Criticising the critique
Just a brief glance at any one of our reviews and you’ll notice that we don’t place scores at the end. Now on the one hand I can understand this may be as a disservice to consumers. Without the balance (and supposed consistency) of a numerical scale how can you hope to compare two games fairly?
When I started as the new Gaming & Technology Editor at Platform, a role I am only the second person to fill, I asked our Editor, Amy Gathercole, whether I could instigate numbered scores for our video game reviews. While she didn’t flatly refuse my request she pointed out that Platform has never placed numerical scores on any of its entertainment or lifestyle reviews, and that this was one editorial consistency that she would like to maintain.
Taking Amy’s views away with me to think about I had to admit that scores have their own problems as well. Five stars, 1 to 100 or 1 to 10 – whatever method you choose there are bound to be moments when it does sufficiently reflect your opinion as strongly as the words in your review. For what it’s worth I believe that the one to ten scale is the best form of aggregation when reviewing video games.
But then there is the issue of people merely flicking to the score and not actually reading the justification for it. Now, I’ll openly confess that I do the very same at times, with titles I’m unsure whether to purchase. It’s quick, it’s easy… you can clearly see that Eternal Sonata has scored better than Afro Samurai this week, so you’ll pickup the former.
All publications and reviewers are different though, so the score at the end is based on the expert opinion of the reviewer and review policy of the publication. Therefore the nonsense claims Metacritic make about “weighted” averages and providing scores “from 0-100 based on the general impression given” for scoreless reviews don’t hold water when it comes down to the individual’s writing.
Often a target for enthusiast complains, Edge Magazine recently gave PS3-exclusive shooter, Killzone 2 a score of “7/10.” Naturally this has sparked controversy all over the gaming community. The editor of another website has even seen fit to address Edge’s review directly. Now, having completed the campaign myself I feel I have some authority to comment on Edge’s review. You may find this surprising, but I do in fact agree with some of their observations concerning certain gameplay events and the foul language every character seems inclined to spout just to provide they’re an ‘f-ing badass’. However, the pacing and action sequences are so good that these issues don’t stop it being one hell of a city-shaking ride (see our single-player review).
The main point I’m getting at is that so much focus is piled on little scoring systems as opposed to the actually reviews themselves. A few users have commented that score for Edge’s review of Killzone 2 is inconsistence when compared to their Gears of War 2 review. Since Edge don’t reveal the writers of their reviews, simply preferring to sign them ‘Edge Staff’, we can’t assume that the same person who reviewed Gears of War 2 also reviewed Killzone 2. While I many not hold all of their reviews in high esteem I do admire that they keep their scoring system as simple as possible and, more importantly, that they use the entire scale. If in the reviewer’s honest opinion the game deserves a seven based on the review policy of the publication, then I believe their voice should be heard.
Even still, with readers arguing so much about review scores I am relieved that Platform’s policy doesn’t include them. And I have no intention of changing that. While I understand their importance and role for specialists, as a student publication and not some highflying media syndicate I’d much rather you trust our reviewers’ written analysis rather than another segmented score at the bottom. You may not always share our opinions, but they will be honest ones.
Aaron Lee
[Originally published on Tuesday, 24 February 2009]
