Xbox Boss: Some Reviewers Give Low Scores For Clicks

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What do you guys think about this statement that some reviewers give intentionally low scores to drive traffic to their site? I suppose the opposite can be said as well. And then there is all the "angry" gamer sites that bash everything just because that's their shtick.

“On the reviews, honestly I thought some of the reviews were a little harsh in terms of their view on the game… I think seven, eight, nine, like anywhere in there is fine. Three or four… I mean somebody gave Forza Horizon 3 a four. I think there's certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out.”
 
It was fun back in the glory days of Gamespot waiting for reviews to drop and start trolling in their forums. Does anyone besides publishers put any stock into game reviews these days? I much prefer watching unfiltered gameplay and coming to my own conclusions than reading some failed English degree carrying San Fran hippie's opinion and the subjective arbitrary score attached to it.
 
While reviews are subjective, he is not wrong. A 4 means that the game is pretty much unplayable, and that is not the case with Forza Horizon 3. If you are playing on PC for some reason the game has a hard time staying at 60 FPS, but the dips are not that frequent. I think that is just because it was optimized for 30 FPS on Xbox. That being said it is a pretty great game, and they already released a patch that fixes the 60 FPS issues for a lot of people, so it looks like they are at least going to support the game.
 
There are still game reviews? And people actually look at them?

If something got less than 85% and actually runs without game killing bugs, that usaully means osmeone didn't apy off the industry shill writing the useless shit.
 
Wait, people are dishonest on the internet for attention?

Well slap my cheeks and call me sally.
 
Shmee said:
While reviews are subjective, he is not wrong. A 4 means that the game is pretty much unplayable...
Click to expand...

I think your statement here highlights a larger issue, and that's review scoring. Basically, things have reached a point where anything less than a 7 means playing the game is literally tantamount to inserting a turd directly into your PC's ports and smearing it around a bit. It's just bunk.
 
You can argue too that a person going to International Business Times for a video game review isn't really a serious gamer anyways.

There is a larger issue nowadays with people using reviews for social justice points, and they all read the same way. "I didn't play this game and I don't have to because it oppresses X" I find those more damaging than someone obviously writing paid content.
 
Spencer is a bit of a punchface but the game certainly isn't a 4.

Still, complaining about it isn't a smart play for him. Rule #3 is "Never let them see you sweat", and that goes double for angry gamerkids.
 
Negativity brings attention, and a lot of these review sites (especially with so much competition in the online space) rely on their site clicks. Still, I do much prefer today's review system - it's pretty easy to weed out the 'extreme views' and get a general idea on a game's quality. Whereas before the prevalence of the internet, you'd rely on printed magazine reviews who a lot of the time relied on the actual game publishers for review code/advertising space, so the potential for 'artificially positive' reviews was there. I remember EGM having advertisers pull out left and right over 'less than highly positive reviews'.
 
Shmee said:
While reviews are subjective, he is not wrong. A 4 means that the game is pretty much unplayable, and that is not the case with Forza Horizon 3. If you are playing on PC for some reason the game has a hard time staying at 60 FPS, but the dips are not that frequent. I think that is just because it was optimized for 30 FPS on Xbox. That being said it is a pretty great game, and they already released a patch that fixes the 60 FPS issues for a lot of people, so it looks like they are at least going to support the game.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be unplayable. I'd score it that too. Boring, no physics, cornering is a joke, no car damage given how much emphasis they have put upon graphics. Also no tyre marks on the road. Other cars are just checkpoints. It's just smash the throttle and turn your brick with the occasional smash the brake.
 
MV75 said:
Doesn't have to be unplayable. I'd score it that too. Boring, no physics, cornering is a joke, no car damage given how much emphasis they have put upon graphics. Also no tyre marks on the road. Other cars are just checkpoints. It's just smash the throttle and turn your brick with the occasional smash the brake.
Click to expand...
19erokqfstuskjpg.jpg
 
I agree that the game is not a 4. But its a port. In my opinion a port has a hard time exceeding a 7 for me. Then throw in "a port on UWP." IMO that tops out at a 6.
 
Axiomatic said:
I agree that the game is not a 4. But its a port. In my opinion a port has a hard time exceeding a 7 for me. Then throw in "a port on UWP." IMO that tops out at a 6.
Click to expand...
Forza Horizon 3 isn't a port, though. The PC version was developed separately from the Xbox ONE version, although both are built upon the UWP framework.
 
And some game companies over hyper middling titles to drive up pre-order numbers. What's your point Phil.
 
Shmee said:
While reviews are subjective, he is not wrong. A 4 means that the game is pretty much unplayable, and that is not the case with Forza Horizon 3. If you are playing on PC for some reason the game has a hard time staying at 60 FPS, but the dips are not that frequent. I think that is just because it was optimized for 30 FPS on Xbox. That being said it is a pretty great game, and they already released a patch that fixes the 60 FPS issues for a lot of people, so it looks like they are at least going to support the game.
Click to expand...
That's why we can't have nice things.
If four is unplayable, then what the hell is 1-3 ?

10 means greatest game ever, something groundbreaking on all fronts that only comes along once a decade
9 means a perfect game that gives almost perfect entertainment
8 is very good game, that is a must have
7 is simply a good game, that doesn't do anything new or groundbreaking but gives a strong solid performance on all fronts
6 is a game that is slightly above average that does something better than the rest so it's still well worth the attention
5 is a completely average game
4 is slightly worse than average, but still enjoyable if it falls into a specific genre that you like
3 is a clearly flawed game, that has numerous probllems
2 is a very bad game, that has game breaking bugs or stupid gameplay elements, or very bad graphics, that should clearly be avoided.
1 is unplayable

That's how you should read review scores, and more importantly that's how reviewers should give scores. I quit reading reviews when they started giving everything a 8 or 9. Average shooters would get 8 points for absolutely no reason. ANd fanboys started thinking that a 7/10 is a bad game. For good reason, since sellout reviewers stopped giving out scores worse than 7, because they wanted review copies. That's part of the reason I started writing my own reviews about 8 years ago.
 
M76 said:
That's why we can't have nice things.
If four is unplayable, then what the hell is 1-3 ?

10 means greatest game ever, something groundbreaking on all fronts that only comes along once a decade
9 means a perfect game that gives almost perfect entertainment
8 is very good game, that is a must have
7 is simply a good game, that doesn't do anything new or groundbreaking but gives a strong solid performance on all fronts
6 is a game that is slightly above average that does something better than the rest so it's still well worth the attention
5 is a completely average game
4 is slightly worse than average, but still enjoyable if it falls into a specific genre that you like
3 is a clearly flawed game, that has numerous probllems
2 is a very bad game, that has game breaking bugs or stupid gameplay elements, or very bad graphics, that should clearly be avoided.
1 is unplayable

That's how you should read review scores, and more importantly that's how reviewers should give scores. I quit reading reviews when they started giving everything a 8 or 9. Average shooters would get 8 points for absolutely no reason. ANd fanboys started thinking that a 7/10 is a bad game. For good reason, since sellout reviewers stopped giving out scores worse than 7, because they wanted review copies. That's part of the reason I started writing my own reviews about 8 years ago.
Click to expand...


So accurate I wish I could give it a dozen likes. Reviewers have begun treating a 7 out 10 as average instead of a 5. Then they give unplayable garbage a 5. To get anything lower than a 5 out 10 any more the game has to brick your system or install cryptolocker. What the hell is the point of a 1-10 scoring system if the middle number isn't the average!!?? It's a 1-10 scale not a 5-10 scale.
 
Fanattic said:
So accurate I wish I could give it a dozen likes. Reviewers have begun treating a 7 out 10 as average instead of a 5. Then they give unplayable garbage a 5. To get anything lower than a 5 out 10 any more the game has to brick your system or install cryptolocker. What the hell is the point of a 1-10 scoring system if the middle number isn't the average!!?? It's a 1-10 scale not a 5-10 scale.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If reviewers were teachers marking papers handed in by students. They'd give a C for an empty sheet of paper with a name on it.
 
This isn't exactly new. I remember about a decade ago plenty of reviewers acting as though a 7 is decidedly average and most people deciding it wouldn't be worth their time. Lots of great games last gen got overlooked for silly shit like that.

Of course the only reviews I read these days is Jim Sterling because he typically tries to go above and beyond in being unbiased and honest with his opinion of a game. Which doesn't mean I always agree either.
 
This has been one of my favorite topics to read comments in. Had me just nodding thinking "well said" pretty much the whole way down, with some laughs of course.

I really just either try out a demo myself, otherwise I watch twitch streams to see peoples reactions in real time and not a typed out review with a couple screen shots. We are past the point of magazine style reviews now a days.
 
M76 said:
That's why we can't have nice things.
If four is unplayable, then what the hell is 1-3 ?

10 means greatest game ever, something groundbreaking on all fronts that only comes along once a decade
9 means a perfect game that gives almost perfect entertainment
8 is very good game, that is a must have
7 is simply a good game, that doesn't do anything new or groundbreaking but gives a strong solid performance on all fronts
6 is a game that is slightly above average that does something better than the rest so it's still well worth the attention
5 is a completely average game
4 is slightly worse than average, but still enjoyable if it falls into a specific genre that you like
3 is a clearly flawed game, that has numerous probllems
2 is a very bad game, that has game breaking bugs or stupid gameplay elements, or very bad graphics, that should clearly be avoided.
1 is unplayable

That's how you should read review scores, and more importantly that's how reviewers should give scores. I quit reading reviews when they started giving everything a 8 or 9. Average shooters would get 8 points for absolutely no reason. ANd fanboys started thinking that a 7/10 is a bad game. For good reason, since sellout reviewers stopped giving out scores worse than 7, because they wanted review copies. That's part of the reason I started writing my own reviews about 8 years ago.
Click to expand...

Have any examples of games and their rating? I like this system a lot. I know it's subjective based on the reviewers tastes, but it's a good system.

Also, you started writing your own reviews? For a site, or Amazon (or other) reviews? If it's a site, what one? I'd like to check it out.
 
MV75 said:
Doesn't have to be unplayable. I'd score it that too. Boring, no physics, cornering is a joke, no car damage given how much emphasis they have put upon graphics. Also no tyre marks on the road. Other cars are just checkpoints. It's just smash the throttle and turn your brick with the occasional smash the brake.
Click to expand...

Forza Horizon is more of the arcade driving game.
Forza Motorsport is a bit better for racing stuff (still, car damage isn't there).

I like the game. Not a 10, but definitely not a 4.
 
Being an edgy contrarian for attention is nothing new, other industries do the same thing.
 
M76 said:
That's why we can't have nice things.
If four is unplayable, then what the hell is 1-3 ?

10 means greatest game ever, something groundbreaking on all fronts that only comes along once a decade
9 means a perfect game that gives almost perfect entertainment
8 is very good game, that is a must have
7 is simply a good game, that doesn't do anything new or groundbreaking but gives a strong solid performance on all fronts
6 is a game that is slightly above average that does something better than the rest so it's still well worth the attention
5 is a completely average game
4 is slightly worse than average, but still enjoyable if it falls into a specific genre that you like
3 is a clearly flawed game, that has numerous probllems
2 is a very bad game, that has game breaking bugs or stupid gameplay elements, or very bad graphics, that should clearly be avoided.
1 is unplayable

That's how you should read review scores, and more importantly that's how reviewers should give scores. I quit reading reviews when they started giving everything a 8 or 9. Average shooters would get 8 points for absolutely no reason. ANd fanboys started thinking that a 7/10 is a bad game. For good reason, since sellout reviewers stopped giving out scores worse than 7, because they wanted review copies. That's part of the reason I started writing my own reviews about 8 years ago.
Click to expand...

I like that system too, but that is not how it works on most sites. I am just saying in general how it works.
 
Steve said:
I think there's certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out.”
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

 
Ur_Mom said:
Have any examples of games and their rating? I like this system a lot. I know it's subjective based on the reviewers tastes, but it's a good system.

Also, you started writing your own reviews? For a site, or Amazon (or other) reviews? If it's a site, what one? I'd like to check it out.
Click to expand...
No I first started posting reviews on another IT forum in 2006 in a different language. But those were just few lines at best nothing big. I really got into writing longer texts about games around 2008-2010.
Then I moved to an English gaming site in 2012, that the owner has taken offline in 2015 without warning, with all my reviews there. Thankfully some were saved on my computer, so I only lost a few articles.
Right now I'm not posting on any particular site. But some of my reviews I did post in this forum in the general gaming section

Here are a few examples. I can't say I've been perfectly unbiased in my scoring either. Or that I kept to that system a hundred percent, especially in the early days. Like sometimes I gave half points.

Alan Wake 7/10
Beyond : Two Souls 6.5/10
Bioshock : Infinite 6.5/10
Fallout: New Vegas 9/10
Mafia 10/10
Mass Effect 9/10
Max Payne 3 6/10
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II 2/10
 
You know what the issue is? Lack of standardization. See, M76 for instance has a scale up there that says exactly what each rating means. There's not much room for BS because it's pretty easy to argue that a game does or does not fulfill the criteria. If games ratings were actually an objective science, there would be one universal rubric as well, made to handle all types of games, including ones that have really unique concepts but not necessarily good production budget.

Currently, we just have people going, "eeeeeeehhhhh this feels like a..... Ummm... 9". Which is retarded. Even if they're trying to be objective, each writer is basically subconsciously factoring in their paycheck and continued employment. Our brains just don't really work on base 10 anyway. You might as well take that entire zone of 1—10 and divide it into three partitions based on the way we feel about the number.

1—5, nope
5—6, eh maybe
7—10, okay, will try

And since only 7 and up matter, you could further divide that a bit, with 8 and 9 and 10 exciting us more. Developers know this. Everyone does. It's self explanatory. Everyone cares about at least getting their game into that upper zone for any consideration. So you'll probably have people that are bought out for giving that review. Then you'll have others giving it something terrible for clicks or giggles, which droves their revenue in another way.

Overall it's just trash. User reviews suffer from lack of standards too, but at least they're not bought out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top