Home > Gaming > Other
Reading time estimate: 9 min

Why is it no longer worthwhile to score in game reviews?

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

game review scores in the past have been able to tell you whether a game is good or not. Magazines and sites often rated different parts of the game with separate scores. For example, if the story section score was 9 out of 10 and you liked the story-based games, it indicates that you probably should have bought that game. However, these were for a time when you could not go to YouTube or Twitch and watch the first hour of the game being played by someone else and even see his reactions.

Now, players make their own decisions And this decision often does not correspond to the opinion of the critic or editor who gives the rating. Here are some reasons why the game review score is dead and what developers should do about it.

Games are becoming an experience

When we released Hello Neighbor, one of the game's major media outlets gave it a 4 out of 10 rating. True, this can be bypassed-but not unless you're a techie who knows what he's doing. What is the final product? Is the current season a game? The rap concert that takes place inside the game? No, these are all experiences on a larger scale than that game.

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

Hello Neighbor, this experience It started when we released our first playable alpha version. Once, we accidentally forgot to disable the console development version. This allowed our fan community to see what we were working on and what new things we were working on. This in itself became an experience - seeing the background, the models and how the final form of the game was formed. Playing the game in the form of its development became part of the game experience itself.

New generation gamers do not care so much about reviews and reviews

Distinguish between different generations of gamers. People over the age of 30, or people who generally grew up with magazines and scores given to games, have more time limits. Therefore, the game review score is an important factor for this audience.

However, the younger generations, who grew up with virtual networks, the online world, and touchscreen phones, now have the largest share of the community. Audiences have video games at their disposal. The situation is a little different for this audience, and this difference is largely understandable.

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

This change When did the process from a final product to experiences change over time? I think this goes back to the first generation of Minecraft gamers. This is the generation of people who started experimenting with new works that were not released in the traditional way of the video game market.

Show yourself sooner and win

Once you have a community of fans, they will be reacting and actively Participate in various media websites. They play demos and demos, act in discord, and increase the popularity of your game.

You really only need one thing: to be honest and clear. Because it's not just about the product itself. This is about the experience and the fan community that the game creates.

Some games are constantly evolving

While games have always had a lot of optimizations and updates. (Even the first arcade games were revised and DOS games released the optimizations through discs in magazines.) But what happens in the evolution of today's games through repeated updates over time is not comparable to the past.>

Even if we do not want to count on early access (Early Access), there are many games that see huge changes through their updates, which can potentially improve the game experience and improve their score. However, there is almost no media that re-examines these works and gives them a new score. The main advantage of the game, no matter how it does not show the current situation, is ultimately what people see when they open the game metacritic page.

This problem is more pronounced in service-oriented games. Just look at the Warframe scores in Metacritic Which is mostly one of the reviews written for it in 2013 and describes the game completely differently from what it is now. While reading reviews has its charms, the first thing the audience encounters is the score or the score of the games, and if this score does not show the status of the game properly, then it has failed in its work.

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

In the case of TinyBuild Studios, Hello Neighbor was not particularly well-received by the media at the time of its release, and I can not deny that. Part of it was due to bugs and technical problems of the game, but with a little polishing of the game and fixing technical problems, we are proud of it now.

Considering the very positive score of the game by users On Steam, I think the audience agrees and admires the game in its current state, but if you look at the initial reviews of the game, you will see that nothing has changed.

Each system has its own problems, Steam can say a lot to people at a glance by taking separate scores for recent and general user reviews. Just look at No Man's Sky to see the benefits of this system, while the overall score of the game was badly damaged due to the poor condition of the game at the time of release, but over time and with better game improvement and user reviews, the situation on Steam is much better. And now has a very good score and is one of the most popular games with players.

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

Also our observations in TinyBuild Studios shows that if the game is first released on a computer and can receive high ratings from users, it is very likely that when the game is released for consoles, it will experience good sales. Given how unreliable old critique scores can be, we believe that people are looking at recent feedback on Steam, YouTube, and other media to make a decision about buying a game.

Of course, that does not mean that. That user scores are without problems, and we have seen this in various cases, including user scores in Metacritic, and therefore Steam had to implement systems to deal with this problem. Corrections made by a small number of other sites.

Each media outlet has its own scoring criteria

Each site and magazine has a different approach and benchmark, and that's completely different It's normal, but when all of these scores are added to different criteria on a site like Metacritic and averaged, the situation is different because there is no one-size-fits-all criterion that can apply to all of them.

Edge is known for trying to use all the scales available in scoring games. For Edge magazine, a score of 5 out of 10 is an average score. A score of 6 out of 10 is good and 7 out of 10 is very good. This magazine rarely gives scores of 9 and 10 to games and only gives them to works that have a special place and value. However, some of the most popular sites today rarely use scores below 7 out of 10, and if they give a work a score below 7, it is considered very problematic.

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

without any attempt to reconcile these differences, this is just another reason to show that the reviews on the sites that collect the scores and determine their average are really for The players are not very useful and it becomes more difficult for the readers who want to analyze these scores with different criteria for themselves. With this process, it is not only better to know the true value of the game, but it can be said that it is almost easier to read the whole review so that you can get a better conclusion.

Reviews are often written in difficult situations >

To prove this point, just look at this spring's big game, Alden Ring. Most people will agree that this game takes a long time and it takes a long time - at least 100 hours - to finish it. How many people are going to finish this great game under normal circumstances in a week and then write a review of it? It does not, but some games need to be played slowly so that you can experience them better. Some games are best experienced in one- or two-hour sessions over the course of a month. Critics, however, can not do that, and in order to deliver the critique in a timely manner, they must play the effect as quickly as possible.

Online multiplayer games in particular face this problem. It is almost impossible for traditional critics to express the true meaning of any online game before it is released. This is more on a larger scale than the reviews themselves, not just their scores, but unfortunately these are the scores that are most visible to the audience.

What can be done?

It would be a little rude to make all this criticism without saying at least something useful and constructive. There is a lot that can be done to improve the current situation.

First of all, remove the critique scores over time. The major media outlets are already doing just that. Eurogamer, for example, has been replacing labels such as "recommended" and "essential" for several years, and there seems to be evidence that this has made people more eager to read the reviews themselves.

Second, it is best to stay away from sites like Metacritic that summarize complex and in-depth comments. A number that sometimes even publishers consider as a criterion for rewarding studios or their members. Perhaps one of the most controversial is the famous New Vegas Fallout game. The game's developers were told that if they got a meta of 85 or higher, they would receive a special reward, but the game meta became 84, and after all the efforts to develop the game, they were deprived of this reward, and even this issue led to the withdrawal of a number of Studio staff obsessed.

BingMag.com Why is it no <b>longer</b> <b>worthwhile</b> to <b>score</b> in <b>game</b> reviews?

Most importantly, reviews have to deal with evolving games Sync and adapt. While a complete rewrite of the reviews may be illogical, a small appendix at the top of the post or mention that some review is very old or pointing to important things that have changed in the updates make those reviews more appropriate in the heyday of streaming and gameplay video. It makes it more plausible.

A more detailed and serious review of games and critiques of them is still useful and probably always will be useful, but the scores of the games on the day of release and the initial shaky impressions do not match the progress of the games over time. p>

Source: This note by Alex Nichiporchik, CEO of TinyBuild Studios at GameIndustry.biz Written.

READ NEXT IN: gaming / other

BingMag.com Alden Ring: 10 secrets and secret mechanics that the game does not tell you other

Alden ring secret mechanisms are everywhere and scattered throughout the game. From locations to missions and even interesting stories and weapons and secret bosses. Depending on the information you h

BingMag.com Black Holes and Dragons (Part 11): Cobolds other

Desktop role-playing games did not succeed in becoming widespread in Iranian culture, but their legacy, namely role-playing video games, made up for this unpopularity, and today role-playing games , B

BingMag.com Nostalgia has hindered the development of video games other

These days, in the field of media, the fastest and easiest way to make a profit is to resort to people's sense of nostalgia. We live in an age of glorification of old works, references to old works, a

BingMag.com 10 Interesting Facts About Dissenting That You Probably Didn't Know other

Not so long ago, the "Immersive Sim" style was one of the most popular genres in games, and almost every player was looking for a work that Put him in the avatar position when interacting. Games like