Why did scores disappear?

Hello, i saw yesterday that in the past gn reviews used scores, for example Metroid other m got a 7,2/10.

But Federation force and recent games in general didnt get any scores. I realized than whhen i asked people why gonintendo's reviews were not quoted on metacritic, metacritic onlymentions reviws from websites which give scores.

To answer the headline it's a decision by RMC to have the content of the review stand for the game than a number. Even then on the other hand people give complains when the content doesn't reflect their own impressions of said game. I think that's another reason why they're not scored anymore.

Also in regards to comparing scores of FedForce with Other M, they're both weak Metroid titles. FedForce mainly for it's lack of ambition (though an enjoyable coop game) and Other M because failing to deliver on several of it's ideas (that's all I say considering the rule for it on here).

Sat Aug 27 16 01:58pm
(Updated 1 time)

The rule for it disappeared with the new version of the site^^

Because numbers are actually meaningless and distract the reader from the thoughtful content of the review... and also requires the reviewer to write a thoughtful review instead of just slapping a number down and cwlling it a day.

Sat Aug 27 16 07:42pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 2 times)

Because RMC seems to have taken an overly defensive nature to certain games as of late and thinks that scores aren't important because "everyone uses them and people rely on them" yet by giving zero indicator of how much he likes the game on any sort of scale it makes them more confusing than they used to be. It really frustrates me and I wish he'd at the very least adapt a Gamexplain system where it's a simple scale to dictate how much he enjoyed/hated a game.

Speaking of which, is it just me, or is it odd that RMC rarely dislikes games that he reviews, even when playing games like Star Fox Zero or any Nintendo game that has mixed controls/is a shallow experience? Out of the three years I've been here, I don't think I've ever seen him dislike a game/hate it with a strong passion. Makes me suspect that either he's just cherry picking games he plans to like or simply doesn't dislike many games to speak of. Brutal honesty, but I just don't find his reviews that helpful due to most of them not having any sort of indicator on how good/bad the actual game is. :|

His Federation Force review was a little too focused on the naysayers... but I've always enjoyed his reviews. A numerical score or scale just sets up games to be compared to other games instead of actually talking about the specific experience of the game being reviewed.
He also doesn't push his opinion and always leaves it open for the reader to conclude "Hey, RMC enjoyed this bit but it might not be something I would enjoy."
In fact, I think that's what it boils down to. Because of tastes, there cannot be a universal scale to rate how good games are. It's better to hear one person describe their experience with the game and decide for yourself if this game is for you or not.

Well of course slapping a score and calling it a day doesn't work either. Reviews are a mixture of both, meant to express the honest opinion of the reviewer and also to help the readers decide whether a product is right for them or now. That's how I've always seen them in my reviews at least.

That's true, but readers just have the bad habit of skimming or skipping the written part and just looking at the score... often juat resulting in confirmation bias. I just think getting people to read and not look at a scorr get's them thinking more.

Mon Aug 29 16 10:16am
Rating: 1

I had the feeling Rmc was just trying to avoid "hurting people's feelings" because nowdays people can get angry easily if you criticize a game they like, so its maybe less controversial to pick up games you more or less know you wont criticize too much. In the case of federation force, if anyone makes a bad review about it, some will approve but some people will call that person hater, and if the persongives it a decent rating they will claim the person made it to look reasonable and neutral.

And yes ratings arent an absolute thing they are subjective, but as long as you dont claim your review is absolute truth there is nothing wrong with using them imo.

It's an unusual stroke of (journalist) pretentiousness for RMC, but I fully support it.

So many gamers focus solely on the numeral assigned, but ignore the rationale behind why a given reviewer chose that score. RMC, by skipping score-giving, circumvents the hostility certain unstable gamers spew over review scores, and considering the tone of this site and its community, I have to praise that effort.

I prefer scores. It gives the game some ....., I'm struggling for the word. Maybe later I'll edit it in. I tend not to read reviews without a score as I don't agree with the practise. A number gives an instant snapshot, if a game scores really low or high, I'm far more likely to read the review to find out why. Also, having a score, would mean this site could contribute to Metacritic and Gamerankings.

I commend RMC for doing away with scores.

Go to the comment section of any review with a score and you’ll find the moronic debate ensuing over “this game got a better score than that game” and usually it’s two different genres, reviewed by two different people yet people think there’s an argument to have about scores.

A bit of reading isn’t going take much time to actually consume a review.


Today's VIP

ericstifer's avatar
Joined: February 2017

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!