic mediocre game that is derivative of every other FPS shooter out there? What specifically make a casual Xbox Live Arcade Game rated 8.7 better than an 8bit NES game RPG rated 9.8, or an first person shooter on PS3 rated 8.4. It's all pointless.
Marketing, price point, installed base, shelf space and opportunity all are more specific influences on if a game will sell than some number or letter slapped on it by a reviewer.
While I am on my virtual soap box I also want to say that I also think grouping gamers is wrong. I do think the Wii is a gamer orientated machine. I am a gamer and I like my Wii. I am not sure if I buy into the whole idea of a particular system being for one particular kind of game or gamer. I don’t think things are as cut and dry as dividing gamers into groups of “Casual” “Mainstream” “Hard Core” and “Sports” categories. Sure there are more of certain kind of game on each platform and each platform has had different success in capturing a following and software library but there are plenty of games to appeal to each kind of gamer and people tend to like a variety of games. I think I am a “Hard Core” gamer but I also play “Mainstream” games and occasionally love to play “Casual” games.
There is almost no consensus between gamers and so limiting a game review to a numerical scale that does not take in consideration the specifics of the who and what of the game and it's potential audience. Different people will get different things out of each game. Not every movie, book or album is meant for the exact same audience. To me Katamari Daimacy would be a 9.9, other might hate it and give it a 2.2 and both would be completely valid estimations of the game.
I understand that rating a game with a number helps Metacritic.com but I don’t think it makes an interesting or accurate review that is fair to the game developers and the games wide varied audiences.
I would give this rant a 7.75 and 4.1 stars.
Jake at March 4, 2008 
Rants
Comments
I agree 100%
Posted by: pete at March 4, 2008 10:29 PM
I completely disagree and *LOL* @ pete (a friendly grin though) that he agrees by exactly expressing numbers.
Scores are important because people want to have a bottom line and they want to compare games on a grander scale (that's where Metacritic/Gamestats etc. comes into play).
I understand and appreciate the article yet it's the same futile attempt as if you wanted to remove the Gallon-per-mile or horsepower numbers from a car ad.
Posted by: Jim at March 5, 2008 11:39 AM
damn straight.
Posted by: Alan at March 5, 2008 1:15 PM
Goodness, what a remarkable insight! I'm sure nobody else has ever pointed out that numeric scales are inadequate and misleading representations of subjective experiences. All these game journalists could learn a thing or two from you, eh! I'm sure when the magazines hear about your revelation, why, those rating systems will be out the window in a flash!
/sarcasm - yes, we know. This is OLD GROUND. Unfortunately, ratings are a necessity dictated by idiots and marketing men (note: these are not mutually exclusive identifiers).
Posted by: Alc at March 5, 2008 1:25 PM
"To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment."
I'm genuinely interested to see whether or not you're honest enough to post criticism as well as praise on your comments page. We shall see.
Posted by: Alc at March 5, 2008 1:29 PM
Alc I would rate your comment a 2.5. It's semi-well written but not wholly an original idea. Plus I am going to take off a half a point for your skepticism of my anti spam comment throttling. I also don't think your sarcasm was particularly efficient as was a bit wordy. DIGG DOWN So I would rank your comment a 2.0.
You would have scored higher had you made up your own words.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at March 5, 2008 1:40 PM
Assuming you're rating me on a scale of 0 to 2.5, I'd say that's fair. I'm a bit confused about the "making up words" bit, though. How's "uflede bemause eil're rething"? Do I get my full 2.5 now?
Posted by: Alc at March 5, 2008 2:36 PM
Actually it was a scale of -3.52 to 3.5 with an optional banana bonus of two and a half peels if the graphics are extra good.
On the internet.. there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at March 5, 2008 2:54 PM
The tool is flawed in its perceived necessity, yet remains a useful one. I don't at all agree with the statement that a game review should be simplified down to a number or numbers. However, I don't have forever to read 20 different critics' opinions. I will generally check out a few reviews: I try to find out what the playstyle is like, any major flaws, and the general emotion of the reviewer upon finishing the game. Suppose I only happen upon negative reviews for game X. I decide not to buy it. But, then, I happen upon a ~90% metareview score for 50 reviews. I would definitely reconsider buying it and read more of the positive reviews.
-----"When reviewing a game you need to consider how successful is the game is in what the developers were trying to do and how audiences might play and enjoy it."----
The main issue with this is whether or not one, as a gamer, cares whether the developer did versus what they were trying to do. On top of that you have to ask if it is even a worthy task. The first question is somewhat easy (generally we know from the public relations stuff they put out what they were aiming at), but the second is rather difficult. Worthiness is a hard thing to define. Suppose I make tic-tac-toe for the DS. Worthy? I doubt it - no one's going to pay $30 or even $20 for it. They have a pen and paper that'll suffice for $0. It isn't a worthy venture, in my mind, to program this as anything but an exercise. Other factors play into this, but it's also largely subjective. To someone who plays a ton of EverQuest, Team Fortress 2 might just be another wave in the FPS pool. Turn that around and you get my opinion - EQ's just another way of siphoning more money out of pockets every month; TF2 is one of the few FPSes I can enjoy.
Posted by: Robert at March 5, 2008 5:09 PM
