Results 21 to 33 of 33
25-03-2013, 11:38 AM #21
You know what's the best way to hurt publishers? You circumvent their whole system of metrics and market research. Instead of using metacritic (as if only one site would make a difference), don't use it. Show them that there are still people with working brains out there who do not base their decisions on some kind of arbitrary number, but who are willing to read and comprehend a carefully crafted argument.
It's also about principles. RPS admits that their 'reviews' are completely subjective. The entire site is build upon subjectivity and the personalities and preferences of each writer. Putting those principles aside to implement some kind of rating (even if it's not intended to about the game itself, even if this isn't completely true) means that RPS putting this stupid industry standard above its own principles. And by doing that, RPS would lose the very thing that makes it unique: That it does its own thing (at least to some degree).
P.S.: I also hate the notion of games being a 'service' which comes with this whole 'consumer friendliness rating'.
28-03-2013, 02:36 PM #22
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Well metacritic does actually look at sites before adding them. If RPS did that they wouldn't get included.
04-04-2013, 08:24 PM #23
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
05-04-2013, 02:31 PM #24
While I have no particular desire to see scores on RPS reviews myself, I do agree with the OP that it is one of the main ways for reviewers to influence developers/publishers.
RPS can write as many damning reviews of CoD or Tomb Raider as it likes, but I don't think publishers will listen (and those views won't have a chance to reach as wide an audience) as long as RPS has no scores. If there had been a giant '2' stuck on Tomb Raider on metacritic then I think that'd get their attention.
Of course it might also result in more pressure on RPS - publishers might well not want to give review copies to site that don't love their big AAA games.
So, basically, I'm torn on the issue. I don't think review scores have much value and I prefer reading the words - but I do think review scores would give RPS a wider influence.
IF they did introduce them (and I guess they won't) then I'd recommend a simple 5 star scale. Anything more detailed is a waste of time, but Awful, Bad, OK, Good, Classic is relatively useful and not too ridiculous or harmful.
05-04-2013, 04:45 PM #25
07-04-2013, 02:51 PM #26
I agree with the sentiment, Nalano, but I should remind you that we are human, therefore nothing is beneath us.
04-06-2013, 02:44 PM #27
Numerical scores? No.
Nut scores? Yes.
"I give this game a Walnut for its sharp controls!"
04-06-2013, 02:50 PM #28
05-06-2013, 02:56 AM #29
06-06-2013, 05:41 AM #30
Tbh, after the amount of stock "publishers" (READ: Rich people in suits) put into these scores, it's nice and refreshing to have a site such as RPS (Which I've read as my only true source of PC Gaming news and reviews) which doesn;t pander to this shite. Especially with the likes of IGN (Uuugh) around which cater to the advertisers (Unproven, yet blatantly obvious).
Even with their deviations of late, RPS are still a gaming site I can trust when it comes to their WiT's. But that mainly is an extension of the blatant fanboyism of reading PC Gamer whilst all the staff were part of it :/Yes, I update the below link frequently on a whisky fuelled rampage. I regret nothing.
Being a grumpy bastard about everything gaming related.
07-06-2013, 07:35 AM #31
I used to appreciate WITs a lot some years ago, but not anymore. There are multiple reasons, one of them being that I do not have the time to read walls of text, when there is a significant possibility of a WIT to be less than informative enough (which is relative, I know). This happened with the Skyrim WIT which was just that - what someone thinks, and not enough critical thought (how I perceived it at least). However, the WITs for Skyrim DLCs (especially Dragonborn) were much more substantiated, and it is because of them that I skipped those DLCs (and I am glad for it, for Skyrim is not loved by me anymore). But I have a feeling that it has become an exception. I guess I might be too demanding to RPS, but I am getting old and want strong critical thought and consistency involved in "reviewing" any one game - because based on that review/WIT I decide on my purchase, at least to a degree.
Last edited by Nahru; 07-06-2013 at 07:47 PM.
07-06-2013, 07:01 PM #32
I like the RPS WITs (and the wit), and appreciate not having a numerical score about which everybody can get riled up about (see Polygon's award of 7.5 for The Last of Us as a prime example). However, I do appreciate ArsTechnica's system of "Buy, Rent or Avoid" which is a fair enough recommendation, and may work with RPS's very subjective approach - did the reviewer think it was worth buying or not?
08-06-2013, 03:25 AM #33
I don't care about a score one way or the other (I genuinely don't think it'd detract from the subjective brilliance of RPS writing) but I do think it would be nice to have a little at-a-glance box with some overview info such as:
What kinda DRM:
And maybe a link to the WSGF and/or PCGW pages for the game, if they exist.
Really my biggest problem with RPS is something they share in common with most entertainment sites these days; that is, a large volume of "look at this trailer" type posts. Those are interesting but they're so commonplace across all the games sites anymore that I'd rather be able to filter them out of my RSS feed entirely and just dip into them when I'm in that "I wonder what's off in the distance?" mood.