Gamespot or IGN?

[dieourumov]

Which do you guys prefer for majority of your gaming news? I prefer Gamespot for my news, as most of IGN's news and etc. is locked up under Insider, although i do have IGN insider. Gamespot reviews are stinky though, as well as IGN's.

[RCM]

I find that most prosites have solid news sections. That's about all they're good for.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Haoie]

I'd think that both of them are awful, ad chocked, and only worth looking at for short periods of time.

[Jasoco]

GameSpot. IGN is crap. Terrible crap. Horrible terrible crap.

Sad that I also like GameStop who is IGN but hate EB which is GameSpot. But who cares. GameSpot is the first source I go to to find out about a new upcoming or released game.

[Speedy_NES]

IGN. I only go to these sites for reviews, and I find GameSpot's reviews biased and sometimes very inaccurate.

-Speedy

[Roi]

IGN (Insider) ! They have great articles.

[njiska]

For reliable information Gamespot is better then IGN by leaps and bounds. But it's borring as all hell. IGNorrant, sorry, IGN just isn't credible, but at least they have some personality. IGN Insider is easily worth the money and it's just fun.

It's really hard to choose between the two but i'm giving my vote to gamespot because their news is more important then IGN's bells and whistles.

[Cryomancer]

Neither, I use the DP Wire, or the DP videogaming forum.

[phreak97]

ign is horribly biased against nintendo..
i am loyal to nintendo
= ign sucks

[Dart]

ign is horribly biased against nintendo..
i am loyal to nintendo
= ign sucks
If they're so biased against Nintendo, how come the top two games on their top 100 games of all time list (Ocarina of Time and Super Mario Bros.) were both made by Nintendo and how come they continue to give very high scores to almost every Nintendo game? Do your research first before making claims like that.

[DigitalSpace]

I go to Gamespot more often than IGN, so there's my pick. It's the lesser of two evils.

[slownerveaction]

That's like choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

[PDorr3]

Gamespot, it just seems more well put together, easier to access, I dont know really I just like their design better. IGN locks everything up with IGN Insider as well.

[shvnsth]

gamespot sucks. if its a game worth playing, but has crap graphics, the score goes down, and you would have to read a 5 pg article to figure that out. ign does score some a little too high (eternal darkness 9.6?), but ive found that anything that ign gives a 9 or high is def worth my time. ign is way better, and covers more stuff.

[Lothars]

I would say IGN by far

I find Gamespot is really bias against specific things, though i do read both review normally and most times other than a few instances i prefer IGN

depends for news they are basically the same.

[Jasoco]

IGN is clunky. Horribly laid out. Not intuative at all. And ugly as hell.

I reiterate. GameSpot rocks the casbah.

[Super Mario Fan]

ign is horribly biased against nintendo..
i am loyal to nintendo
= ign sucks
If they're so biased against Nintendo, how come the top two games on their top 100 games of all time list (Ocarina of Time and Super Mario Bros.) were both made by Nintendo and how come they continue to give very high scores to almost every Nintendo game? Do your research first before making claims like that.


No, because he spends time at GameFAQ's where you are brainwashed to think that way. Unlesss, of course, IGN gave a NIntendo game a high score, then they're the fucking shit.

[THATinkjar]

Whichever has the current exclusive preview or review is my favourite :)

[Milk]

I avoid both as much as possible. I hate clicking links to them because of all the ads. I'd rather read Digital Press or fan sites, or even GameFAQs.

[Half Japanese]

GameSpot rocks the casbah.

So I'm guessing Shariff don't like it?

[§ Gideon §]

Sad that I also like GameStop who is IGN but hate EB which is GameSpot. But who cares.
Uhh... Aren't they sorta one, big, happy family now?

[calthaer]

I second (or third, or whatever we're on now) the thought that Digitpress and other sites (Joystiq.com is one of my favorites) are better sites for news and reviews on games. I'd even prefer 1up.com to IGN and Gamespot. I also saw recently that they discontinued that "Gamespotting" set of weekly columns / rants. Why'd they do that? That was actually the only thing I ever went to that site to read. I stopped giving much credence to their review scores a while back - seems like those guys favor racing and fighting games, and not much else.

Gamespy i don't mind too too much. But again, I'd prefer to get my news from some of the smaller sites that have not yet been "bought" by the publishers with goodies, treats, and corporate trips.

Besides, those ads are pretty annoying.

[zmweasel]

Gamespy i don't mind too too much. But again, I'd prefer to get my news from some of the smaller sites that have not yet been "bought" by the publishers with goodies, treats, and corporate trips.

By "corporate trips," I assume you mean the increasingly rare occasions when publishers fly game journos to development studios that aren't in the Bay Area. I wouldn't consider that being "bought." Also, most magazines won't allow publishers to cover any of their travel expenses. The days of lavish all-expenses-paid junkets are all but over.

As for "goodies" and "treats," I assume you mean the promotional T-shirts and other tchotchkes that publishers often send along with review copies to get some attention. I wouldn't consider that being "bought," either. There's very little difference between these promotional items and the pre-order items handed out to consumers.

While there are those who'd like to believe that magazines and websites are on game publishers' payrolls, it's simply not the case.

-- Z.

[Gamereviewgod]

Gamespot. IGNs redesign last year or whenever ruined it for me. I still check in once in a while. They tend to drag their reviews out far too long too.

[tylerwillis]

I find IGN easier to navigate and get the basic info I need.

Of course, Gamespot and Opera (my web browser) don't seem to like each other... so... yeah.

[PS2Hawk]

GameSpot, IGN is a bunch of morons overrating every single game.

[zmweasel]

GameSpot, IGN is a bunch of morons overrating every single game.

Have you actually compared GameSpot's and IGN's ratings to other magazine and website ratings? There's no pattern of "overrating" by either site. Anyone who browses gamerankings.com for five minutes can compile enough examples to thoroughly disprove your claim.

Are there any magazines or websites you feel aren't staffed by "a bunch of morons"?

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

I enjoy Gamespot, as they seem to have an absolute golden standard thats nearly impossible to meet, which makes games getting over a 9.5 a pretty monumental occasion.

I certainly think that Gamespot has some kind of superiority complex going on, but that's perfect. They're completely haughty and stuck up and when they set that aside to truly praise a game it really speaks louder than IGN's general over-rating (in pure relation to Gamespot).

[slownerveaction]

Have you actually compared GameSpot's and IGN's ratings to other magazine and website ratings? There's no pattern of "overrating" by either site. Anyone who browses gamerankings.com for five minutes can compile enough examples to thoroughly disprove your claim.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8370&section=media&email=

As you can see from those purdy graphs, IGN does, in fact, score higher than GameSpot, although they're far from the easiest graders. In the big-time gaming web site world, they grade noticably higher than either GameSpot or 1Up (but not as high as GameSpy).

The article's a couple months old, but it's the only comparison of its kind that I know of.

[zmweasel]

Have you actually compared GameSpot's and IGN's ratings to other magazine and website ratings? There's no pattern of "overrating" by either site. Anyone who browses gamerankings.com for five minutes can compile enough examples to thoroughly disprove your claim.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8370&section=media&email=

As you can see from those purdy graphs, IGN does, in fact, score higher than GameSpot, although they're far from the easiest graders. In the big-time gaming web site world, they grade noticably higher than either GameSpot or 1Up (but not as high as GameSpy).

The article's a couple months old, but it's the only comparison of its kind that I know of.

It's eight months old, actually, so the percentages have certainly shifted, but it's interesting nonetheless.

According to this piece, IGN's average rating is slightly less than 3% higher than GameSpot's. So, technically, IGN does rate higher than GameSpot--but the difference is negligible. I defy anyone, for example, to rationally explain why IGN giving a 7.6 is outrageous by comparison to GameSpot issuing a 7.3.

The piece also points out that "the vast number of small and specialist websites that GameRankings counts are more than enough to counterbalance" the lower-than-average scores given out by prosites. In other words, the little guys can usually be "bought" by simply sending 'em a retail copy.

-- Z.

[slownerveaction]

It's eight months old, actually, so the percentages have certainly shifted, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Probably only by marginal amounts since neither site has had an editorial overhaul since November.


According to this piece, IGN's average rating is slightly less than 3% higher than GameSpot's. So, technically, IGN does rate higher than GameSpot--but the difference is negligible. I defy anyone, for example, to rationally explain why IGN giving a 7.6 is outrageous by comparison to GameSpot issuing a 7.3.

It's actually deviation from average (sourced from GameRankings), which is different.

For example, let's say a game gets an 80% rating from Game Rankings. IGN would be .6% higher than that: 8.48 (8.5 if you rounded to the nearest tenth). GameSpot would be 1.9% lower: 7.872 (7.9). On the other hand, a score 2.5% lower than 8.48 would be 8.268.


The piece also points out that "the vast number of small and specialist websites that GameRankings counts are more than enough to counterbalance" the lower-than-average scores given out by prosites. In other words, the little guys can usually be "bought" by simply sending 'em a retail copy.

I'd say that's a pretty glib assumation. Smaller sites could score higher for a number of reasons.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, calcuating the difference by the deviation from average means that the higher the average score, the bigger the difference. It's a somewhat confusing way to do it, but I guess it was the best option for comparing a bunch of different review sources against the overall average.

[zmweasel]

Probably only by marginal amounts since neither site has had an editorial overhaul since November.

Each site has published hundreds of new reviews over the past eight months, which would certainly change the percentages. Unfortunately, GameDaily doesn't say how many scores they compared for each magazine and website, so we don't know how much of a difference the recent scores would make.


For example, let's say a game gets an 80% rating from Game Rankings. IGN would be .6% higher than that: 8.48 (8.5 if you rounded to the nearest tenth). GameSpot would be 1.9% lower: 7.872 (7.9). On the other hand, a score 2.5% lower than 8.48 would be 8.268.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. There's certainly still not enough difference between the two averages to be significant, of course.


I'd say that's a pretty glib assumation. Smaller sites could score higher for a number of reasons.

Such as?

(I should point out that I make my statement based on three years' of personal experience at Working Designs. Fansites adored us simply for acknowledging their existence via press-release emails; review copies would send them into orgasmic bliss. From chatting with PR friends at other publishers, it's no different for them.)

-- Z.

[slownerveaction]

I'd say that's a pretty glib assumation. Smaller sites could score higher for a number of reasons.

Such as?

-- Z.

Well there are probably more than I could ever possibly get into, considering the wide range of smaller "enthusiast" sites. Ones I've come across:

1. They tend to be staffed by more fanboy-ish writers, who are much more likely to go overboard with their ingrained biases.

2. The writers tend to be less experienced, and thus, less jaded and/or critical. A writer from a pro source might score the 500th generic 3D platformer a lot lower than the writer for gamezrawk.com (fictional site!) reviewing the same game when it's his 5th generic 3D platformer.

3. The coverage on smaller sites tends to be less comprehensive on the whole and more geared towards the personal interests of the writers. If you're reviewing mostly the sorts of games you like, you're bound to score them higher than average.

It really depends on the site, since they all have their own unique identify and situation. I don't think you could say the statistically higher scores from smaller sites are due to one reason. To even get close you'd need to analyze each site by itself. I'm sure some, but certainly not all, are affected by the allure of free games.

EDIT: To throw my own personal ancedote in, the only smaller web site ranked at Game Ranking and MetaCritic I wrote for had most of its reviews done by one guy (not me, since I did mostly feature stuff) who tended to score games on the high end of the scale. Some games he got free copies; some he had to buy himself. It never seemed to affect his score either way.

[zmweasel]

And yet, most of the folks in this forum seem to prefer fansites to prosites, despite the excellent reasons you've given for why fansites should be disregarded as meaningful sources of information. I weep.

Also, here are GameRankings' links for the latest stats on IGN and GameSpot.

IGN: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sitedetails.asp?siteid=1188

Site's Avg Score for All: 7.0
Site's Avg Ratio For All: 70.4%
GR Avg Ratio for all titles this site has reviewed: 69.4%

GameSpot:
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sitedetails.asp?siteid=15

Site's Avg Score for All: 6.8
Site's Avg Ratio For All: 68.0%
GR Avg Ratio for All titles this site has reviewed: 69.6%

IGN's average score is 7.0, and GameSpot's average score is 6.8, the most insignificant difference yet.

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

On the whole, the titles that very few people give a shit about get fairly similar ranks from IGN and Gamespot, and while the averages come to be nearly the same, it's when you get up to the 9.0+ range that a .1 or .2 difference really starts to speak volumes. And really, there was just a string of time when IGN was really rating a whole lot of stuff 9.2+. Examples.

Jade Empire
IGN - 9.9
Gamespot - 8.4

Halo 2
IGN - 9.8
Gamespot - 9.4

Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition (Xbox)
IGN - 9.2
Gamespot - 8.3

Unreal Championship 2
IGN - 9.3
Gamespot - 9.0

NBA Street V3 (Xbox)
IGN - 9.4
Gamespot - 9.1

Resident Evil 4
IGN - 9.8
Gamespot - 9.6

Fable
IGN - 9.3
Gamespot - 8.6

These are just examples that fall in my favor. They certainly don't always vary that much (or always in that direction) but this is exactly why a 9.6 on RE4 from Gamespot means much much more to me than a 9.8 from IGN does.

As is with any rating publication (for games or otherwise) you have to put the score into the context of the publication itself. Each game, movie, or album has to fall into place with the rest of THAT publications history of ratings. Gamespot has a history of sending the good but not great titles to the mid 8's to low 9's. IGN sends them to to the low 9's to the mid 9's.

[zmweasel]

On the whole, the titles that very few people give a shit about get fairly similar ranks from IGN and Gamespot, and while the averages come to be nearly the same, it's when you get up to the 9.0+ range that a .1 or .2 difference really starts to speak volumes.

So it's not a big deal when a crappy game gets 4.3 from IGN and 4.1 from GameSpot, but it's a big deal when a great game gets 9.2 from IGN and 9.0 from GameSpot? It seems like you're just paying more attention to the review scores you consider more "important."

I know that ten- and hundred-point rating systems appeal to stat-crazed hardcore gamers (and game publishers' marketing departments), but they're ridiculously arbitrary. As Roger Ebert recently wrote of the four-star system his editors force him to use, "Those who consult only the stars have only themselves to blame. If stars were all that mattered, why would I go to the trouble of writing a review?"

Of course, the actual reviews are where both IGN and GameSpot disappoint; IGN's writers and editors mostly suck, while GameSpot's writers and editors are totally devoid of passion.

(To wildly digress, was it GameGO! that ran reviews without scores? I've long since lost my copy of the first/last issue.)

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

It does mean that much more at the high end. It does to me at least. I certainly read reviews, but usually only on Gamespots end for the reasons you just mentioned. They might be devoid of passion but they're able to convey to me in a usually concise manner what does and doesn't work about the game, and why.

As for the 100 point rating system, I think anything UNDER a 40 point (Game Informer) system is too general, and tends to lump games together that really shouldn't be given the same scores, and thats where the .1 or .3 or whatever matters at the high end. Now when some asstastic GBA game takes a 3.2 (of 10), no one bats an eye because it's likely a shitty game through and through, regardless of whos reviewing.

If a particular publication (using a 10 point system) wishes to rate Halo 2 higher than Halo 1, but doesn't feel either game makes for a perfect 10, there should be some middle ground to let people know at a glance that they feel the sequel is the superior game. If the publication rated Halo a 9 at the time of release it can't very well go back and change it to an 8, just so they can give Halo 2 a near-perfect 9. Of course the reader should read the review to be able to figure that out for themselves, but thats rarely the case. Thats why most online publications (with such huge back catalogs of reviews available at an instant) use such a huge rating system. When Metroid Prime scored a 9.7 at Gamespot, that spoke to the readers that they felt it was a FAR superior game to most everything they've reviewed in their past. Ocarina of Time scoring a perfect 10 (along with 3 other games) is a testement to the critical greatness it achieved.

And really, reviewing isn't so much for purchasing (to me) unless it really gets panned. I probably should have heeded the warnings from Suikoden IV, and while i finished it, it was a completely uninspired journey throughout. I KNOW I'm going to buy Killer 7 in the near future, unless it takes ranks at 50% or so on GameRankings. What I saw at E3 was very interesting, but if that's ALL the game has to offer then I shouldn't bother, I've seen it.

I dunno, I'd just like to see a few more points reserved for discerning the absolute greats at IGN. That's just how I feel.

[zmweasel]

I cringe at your use of the term "perfect 10," as I just finished reading (and agreeing with) this post by Tom Chick on quartertothree.com:

"It's always a little annoying to hear people refer to 10/10 or 5 stars as a perfect score. We all know there's no such thing as a perfect game, at least not in the literal sense of the word. Neither should there be any such thing as a perfect score.

"But there should be a maximum score, and you shouldn't be afraid to use it. That the typical 7-9 ratings system doesn't use its 1 through 6 is only half of the problem (okay, technically, 60% of the problem). The other half of the problem is that it's too cowardly to use its 10.

"So I was really pleased when Games Domain let me -- nay, even encouraged me based on my enthusiasm -- give Kirby Canvas Curse a big fat sloppy 10. It deserves it.

"It's been a good year for perfect scores. I've happily handed them out to God of War, Guild Wars, and now Kirby. None of which are perfect games, mind you, but each of which deserves the highest honors. And if you're not going to use your best numbers to extend those highest honors, then why have them?"

So why do you begrudge IGN for using its best numbers to extend its highest honors, when you should begrudge GameSpot for NOT using its best numbers?

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

So why do you begrudge IGN for using its best numbers to extend its highest honors, when you should begrudge GameSpot for NOT using its best numbers?

-- Z.

It does use it's best numbers, it just sets a higher standard for them. Undoubtedly any game that scores 9.0+ on either publication is worth playing to anyone, but to me personally a higher score from Gamespot holds more weight than a higher score from IGN.

As you mentioned, Gamespot is really dry, and they've got a very long and convoluted explanation of why they rate the way they do ( here (http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html) ), and pulled from there:

"What this means, in practice, is that a high score from GameSpot is worth more today than it was worth yesterday. Because standards are constantly increasing, you should always consider the point in time at which a game was reviewed as an important component of its overall rating. In other words, a game that earns a high score today is probably superior in overall quality to a game that earned the same score on our scale several years ago."

And also from the same page:

"However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards. A game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

They take scoring very seriously, probably too seriously. This is something I appreciate, and is obviously something you don't.

Beyond all the scores (which are all moot anyways), it has more to do with the reviewers feeling inline with how you do. If you listen to rap, you wouldn't bother with reviews from a reviewer that only likes country. I tend to agree with most of gamespots reviews so I trust them more than any other publication.

As for the "perfect 10", rate your own collection (or your own play experience). You probably won't put more than a half dozen games at the very top of it, and for whatever reasons there will likely be a plethora of games that fall directly beneath those but just don't achieve the level of greatness those select few do. As a reviewer you might give them all 10's, but everyone has a handfull of their own games that they consider to be "perfect 10's" and only those achieve the highest honors.

[zmweasel]

They take scoring very seriously, probably too seriously. This is something I appreciate, and is obviously something you don't.

I don't take review scores seriously because they're absurdly arbitrary (I dare anyone to define the difference between 5 and 6 on a 10-point "graphics" or "sound" scale) and tell you nothing about the game itself.

I've had to pull hundreds of scores out of my ass for the hundreds of magazine and website reviews I've written since '89, because editors and readers demanded them, and I've never enjoyed the process.

GameSpy actually had it right for a while, with the only rating system that kind of makes sense, a five-star scale with no halves. (Great, good, average, poor, shitty.) But then they added half-stars, making it a ten-point scale in disguise, and screwed it up.

-- Z.

[sabre2922]

Gamespot is great for News, Previews and free vids of games new or older, decent reviews (sometimes) but all and all still biased toward whatever is NEW or HOT not what is actually a good game wether it be on Newer hardware or older I.E. CURRENT CONSOLES.

IGN ugh terribly biased toward Sony and against Microsoft and especially Nintendo x_x hell they killed and buried the Gamecube years ago they shit on the system from day one and would try to make up for it by praising a select few games like the Metroid Prime series, RE4 and the upcoming Zelda for GC but it seems they are nothing but Sony and Halo brainwashed zombies they represent what defines the "casual gamer" attitude in my opinion.

[Ed Oscuro]

GameSpy over IGN, but GameSpy doesn't have all the coverage those others do, admitted.

[slownerveaction]

And yet, most of the folks in this forum seem to prefer fansites to prosites, despite the excellent reasons you've given for why fansites should be disregarded as meaningful sources of information. I weep.

Well... yeah. Smaller sites have their uses (hyping games that might get overlooked by the major sites, organizing communities around niche genres), but unbiased sources they are not.


Also, here are GameRankings' links for the latest stats on IGN and GameSpot.

IGN: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sitedetails.asp?siteid=1188

Site's Avg Score for All: 7.0
Site's Avg Ratio For All: 70.4%
GR Avg Ratio for all titles this site has reviewed: 69.4%

GameSpot:
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sitedetails.asp?siteid=15

Site's Avg Score for All: 6.8
Site's Avg Ratio For All: 68.0%
GR Avg Ratio for All titles this site has reviewed: 69.6%

IGN's average score is 7.0, and GameSpot's average score is 6.8, the most insignificant difference yet.

-- Z.

Well, that's not too different from GameDaily's findings, but it is interesting. There's a lot more stuff in the GameRankings stats worth noting, like this: 1up actually has a higher overall average than either GameSpot or IGN, but the scores they do hand out for the games they review tend to deviate (-4% or so) from those games' average scores more than IGN or GameSpot do. In other words, they aren't as comprehensive a review source (1up almost never reviews small budget games like GameSpot and IGN do), but they're harder on what games they do review.

On scoring systems: A 4 or 5 star system is really the best option, although even those are somewhat arbitrary. GameSpot's ridiculous Zagat's-style statistic-heavy review system is by far the worst.

[hezeuschrist]

They take scoring very seriously, probably too seriously. This is something I appreciate, and is obviously something you don't.

I don't take review scores seriously because they're absurdly arbitrary (I dare anyone to define the difference between 5 and 6 on a 10-point "graphics" or "sound" scale) and tell you nothing about the game itself.

I totally agree, looking at a number means nothing. But when you have an entire database full of thousands of reviews, most of your readers will have played quite a few of the games you've already reviewed, and the score is simply there to put that game in line with the rest of the stuff you've reviewed, as better than, not as good as, or on par with similar titles. If God of War gets a 9.3 and Devil May Cry gets a 9.0, that tells me that whoever reviewed those games thought that God of War was a better experience than Devil May Cry. Thats all.

Esentially Gamespot is doing their best to have a "Best XXX games of all time" list set up without having to do a feature on it. If they do a feature as such, I would very much expect the games to be ranked very closely to the way they're scored.

I can understand how being freelance it would be pretty stupid to give any kind of a score because it'll be different for every publication.

[zmweasel]

Gamespot is great for News, Previews and free vids of games new or older, decent reviews (sometimes) but all and all still biased toward whatever is NEW or HOT not what is actually a good game wether it be on Newer hardware or older I.E. CURRENT CONSOLES.

So you're saying that GameSpot gives higher scores to games on more recently released hardware? It makes sense that the same game on multiple systems will receive a higher score on the newer hardware, since that console will have better audio/visuals, and receive higher scores in those categories (as with PS2 and Xbox versions). This certainly doesn't indicate bias on GameSpot's part, and I strongly suspect other multi-platform sites would follow the same scoring pattern.


IGN ugh terribly biased toward Sony and against Microsoft and especially Nintendo x_x

By "bias," I assume you mean that IGN scores GameCube and Xbox games, on average, lower than PS2 games? Because we can test that hypothesis via GameRankings.com.

IGN's average score for PS2 games: 7.2
IGN's average score for GameCube games: 7.0
IGN's average score for Xbox games: 7.3

Once again, a completely insignificant statistical difference. Your hypothesis is wrong-o.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

If God of War gets a 9.3 and Devil May Cry gets a 9.0, that tells me that whoever reviewed those games thought that God of War was a better experience than Devil May Cry.
You mean the original DMC? I suppose if you're lucky the same guy who reviewed DMC was still at the prosite..! Rating systems drift over time, and it's been a while between DMC and GoW.

[zmweasel]

If God of War gets a 9.3 and Devil May Cry gets a 9.0, that tells me that whoever reviewed those games thought that God of War was a better experience than Devil May Cry.
You mean the original DMC? I suppose if you're lucky the same guy who reviewed DMC was still at the prosite..! Rating systems drift over time, and it's been a while between DMC and GoW.

Right! We haven't touched on that aspect of rating systems yet. Prosites use a variety of reviewers, and each reviewer assigns different arbitrary numbers to the games he reviews.

When prosites try to correct for these individual biases and give the editorial a single "voice," they get accused of impropriety, as with GameSpy's Donkey Konga 2/Nich Maragos fiasco.

Let's just state it clearly: rating systems are incredibly flawed and essentially useless.

-- Z.

[sabre2922]

U got it right zmweasel ;)

Yes IGN is a Sony kiss a$$ most of the time far moreso than Gamespot or Gamespy in my opinion.

In fact when I think if IGN I have this vision of a bunch of freelance suits who have very little to no real interest and/or experience with video gaming at all sitting in their cubicles dreaming of writing for a "real" or serious publication like Time magazine and barely tolerating the fact that they have to review yet another Madden.

[zmweasel]

Yes IGN is a Sony kiss a$$ most of the time far moreso than Gamespot or Gamespy in my opinion.

Another easily tested hypothesis.

IGN's average score for PS2 games: 7.2
GameSpot's average score for PS2 games: 7.0
GameSpy's average score for PS2 games: 42.6 (impossible to compare to the others, because GS's rating system radically changed a couple years back)

Again, statistically insignficant--unless you actually want to try and argue that a .2 difference indicates bias.


In fact when I think if IGN I have this vision of a bunch of freelance suits who have very little to no real interest and/or experience with video gaming at all sitting in their cubicles dreaming of writing for a "real" or serious publication like Time magazine and barely tolerating the fact that they have to review yet another Madden.

I've met several of IGN's writers and editors (who are mostly in-house) at E3 and press events, and they're most certainly hardcore. You don't seem to remember IGN vets Dave Zdyrko and David Smith, two of the most hardcore gamers I've ever encountered. Dave Z's football-game reviews were so detailed and insightful that he ended up working for Visual Concepts.

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

If God of War gets a 9.3 and Devil May Cry gets a 9.0, that tells me that whoever reviewed those games thought that God of War was a better experience than Devil May Cry.
You mean the original DMC? I suppose if you're lucky the same guy who reviewed DMC was still at the prosite..! Rating systems drift over time, and it's been a while between DMC and GoW.

Yeah, but all reviewers follow the same guidelines in the link I posted earlier. And not only that, they go through extensive post-processing to ensure that the publication as a whole puts the game where they feel it needs to be.

And regardless, if it were two different reviewers that just tells me that the person who reviewed God of War felt it was a better game than Devil May Cry.

[SoulBlazer]

Very interesting discssion going on.

I like GameSpot a lot. More often then now, I find myself in full agreement with what they said about a game. If I've played the game or beaten it, and then later go back and read the review, I find myself nodding my head the whole way through in agreement.

Hez said this eariler:

I certainly read reviews, but usually only on Gamespots end for the reasons you just mentioned. They might be devoid of passion but they're able to convey to me in a usually concise manner what does and doesn't work about the game, and why.

And I feel the EXACT same way.

If anything, I think GameSpot's review scores are a little HARSH. Which might explain why IGN seems to have most games with a slight difference up.

But really, the score is usefull as a summary point, something quick to look at it and say 'wow, why did they give this game such a high score?' or 'damn! Why did they bash this? I've SO wanted to play it!'. Hopefully, that first reaction makes you do the more important thing -- READ THE REVIEW!

And yes, maybe GameSpot's reviews don't have much passion, but that's fine by me. They are detailed, insightfull, cover all aspects, and explain what makes a game work and what does not. Plus the site is clean, well organized, and easy to use.

Of course, as with any review you need to account for their biases and other factors, but over the years I've come to find myself in agreement with the vast majority of reviews GameSpot does for games.

I usually start, when I want to get scores and reviews for a game, at GameFAQ with a name search. That brings up a page that not only has reader scores, but also links to fan and pro sites with THEIR reviews. I can take everything in at once, and then click on a GameSpot or another site's review and read more detailed information about it.

I'm not a huge fan of the ranking system either, but it does have its purposes and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[zmweasel]

If anything, I think GameSpot's review scores are a little HARSH. Which might explain why IGN seems to have most games with a slight difference up.

Absolutely. IGN's average review score is .2 higher than GameSpot's because IGN isn't afraid to use the entire 10-point scoring range, whereas GameSpot puts artificial limits on high-end scores. Adjusted for this "deflation," GameSpot's average score would be the same as IGN's.

-- Z.

[SoulBlazer]

Actually, I prefer a slightly lower score. It means they are'nt afraid to give even a popular game a slightly lower score. I think a artificital limit on a 'too high' score can be a good thing, making sure that no game gets a 10.0. As you mentioned eariler, there is no such thing as a 'perfect game'.

[zmweasel]

Actually, I prefer a slightly lower score. It means they are'nt afraid to give even a popular game a slightly lower score. I think a artificital limit on a 'too high' score can be a good thing, making sure that no game gets a 10.0. As you mentioned eariler, there is no such thing as a 'perfect game'.

10.0 isn't a "perfect score"; it's merely indicative of a great game. To re-quote Tom Chick, "That the typical 7-9 ratings system doesn't use its 1 through 6 is only half of the problem (okay, technically, 60% of the problem). The other half of the problem is that it's too cowardly to use its 10..if you're not going to use your best numbers to extend those highest honors, then why have them?"

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

Actually, I prefer a slightly lower score. It means they are'nt afraid to give even a popular game a slightly lower score. I think a artificital limit on a 'too high' score can be a good thing, making sure that no game gets a 10.0. As you mentioned eariler, there is no such thing as a 'perfect game'.

10.0 isn't a "perfect score"; it's merely indicative of a great game. To re-quote Tom Chick, "That the typical 7-9 ratings system doesn't use its 1 through 6 is only half of the problem (okay, technically, 60% of the problem). The other half of the problem is that it's too cowardly to use its 10..if you're not going to use your best numbers to extend those highest honors, then why have them?"

-- Z.

10.0 is a perfect game at Gamespot, and they've given it to 4 games ever. From the very top of their scoring explanation page:

"GameSpot uses a numerical scale, which ranges from 1 to 10, for rating games. A "10" represents the best score possible (a perfect game), while a "1" represents the absolute worst score possible. The final score we assign to each game is provided to give you an at-a-glance sense of the quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform. However, we encourage our users to read our full reviews to give context to our scores. "

The games that are (or were) perfect in their eyes:

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)
Soul Calibur (DC)
Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3 (PS2)
Chrono Cross (PS)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decisions, they're there. IGN has given perfect 10's to 20 total titles, some of them multiples of the same game (Pokemon Blue/Red/Yellow). They're fairly held with their games as well, because when you look at them they're all pretty strictly handheld titles, in fact, Zelda:OoT and Soul Calibur are the only two console titles to take perfect 10's.

EDIT: It should also be noted that more than half of the perfect 10's at IGN were given by one person.

I reiterate the point: A perfect score (whatever it may be) should be held for the absolute pinnacle of gaming, which is not something a whole lot of titles deserve. As for the "only using 7-9," again:

"We believe the high end of our rating scale (the 8 and 9 range) works suitably well to distinguish truly outstanding games from all the others. However, most games aren't bad."

It's true, most games aren't that bad, but a whole lot of them are completely cookie cutter and very uninspired, so they get the 5's and 6's. At the other end, a game has to be truly horrid, broken even, to deserve a 1 or 2.

[slownerveaction]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time either IGN or GameSpot gave a 10.0? I think for IGN, it was Soul Calibur (which GameSpot also gave a 10 to). GameSpot, I think, last gave a 10 to THPS3. Both also gave 10s to OoT. And both would also seem to be scared of giving out 10s these days (as evidenced by IGN's 9.9s for GTA: SA and Jade Empire).

EDIT: Whoops, my question was answered pre-emptively right before I posted.

[zmweasel]

"GameSpot uses a numerical scale, which ranges from 1 to 10, for rating games. A "10" represents the best score possible (a perfect game), while a "1" represents the absolute worst score possible. The final score we assign to each game is provided to give you an at-a-glance sense of the quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform. However, we encourage our users to read our full reviews to give context to our scores."

GameSpot is in the wrong for claiming that a score of 10 is "a perfect game." There's no such thing, and never will be.

Pro Skater 3 was a great game at the time of its release, no question, and I don't disagree with the 10 rating, except that it's supposed to represent a "perfect game." If Pro Skater 3 is a "perfect game," that would make Pro Skater 4 even more "perfect." Same with Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur II. These two examples alone invalidate GameSpot's definition.


EDIT: It should also be noted that more than half of the perfect 10's at IGN were given by one person.

Which reinforces the point (giggle, snort) I made earlier that the personal preferences of individual reviewers further invalidate the very concept of comparing scores from the *same* site, let alone different ones.


It's true, most games aren't that bad, but a whole lot of them are completely cookie cutter and very uninspired, so they get the 5's and 6's. At the other end, a game has to be truly horrid, broken even, to deserve a 1 or 2.

The problem Chick points out, which is reinforced by the GameRankings stats, is that the "average" game gets a score of 7, when it *should*, under the 1-10 system, get a score of 5.

The larger problem is that enthusiast magazines and websites need to replace these absurd Olympic scoring systems with basic formats (1-5 stars or A-F), or transcend ratings entirely, before their reviews can be taken seriously.

Beyond the meandering bullshit of insertcredit's "New Games Journalism," the lifeless prose of GameSpot, and the semi-literate rantings of IGN is a wonderful world of insightful, plain-spoken criticism that very few writers are exploring. (Ben Turner is one who comes to mind.)

-- Z.

[hezeuschrist]

The reason why THPS4, THUG, THUG2 and SC2 didn't get as perfect scores is also explained on Gamespots scoring page.

"In general, GameSpot does not favor rehashes--games that mostly recycle elements from other, previous games. Instead, we give priority to original designs and ideas that are executed well."

While THPS3 definitely borrowed heavily from 1 and 2, it did so much more and it did it all nearly flawlessly. I think it's obvious that there was little improvement over SC1 with SC2. And again, the ratings are to be taken at the exact point in time when they were reviewed. Had all of these games been retrorated they may very well not score the same.

I would agree about that personal preference comment, but they were all done by one reviewer in a very short timespan, near the birth of the site. Most were GBC (or GB) games and it could definitely be argued that this particular reviewer has been too liberal with his 10's, and thus invalidates the true "highest honors" the score represents. This is exactly why I prefer Gamespot, as while all sites try to have a single cohesive voice, I feel they're able to accomplish this better than most, which is why I give more creedence to their scores/reviews in relation to the site itself than I do IGN.

In short, Gaming Media isn't the complete nonsensical trash you make it out to be. I prefer Gamespot to IGN for reasons you disagree with, yet you say I'm wrong. You're a gaming journalist, and if you feel that the entire profession has become compromised in some fashion, do something about it.

You're in the industry, you've got some form of power, and you know others that feel the way you do. Gather them together and start a site to oppose the big dogs. Thats how all these other sites started, why can't you do the same?

[zmweasel]

"In general, GameSpot does not favor rehashes--games that mostly recycle elements from other, previous games. Instead, we give priority to original designs and ideas that are executed well."

While THPS3 definitely borrowed heavily from 1 and 2, it did so much more and it did it all nearly flawlessly. I think it's obvious that there was little improvement over SC1 with SC2. And again, the ratings are to be taken at the exact point in time when they were reviewed. Had all of these games been retrorated they may very well not score the same.

Pro Skater 3 is the very definition of a game that "recycles elements," and yet GameSpot gave it a "perfect score." Pro Skater 4 is a better and more polished game than Pro Skater 3, so why didn't it also receive a 10? Because the reviewer of Pro Skater 4 arbitrarily decided that *three* rehashes was one too many.

That's the problem with defining a score of 10 as a nonexistent "perfect game" instead of merely a great one; as soon as you give out that first 10, you've defined "perfection."

GameSpot has to offer convoluted explanations to try and justify its "perfect" definition, but a much simpler (and better) approach would be to ditch that definition.


This is exactly why I prefer Gamespot, as while all sites try to have a single cohesive voice, I feel they're able to accomplish this better than most, which is why I give more creedence to their scores/reviews in relation to the site itself than I do IGN.

The way in which GameSpot accomplishes its unified "voice" is to strip personality and insight out of its editorial, which is the worst possible choice. I've read car reviews (which aren't that different from most game reviews, but that's another topic) with more juice.


You're in the industry, you've got some form of power, and you know others that feel the way you do. Gather them together and start a site to oppose the big dogs. Thats how all these other sites started, why can't you do the same?

I'm just a freelancer. I don't have any "power." And I'm in the vast minority with my desire for intelligent gaming criticism (by which I do *not* mean the awfulness that is "New Games Journalism"). Most hardcore gamers are just fine with absurd scoring systems (i.e., GameSpot) and shitty writing (i.e., Game Fan), so all I can do is sneak bits of genuine criticism into my otherwise glib reviews and hope that my editors miss them.

-- Z.

[davepesc]

I agree that Gamespot is better for news, but I do use IGN's collection manager.

[hezeuschrist]

I'm just a freelancer. I don't have any "power." And I'm in the vast minority with my desire for intelligent gaming criticism (by which I do *not* mean the awfulness that is "New Games Journalism"). Most hardcore gamers are just fine with absurd scoring systems (i.e., GameSpot) and shitty writing (i.e., Game Fan), so all I can do is sneak bits of genuine criticism into my otherwise glib reviews and hope that my editors miss them.

-- Z.

Then get off your fucking horse.

[zmweasel]

Then get off your fucking horse.

Until this post, I was actually impressed by the intelligence you were exhibiting. Now you've ignored all the salient points I made in my previous post and reverted to profane form, presumably because you don't like my pointing (giggle, snort) out that the scoring systems to which you pay so much attention are meaningless.

A friend of mine explained why GameRankings is also fatally flawed:

"Consider the following scenario.

"Magazine A uses a 5 star system.

"Magazine B uses a 10 point system.

"Magazine C uses a report-card system. (A, B, C, D, or F)

"Magazine D uses a 100% 'school grading' system.

"How would each of them review a game which is good, but not excellent?

"Magazine A would give the game 3 or 4 stars (for argument, let's say 3 stars).

"Magazine B would give the game 6, 7, or 8 points (for argument, let's say 7 points).

"Magazine C would give the game a B.

"Magazine D would give the game anywhere from 80% to 89% (for argument, let's say 85%).

"Using GameRankings' method of converting scores to simple percentages:

"Magazine A's score results in 60%.

"Magazine B's score results in 70%.

"Magazine C's score results in 80%.

"Magazine D's score results in 85%.

"All of these magazines gave scores internally consistent with their own systems, and all reviewers agreed that the game was good, but not excellent.

"Yet by trying to 'convert' systems which differ from each other, the result is a 20-25% difference. By simply converting review scores into percentages, you won't get the real picture.

"It's just a mathematical fact that magazines with less ratings 'latitude' (5 points/stars) will always be on the lower end, and magazines with a wider latitude (0-100%) will always be on the higher end, even when the substance of their reviews are the same."

So when are you going to keep your fucking word and stop posting?

-- Z.

[Aussie2B]

And yet, most of the folks in this forum seem to prefer fansites to prosites, despite the excellent reasons you've given for why fansites should be disregarded as meaningful sources of information. I weep.

While most fan reviews are woefully poor and overzealous, a little research can go a long way. GameFAQs, for example, is often regarded as one of the absolute worst sources for well-written reviews, and while it's certainly true in general, there are some diamonds in the rough that absolutely destroy the vast majority of professional reviews. They can be hard to find and some reviewers have disappeared and removed their work in recent times (since they don't like it being in such pathetic company), but they're most certainly there. Some of these reviewers should and WOULD become professional, but they care so deeply about their work that they feel going pro would compromise it.

Sadly, as you said, most gamers, both the casual and hardcore, appear to be quite content with second-rate writing, and the problem worsens when you consider the fact that most see reviewing as nothing more than a dry, objective presentation of facts to prove that a game is poor or good. However, those who truly care about reviewing see it as MUCH more than that. It's an artistic outlet to express one's creativity and personality while discussing something one feels passionate about. People tend to gravitate towards the most negative and positive reviews they can find, but if you can read a review presenting the standpoint that the game is mediocre (something like a 5/10, if there's a score) and you can finish the review feeling completely entertained, informed, satisfied, and convinced of the writer's standpoint (even if you don't personally agree with it), and maybe even feeling a bit emotional (I've finished some reviews feeling stunned and elated just over how magnificent the writing was), then you have read an excellent review. Even more so if you're reading a review about a game you know nothing about and have no interest in.

I personally despise scoring systems. The number one problem is the division of the mentality about them. Since games tend to appeal to a young audience, those still in college, high school, or an even lower grade, kids seem to really identify with a "competence scale", where you have a range of 0-70 to describe varying states of inadequacy, a range of 10 for varying states of "average", and a range of 20 for varing states of excellence. This is TERRIBLE for reviewing games. We are not reviewing games on competence, nor is there such a thing as an "average" game (there is mediocre, but that's entirely different in this sense). Plus, who the hell needs over half the scale for different ways to say "bad"? Then you have a wiser sect that uses the middle score as their starting point, and depending on how much the game disappoints or impresses, the score will go up or down. But the main problem is that you never know what mentality a reviewer, site, magazine, or what have you is employing, and at places like GameFAQs, it's a mixed bag. I've written reviews more positive than any other for a particular game, yet my score is the lowest because my 6/10 is a good game while everyone else's 7/10 is a mediocre or poor game. Then things are strained even further when people refuse to give a maximum score because "no game is perfect". It's basically down to using 4 different scores on a 10 point scale! You may as well make it "poor", "mediocre", "good", and "great" then.

Since I post my reviews on GameFAQs, I'm forced to come up with scores, which is a process I painfully labor over, only to often regret my scores later regardless. That's why on my own site you will see NO scores. Read my damn words and come to your own conclusion. :P

Then there are so many other problems... Most reviews are too brief for their own good because gamers don't have any patience (and while I don't expect everyone to enjoy reviews as long as mine tend to be, there IS a middleground). Sectioned reviews segment the thoughts far too much (although subtle sectioning can work if it's not too rigid, just to keep thoughts organized). And then there's the whole giving each section it's own score... ugh... and some even average the score to come up with the final score as if every aspect of the game is valued exactly as much as the next...

Well, now I'm just rambling. But yeah, both IGN and Gamespot suck donkey balls. :P Gamespot's reviews bore me and are focused on all the wrong things sometimes, so the most I'll use the site for is to occasionally look at some screen shots. Several years ago I used to fairly regularly check IGN, but eventually enough was enough. I don't consider myself much of a feminist, but the sexism of some of the writers was too much to handle, not to mention the site content was never especially good and was only going downhill. I don't know if they ever fixed the sexism problem, but I'm not about to find out. The site looks worse than ever, especially with all the locked off content and oceans of ads.

[hezeuschrist]

Then get off your fucking horse.

Until this post, I was actually impressed by the intelligence you were exhibiting. Now you've ignored all the salient points I made in my previous post and reverted to profane form, presumably because you don't like my pointing (giggle, snort) out that the scoring systems to which you pay so much attention are meaningless.

Get comfortable.

I originally posted that in the hopes that you'd say that first line and declare some sort of personally victory, but then you had to go on a rant about Gamerankings.com that means nothing, and gave me just enough fuel to make this post.

I was really enjoying this conversation, but it's dead. It was useful to the both of us and those reading, but it's finished. There's nothing more to say worth saying about this issue, and for the past page of this thread we've been going in circles saying the same thing over and over, pointing out technicalities and defusing them with bullshit prose that's really quite pointless. Far more pointless than the scoring system in question.

So about my last comment. You seem to be speaking down to me from atop a box that likely contained soap at one point and time. You paint your own criticism and writing skill as that of legend, and it's a horrible shame that your evil editors are the ones to blame for your horribly boundless genius to go unnoticed and that you and only you are capable of sneaking nuggets of wit and "true criticism" past them. You and the two people you've continuously quoted. The "vast minority."

The first thing Google turns up when you type in Zach Meston is this:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/gauthor-7228/?page_type=reviews

75 reviews, by you. Most for Gamespy, a handful for the now dead GMR. I went through the trouble to have a gander and check out your average score given, and on a 10 point scale, you give an average 6.8. The same nearly 7.0 average that you so claim is horribly disingenuous and the root of the deterioration of all gaming media. I especially like that on the second page, when give the chance to score on a 100 point system you use it liberally. You could "fight the power" and score on a 1-5 scale if you like, but you give out at least one of the following: 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, and 85. Apparently you felt there was something separating those games, or you would have given them all a 4/5. One game, of 75 reviewed (granted, there are some multiplatform titles in there), breaches the 9.0 barrier with a 9.1. Guess all of those games are "average," eh?

Now, I might have this all wrong. In fact, as you read this you're already formulating a grand rebuttal to discredit this post and the character of my being. Maybe you were forced to score differently to fit the (mostly) Gamespy system, but you've yet to make such claims which I'm sure you would have trumpeted loud and clear throughout the course of this discussion.

Yet, you conform. I understand this is how you make a living, but I'm sure you've heard something about biting the hand that feeds. Aussie2B has apparently started a site completely absent of review "scores," an idea you advocate as passionately as a preacher does the word of God. This is a concept that seems to be right up your alley, and is certainly something you could do yourself, or work with her on her site. Yet, you conform. I've just opened a whole other can of worms, but I'd still like to sum up what we've said in this thread thus far.

Me: I enjoy Gamespot. I enjoy the manner in which they rank their titles and I appreciate their golden standard. Their lack of character doesn't bother me, as I'm looking for facts. They provide these the most concise and hasty fashion of any major gamesite out there.

You: You disagree with me, thus, I am wrong. You maintain that the scoring system is not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of fact that is is indeed worthless. It is the seed that deteriorates the very fabric of the gaming world itself. Compound this with the fact that they're not as passionate as you are, and we're staring down the snout of the spawn of Lucifer itself.

These are opinions, Zach. You are not right. I am not right. Neither of us are wrong.

So back to the horse for a good round of uncessary beatings.

Gamerankings.com: No shit. It's an inherent flaw with all compilation sites; Gamerankings, metacritic, and rotten tomatoes all fall prey to this compromise and there's nothing to be done about it. Why that even came up is beyond me.

And yes, I ignored all your points in that last post because they're all the same ones you've made before, with different wording, save for the personal quip about your writing. It wasn't going anywhere (and still isn't), and there isn't much reason to continue. I don't know why I do so, I'm sure I'm just as hard headed about pointless shit as you are. But, you ignored some of my better points as well, and I'm not going to point them out because I'm sure you feel you've already addressed them.

[slownerveaction]

While most fan reviews are woefully poor and overzealous, a little research can go a long way. GameFAQs, for example, is often regarded as one of the absolute worst sources for well-written reviews, and while it's certainly true in general, there are some diamonds in the rough that absolutely destroy the vast majority of professional reviews. They can be hard to find and some reviewers have disappeared and removed their work in recent times (since they don't like it being in such pathetic company), but they're most certainly there. Some of these reviewers should and WOULD become professional, but they care so deeply about their work that they feel going pro would compromise it.

FYI: A lot of the good reviewers at GameFAQs who have pulled their work (some of whom I'm friends with) went over to Honest Gamers (http://www.honestgamers.com), which is basically GameFAQs except with a focus on reviews and the crap purged. My main man Zigfried (http://www.honestgamers.com/mini/index.php?username=zigfried) has tons of great reviews up there.


So about my last comment. You seem to be speaking down to me from atop a box that likely contained soap at one point and time. You paint your own criticism and writing skill as that of legend, and it's a horrible shame that your evil editors are the ones to blame for your horribly boundless genius to go unnoticed and that you and only you are capable of sneaking nuggets of wit and "true criticism" past them. You and the two people you've continuously quoted. The "vast minority."

This is all you need to know about Zach Meston's posts here: He loves to hammer on the "appeal to authority" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) fallacy when he can, then demur that he's "just a freelancer" when that doesn't suit him anymore.


Yet, you conform. I understand this is how you make a living, but I'm sure you've heard something about biting the hand that feeds. Aussie2B has apparently started a site completely absent of review "scores," an idea you advocate as passionately as a preacher does the word of God. This is a concept that seems to be right up your alley, and is certainly something you could do yourself, or work with him on his site. Yet, you conform. I've just opened a whole other can of worms, but I'd still like to sum up what we've said in this thread thus far.

I'm pretty sure Aussie2B is a "her," but putting reviews on a personal site to avoid the constraints of editors and guidelines is great for anyone who'd rather review "for the love of it." This is what I do now, having tired of the bullshit, politics, and compromises of freelancing with mainstream media. Then again, it never was (and never will be) how I make my living. (Take it from me that freelancing in any capacity is for suckers.)

[zmweasel]

This is all you need to know about Zach Meston's posts here: He loves to hammer on the "appeal to authority" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) fallacy when he can, then demur that he's "just a freelancer" when that doesn't suit him anymore.

Geoff, I was wondering when you'd drop your act and reveal the personal grudge that you continue to hold against me. Finally!

There's a thread elsewhere in these forums where I explain the work-related circumstances behind headstrong young Geoffrey's grudge; feel free to look it up if you care. Just know that when he enters any thread after me, it's only because he sees an opportunity to be disruptive, not helpful.

Incidentally, Geoff--trying to go over my head directly to Shawn? That was your most immature and unprofessional act yet.

hezeuschrist claimed that I have the "power" to change the system of review scores that dominates video game journalism. I disagreed. At no time in this thread did I appeal to my own "authority," other than to mention I've always dreaded giving out arbitrary numbers in the freelance reviews I've written.

-- Z.

[slownerveaction]

This is all you need to know about Zach Meston's posts here: He loves to hammer on the "appeal to authority" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) fallacy when he can, then demur that he's "just a freelancer" when that doesn't suit him anymore.

Geoff, I was wondering when you'd drop your act and reveal the personal grudge that you continue to hold against me. Finally!

There's a thread elsewhere in these forums where I explain the work-related circumstances behind headstrong young Geoffrey's grudge; feel free to look it up if you care. Just know that when he enters any thread after me, it's only because he sees an opportunity to be disruptive, not helpful.

Incidentally, Geoff--trying to go over my head directly to Shawn? That was your most immature and unprofessional act yet.

hezeuschrist claimed that I have the "power" to change the system of review scores that dominates video game journalism. I disagreed. At no time in this thread did I appeal to my own "authority," other than to mention I've always dreaded giving out arbitrary numbers in the freelance reviews I've written.

-- Z.

No, I'm just... really appalled by the way you act on here. Mocking hezeuschrist in your signature is the last straw. I don't see anyone else here doing anything like that. It sickens me, and it's understandable that you'd get anger directed at you for it.

Basically, I needed to stand up and say something. I can't ignore it.

I encourage anyone who's interested (not many, I'd wager) to read our very public argument. I'm not proud that I participated in that, but what's there is there. I haven't edited or deleted any posts (I frankly don't care enough to).

But, you know what? I'm sorry that you still have issues with me to the point that even mild criticism sets you off. You know how to reach me if you want to discuss it. I'm busy at the moment, so I can't guarantee I'll be able to respond instantly. But you know how to reach me.

Otherwise, I hope you find some peace of mind some other way. You've been giving off a lot of angry, tense, mean-spirited vibes lately.

(Last I have to say on that topic here, btw. I will not respond here to further responses.)

[zmweasel]

I originally posted that in the hopes that you'd say that first line and declare some sort of personally victory, but then you had to go on a rant about Gamerankings.com that means nothing, and gave me just enough fuel to make this post.

I've pointed out numerous times in this thread that scoring systems are a fallacy, that you cannot accurately compare scores from one site to another, or even within the same site. The example provided by my friend was interesting, and I shared it. You're accusing me of a nonexistent "rant" that wasn't even my own.


You paint your own criticism and writing skill as that of legend, and it's a horrible shame that your evil editors are the ones to blame for your horribly boundless genius to go unnoticed and that you and only you are capable of sneaking nuggets of wit and "true criticism" past them. You and the two people you've continuously quoted. The "vast minority."

I've never claimed in this thread that my own writing is anything but glib. And I've never claimed in this or any thread that only I am capable of true game criticism. You're spinning fiction.


75 reviews, by you. Most for Gamespy, a handful for the now dead GMR. I went through the trouble to have a gander and check out your average score given, and on a 10 point scale, you give an average 6.8. The same nearly 7.0 average that you so claim is horribly disingenuous and the root of the deterioration of all gaming media. I especially like that on the second page, when give the chance to score on a 100 point system you use it liberally. You could "fight the power" and score on a 1-5 scale if you like, but you give out at least one of the following: 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, and 85. Apparently you felt there was something separating those games, or you would have given them all a 4/5. One game, of 75 reviewed (granted, there are some multiplatform titles in there), breaches the 9.0 barrier with a 9.1. Guess all of those games are "average," eh?

When you work with a flawed scoring system, you're going to get flawed numbers out of it. More than once in this thread, I mentioned how I loathed coming up with arbitrary numbers. In my King of Route 66 review, for example, I went with a score of 66.

As for Rotten Tomatoes, the review scores in its database are taken from a handful of the 2,000-plus reviews I've written over the past 15 years. Any statistical trends you claim to see within such a small subset of my overall work simply aren't there.

EDIT: Because several of the scores on RT are taken from multi-platform reviews, there are actually fewer than 75 reviews listed--an even smaller and less accurate statistical subset.

But it's interesting to note that of the three scoring systems in the listings, my average scores using each were:

5-star system: 3.10 out of 5 (average)
10-point system: 6 out of 10 (average)
100-point system: 77.1 out of 100 (above average because there's a disproportionate number of excellent games in the mix)

I'm not sure where you got your "6.8" number, but it's quite wrong.

As for the 100-point scale, you didn't mention the numbers I gave that AREN'T near 80--and there are more of those numbers--because you're cheating and throwing out contradictory evidence. 77 fits into your theory; 55 and 94 (not 91, as you claimed--again, quite wrong) don't.


Now, I might have this all wrong. In fact, as you read this you're already formulating a grand rebuttal to discredit this post and the character of my being. Maybe you were forced to score differently to fit the (mostly) Gamespy system, but you've yet to make such claims which I'm sure you would have trumpeted loud and clear throughout the course of this discussion.

You've already done fine to discredit yourself with your swift descent into profanity and personal attacks, when you had nothing more to say in the face of the evidence that scoring systems are ridiculous. Again, I was impressed when you kept it clean and impersonal, and I was bummed when you decided to play dirty. But I can shove mud down your throat 'til your stomach ruptures, if that's how you want it.


Yet, you conform. I understand this is how you make a living, but I'm sure you've heard something about biting the hand that feeds. Aussie2B has apparently started a site completely absent of review "scores," an idea you advocate as passionately as a preacher does the word of God. This is a concept that seems to be right up your alley, and is certainly something you could do yourself, or work with her on her site. Yet, you conform.

I don't "conform." I work within the systems of each magazine or website for which I freelance. In the magazine I edit, Video Game Collector, I use a five-star system with no halves. It keeps the readers and game publishers happy, and it's something I can live with.

When I'm the boss, I do exactly what you suggest. When I'm working for someone else, I play by their rules. That's a common-sense rule for every job, not "conformity."


Me: I enjoy Gamespot. I enjoy the manner in which they rank their titles and I appreciate their golden standard. Their lack of character doesn't bother me, as I'm looking for facts. They provide these the most concise and hasty fashion of any major gamesite out there.

"Lack of character"? I never said anything about that! We were discussing lack of PERSONALITY. Quite different! A Freudian slip on your part, I assume.

There's no question that GameSpot provides more straightforward gameplay facts than IGN and most other prosites. I wrote a handful of reviews for GameSpot when it launched a decade ago, so I'm very familiar with its editorial approach. And I realize that many game journos are gamers first, and writers second (or last), so their text is probably stiff and dry to begin with.


You: You disagree with me, thus, I am wrong. You maintain that the scoring system is not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of fact that is is indeed worthless. It is the seed that deteriorates the very fabric of the gaming world itself. Compound this with the fact that they're not as passionate as you are, and we're staring down the snout of the spawn of Lucifer itself.

You're confusing the passion with which I argue my opinions and the amount of emotional investment I have in those opinions. "Spawn of Lucifer" would be the terrorists who blew up central London today, not GameSpot's editorial staff. Seen from outside, this debate is ridiculous. In the context of a video game forum, it's quite reasonable.


These are opinions, Zach. You are not right. I am not right. Neither of us are wrong.

Actually, you ARE wrong. I've invested time and energy into this thread, and provided all these facts and figures, to indicate your wrong-ness. And while facts and figures can't overcome blind faith, whether the subject is game-review scores or belief in a god, perhaps others will see this thread and agree with me instead of you.

Nothing would make me happier, because it's the Teeming Millions who have to force magazines and websites to provide more meaningful criticism, instead of starting Game Fan and Nintendo Power appreciation threads.

-- Z.

[Aussie2B]

FYI: A lot of the good reviewers at GameFAQs who have pulled their work (some of whom I'm friends with) went over to Honest Gamers (http://www.honestgamers.com), which is basically GameFAQs except with a focus on reviews and the crap purged. My main man Zigfried (http://www.honestgamers.com/mini/index.php?username=zigfried) has tons of great reviews up there.

Yup, I know. For some reason, that site has always rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it's because there's something about the personality of the site creator that just bugs me, or the fact that it's an unnecessary "me too!" site that only worsened things by dividing the community of excellent reviewers between the two sites. GameFAQs may have a lot of crap, but at least years ago you could find all the good reviews from that one source (excluding good reviewers who have never contributed to either site). I'm just amazed that it hasn't gone the way of Fresh Baked Games.

I'm still kind of annoyed that Zigfried hacked up his contributer page, removing some and leaving others in what appears to be a completely random manner. I do head to Honest Gamers occasionally to read his reviews, mostly to re-read since I've read pretty much all of his. He's always been my favorite reviewer, and his work pretty much inspired me to start writing reviews seriously, in a self-gratifying, creative manner. Nice guy too, he's supported my work more than most have, and he's loaded with useful, interesting information on obscure stuff.

[zmweasel]

No, I'm just... really appalled by the way you act on here. Mocking hezeuschrist in your signature is the last straw. I don't see anyone else here doing anything like that. It sickens me, and it's understandable that you'd get anger directed at you for it.

It just struck me very funny that hezeuschrist was so zealous in his dislike of the name "Xbox 360," which by the time of his post was confirmed by everyone except MS itself, that he sarcastically swore to leave these forums in disgust. I've always remembered that post, and I dredged it out of the depths when MS confirmed the name.

If he'd eat a little crow, I'd gladly ditch the .sig and use another one. (Of course, I'll eventually do that anyway.)


I encourage anyone who's interested (not many, I'd wager) to read our very public argument. I'm not proud that I participated in that, but what's there is there. I haven't edited or deleted any posts (I frankly don't care enough to).

But you DO care, or else you wouldn't inject yourself into a thread where you perceive a nonexistent "injustice." Your actions belie your words.


But, you know what? I'm sorry that you still have issues with me to the point that even mild criticism sets you off. You know how to reach me if you want to discuss it. I'm busy at the moment, so I can't guarantee I'll be able to respond instantly. But you know how to reach me.

Geoff, I have no issues with you. I don't deal with you on a personal or professional basis anymore, and I don't pay any thought to you, until you inject yourself into a thread and try to disrupt it. Then you have my attention, and I'll point out the real reason for your presence in the thread--to gain a form of revenge for my dropping you from VGC's editorial staff.


Otherwise, I hope you find some peace of mind some other way. You've been giving off a lot of angry, tense, mean-spirited vibes lately.

Your vibe-detector needs replaced. I'm happier in my personal and professional life than I've ever been.

My problem is that you and others mistake my posts in this forum as a reflection of my personality outside of these forums. Feel free to ask anyone who met me at the last two CGEs if I struck them as an angry, tense, or mean-spirited individual. They'll laugh at the ridiculousness of the question.

Do I debate like I mean it? Hell, yes. Do I carry that intensity into real life? Hell, no. Don't mistake the excitement I feel at defending my views, and having them challenged, as anger.

-- Z.

[slownerveaction]

I'm still kind of annoyed that Zigfried hacked up his contributer page, removing some and leaving others in what appears to be a completely random manner. I do head to Honest Gamers occasionally to read his reviews, mostly to re-read since I've read pretty much all of his. He's always been my favorite reviewer, and his work pretty much inspired me to start writing reviews seriously, in a self-gratifying, creative manner. Nice guy too, he's supported my work more than most have, and he's loaded with useful, interesting information on obscure stuff.

Did he remove a bunch of reviews? I haven't taken a close look recently, to be honest. I read most of his older stuff when it was up at GameFAQs, and I keep an eye out for newer stuff from 'im.

And yes, he's a class act and a freakin' walking encyclopedia on obscure games. I assume you're familiar with his stuff at Shada Tannis too? He's just updated with a bunch of game soundtrack info fairly recently.

[Aussie2B]

Yeah, I saw. Nice to see that it's still being updated. I kinda wish he'd work on the Wolf Team section again, though. My favorite developer is tri-Ace (obviously, hehe), and his site has been the absolute best source I can find for educating myself about what tri-Ace's employees were doing when they were still working with Wolf Team. Heck, I never even knew that Ernest Raviede of Star Ocean 2 and Blue Sphere was a reference to Earnest Evans until I read his Earnest Evans article. o_O

[lendelin]

As someone who is a bit familiar with statistics and very interested in the subject of review scores:

1. I looked at "Grading on a curve" months ago, and Zmweasel is right that there is neither a substantial nor statistical significant difference beween IGN and Gamespot.

In order to determine a significant satistical difference we would need the number of cases which are simply not given.

The deviation form the average gives you a trend, nothing more and nothing less. The substantial difference beween the trends (IGN and GS) is neglectible. (I mention that becasue sometimes there is no statistical significance, however, the case can be made that there is a significant substantial difference and vice versa - which indeed happens sometimes mostly - not always - because of the number of cases))

2. One crucial aspect of comparing review scores of different mags/sites you all overlooked is the importance of the elusive consistent scoring system within one mag/site.

Giving consistently lower scores than other mags doesn't necessarily mean (neglecting diffrent score systems of different reviewers assuming a certain amount of "streamed" scores) that this mag is more critical than another mag which consistently gives higher scores or vice versa.

The relationship (difference) of two scores for two different games within one scoring system of one mag compared to the difference between the two scores for the same games of another mag is key; this comparison says a lot, not the deviation from the trend across mags and sites.
Consistency or inconsistency WITHIN one system compared to another one in its system reveals positive or negative bias.

EXAMPLE:
If we used a standardized base to account for different scoring systems, the difference of 1.0 of site A is the same for site B although site A gave a 7.5 and 8.5 and site B gave a 8.5 and 9.5 for the same two games. The average of site A is 8.0 whereas the average of site B is 9.0. Both sites were equally critical or forgiving and evaluated in the same manner the two games.

Nintendo Power gave consistently lower grades than other mags during the NES and SNES eras; but that doesn't mean that they were more critical than Gamepro or EGM. The already addressed problems applied already back then:

First, the center was overcrowded, most games scored between 3 and 4. (out of five) Hard to tell a difference between two games. Second, they used decimals. Very hard to tell the diffrence between a 3.5 and 3.7 (even given the streaming of scores neglecting different expectations/preferences of reviewers which is an additional problem.)

What is the solution?

1) I think a plain one to five or one to ten without the possibility of .5 or even .3 is best. Subtle differences like this make sometimes sense for teachers grading exams (because the topics and answers are the same, plus you have ONE evaluator with the same Inherent elusive scoring systems, plus there are subtle differences between exams indeed); they don't make much sense for very different games evaluated by different reviewers over long periods of time. Additionally, a starightforward scoring system gives the reviewer less opportunities to weasel out of starightforward evaluations.

2) Do what I do: when I read a review, the content is more important than the grade given. The content of the review tells you something about the intelligence level of the reviewer, consistencies or inconsistencies with the review grades given, and tells you about the amount of "taste" of the reviewer which necessarily goes into a review; it also tells you simply if you might like the game or not independent of the review content and/or grade.

3) I recognize a good review when I read it. Trust your own brain, and make a question mark behind EVERY review. Never take it at face value. Take it simply as a broad guideline, and enjoy intelligent remarks and analysis.

4) Review scores are necessary. I don't wanna go back to 1988 and 1989 when most mags didn't have them. What is necessary is a better quality of reviews in general not tailored towards teenagers; which means that we need better game journalists; which means that we need a better socialization process for them and higher standards than mainstream mags and sites apply now.

[chrisbid]

so getting back on topic...

the only IGN writer ive really liked is Craig Harris who wrote (i havent been there for awhile, im not sure where he is now) for the game boy page. he is likely the person that gave out most of the 10 ratings, as during the GBC era, he didnt use a 100 point scale, he strictly used a 10 point scale, and wasnt afriad to use a 10 for an excellent game. Craig is a fan of classic gaming (he did a report from CGE a couple of years ago, and proudly showed off his signed copy of Pitfall II and Yar's Revenge), and realizes that gameplay/fun should be the number one factor in rating games.

the other person i go to for reviews is Dave the video game critic (http://www.videogamecritic.net). His reviews are short and to the point. He grades games on a letter scale, but they are relative to other games on the same system, and he is more than willing to give an A to a good game and a C to an average game.[/url]

[punkoffgirl]

My problem is that you and others mistake my posts in this forum as a reflection of my personality outside of these forums. Feel free to ask anyone who met me at the last two CGEs if I struck them as an angry, tense, or mean-spirited individual. They'll laugh at the ridiculousness of the question.


Oh, I agree that you're nice enough in person, Zach, which is why I can't understand that any debating you get into around the forums here always goes south. I'm sorry, but it seems like a post by you in a thread is like a red flag for "hot under the collar ahead." It's all OPINION in this thread, no one is WRONG for liking one more than the other. You might as well argue over the merits of liking the color blue more than red.