Interesting developments over at Eurogamer. Their reasoning seems sound, or rather, it works well for what they're trying to accomplish.
Rule #2: Double-tap
So instead of people bickering about a score "This review sounded more like 4.23 to me!", "An 8? They've obviously been paid by the publishers!" they'll be saying "This review didn't sound like a Recommended to me!" or "Recommended? They've obviously been paid by the publishers!"
Good on them getting away from 'relative' scoring. Their new format almost sounds like how we've run a few reviews here at Tap; no score with a summarising statement at the top. Ultimately I wish writers/reviewers/critics would have more confidence in their words and less on a stamp or number. I do prefer a stamp over a number unless said number is just a way of saying 'I loved (5)/hated (1) this, other stuff be damned' which is how I used to score before deciding to leave it out.
While they did have scores, I always used to trust the "Editor's Choice" stamp of PC gamer in the '90s and early '00s. I like it, it's a simple idea and I think it can stand on its own without numbers. But numbers aren't inherently bad either .. the scale has just become so convoluted that they're totally unhelpful. For examples of people applying scores honestly and spanning their whole scale I would say see the following: Tom Chick, Tevis Thompson (he's still a bit of an arse, I think), Tap-Repeatedly!
If being wrong's a crime I'm serving forever
Good for Eurogamer, says I. This can't have been an easy decision. Being delisted from Metacritic is devastating to traffic, but Metacritic is part of the problem given its policies for how it handles such content. I've always been impressed with Eurogamer's writing, which generally stands on its own.
Scores are nice if you know what you're looking for and you want a quick reference. If you're looking for an average critical impression of something. If you're only tangentially interested in the product and don't want to read a whole review. Scores are fine for all that, but the system is messed up and untrustworthy. And, frankly, we have some really good writers in the game journalism world, writers whose words should be read. It's a disservice to their work if readers glean everything from a handful of numbers but ignore the arguments as to why those numbers are what they are.
Life is the misery we endure between disappointments.
Most Users Ever Online: 252
Currently Online:
6 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Spike: 1187
Pokey: 894
Jarrod: 607
Finkbug: 468
Armand: 318
kaythomas: 307
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 9
Members: 15030
Moderators: 18
Admins: 6
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 4
Topics: 816
Posts: 18549
Newest Members:
HoustonPulge, DayanaNow, Janehoats, Robertanage, Brianexarf, XXXIsrModerators: Jen: 631, Orb: 0, Scout: 1205, Toger: 1488, Yapette: 836, Dobralov: 17, xtal: 1685, Meho: 82, Tap-Repeatedly: 0, geggis: 1435, Lewis B: 214, Mat: 245, AJLange: 200, Dix: 483, Cheeta: 0, LewisB: 0, Amy Louise: 12, l0vetemper: 3
Administrators: admin: 2, MrLipid: 31, Steerpike: 3310, Helmut: 795, Synonamess Botch: 1127, heddhunter: 27