Comments on: Eurogamer Statosity: 7/10

By: TeeJay

TeeJay — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:21:34 +0000

Biggest mis-matches between Eurogamer critics scores and reader’s scores (10 or more votes)?

Mafia: EG=4 Readers=8.4
Another World (15th Ann.): EG=5 Readers=8.0
Mount & Blade: EG=5 Readers=8.0
Postal 2: EG=3 Readers=6.0

Boiling Point: EG=9 Readers=6.2
Star Wars Galaxies: EG= 7 Readers=4.4
Sudden Strike 2: EG=8; Readers=5.5
Spore: EG=9; Readers=6.6

Also agreement:
Half-Life 2: EG=9; Readers=9.1
Far Cry: EG=8; Readers=8.0
Team Fortress 2: EG=9; Readers=8.9

By: TeeJay

TeeJay — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:02:55 +0000

Looking at the 769 “PC games” in Eurogamer database:

10 = 8 games
9 = 95 games
8 = 173 games
7 = 203 games
8 = 134 games
5 = 83 games
4 = 38 games
3 = 26 games
2 = 7 games
1 = 3 game

average score = 6.8

Cf. Eurogamer readers’ scores (total = 1190 ie. also includes older games): average = 7.2

Excluding all games that have less than 10 readers’ scores (total = 526): average = 7.7

These break down as follows:
9.00+ = 16 games
8.00 – 8.99 = 177 games
7.00 – 7.99 = 247 games
6.00 – 6.99 = 70 games
5.00 – 5.99 = 11 games
4.00 – 4.99 = 4 games
3.00 – 3.99 = 1 game
(how to compare these reader averages with review scores? eg x>9.00 = 9 or 10? Or 9.5>x>8.5 = 9, etc.)

The higher readers’ scores could suggest that not many people end up playing the *worst* games and that people tend to end up buying->playing->listing->scoring games they have already have *some* preference for. Good games motivate more readers to actually give scores than bad ones do.

By: Pod

Pod — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:44:13 +0000

No sigh of good old 73%?

By: hoff

hoff — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:33:44 +0000

Further more proves that an “average” score in gaming journalism is an 8 or 7, while a 5 is already an insult. Maybe it’s something psychological and there’s no way around it. But I wonder, if a 5 was the average score given, how the additional refinement in scores would allow better comparison. Especially, since EG decided not to use 1-100 but 1-10 measurements.

By: VelvetFistIronGlove

VelvetFistIronGlove — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:10:49 +0000

I like the RPS verdict approach—all four entities in the hivemind would play the game, then have a combined discussion about what they liked/disliked about it. At the end, each would give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. Since by now I have a reasonable idea of how much each entity’s game taste overlaps with my own, the result was exceedingly useful (e.g. Kieron gave this a thumbs up but John thumbs down? Probably not my cup of tea).

By: Lewis

Lewis — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:39:27 +0000

What’s your point? That Stuart Campbell thinks there’s a chance that Eurogamer might have done a dodgy deal four years ago, but there’s no evidence?

Either way, I’m talking about Eurogamer at the moment. I know that’s Tom’s policy. When Kristan was at the helm, it may have been different. No idea.

By: Bret

Bret — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:29:44 +0000

I kinda like having a score.

I mean, sure, the review is the important part, and some games get, say, sevens but the text gives the idea “Geeze. This? This is my kind of game.” (Like most non-Kieron reviews of EDF 2017, say.)

But a score helps make dillydallying clearer sometimes. It conveys the general impression, and for some reviews, it really helps deal with nitpicking in an odd way. I mean, if a review catalogs faults, and ends on a ten from a reasonably reliable journalist? Says the fun, or the art, or whatever totally overwhelms the flaws. Not always good, but sometimes useful.

Also, I like brightly colored numbers. They make me clap my hands in childlike glee.

By: bill

bill — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:39:20 +0000

I like it. I shall appropriate it and use it every time someone complains about review scores.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:22:07 +0000

I think games should be scored along the lines of the Michelin star system – average games get no stars at all, a very good game in it’s category gets one star, and a truly exceptional game gets three.

This would keep metacritic happy too, since it can be easily converted to the standard 7-10 scale…

By: Hypocee

Hypocee — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:05:19 +0000

In reply to Lewis or not, as RPS’ software decides:

It’s a year of scoring. Assuming the average will or should fall bang-on five is preposterous. Almost as ludicrous as suggesting games’ advertising budgets “buy” tens at Eurogamer. Worth mentioning, I’m sure, that Eurogamer’s editorial staff, writers and freelancers have absolutely no access to advertising information to avoid any conflict-of-interest. Their accounts folk are the only people who have access to that.

Doop de doo

By: D

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:28:41 +0000

Until you buy a 360 and suddenly have half a million reviews/videos to browse through. Then ‘sort by score’ sounds like a good start. You might not ever do so of course, but they do have a usefulness, is my point.

By: bookwormat

bookwormat — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:49:43 +0000

There’s a super simple solution: rate games from -5 to 5

There’s a even better, simpler solution: Don’t rate games at all. It is meaningless and irritating anyway, no matter what scale you’re using.