A Look at Gaming Review Scores
With the recent release of the legendary 'vaporware' Duke Nukem Forever, the subsequent reviews got me thinking about gaming reviews, and the usage of scores to rate games, along with what reviewers actually entail, and what I believe they should. This includes 1-10, A-F, and 1-5. These ratings are supposed to follow the general pattern of the lowest score being a complete disaster, the middle score (5, C+, 2.5) meaning mediocre, and the highest score meaning Outstanding. However, recent reviews have begun to make me think differently. Do these scores really reflect what they should? Let's have a deeper look.
The aforementioned Duke Nukem Forever was met with mixed reviews at best, but some of the scores, and what they reflected, astonished me. There are quite a few examples of this, two of them being the Edge review, and the Eurogamer review. Both of these reviews gave the game a 3/10, which to me reads 'very disappointing'. But before we delve into the reviews themselves, I think it's definitely worth taking a look at Duke Nukem Forever as a game, first and foremost.
Duke Nukem Forever began production in 1996, and was just released now in 2011. Throughout this 15 year production hell, the game was given several release dates which were quickly made moot, and was made by two different developers. Originally, 3D Realms began production in 1996, but were down-sized in 2009 for financial reasons. This led to a legal battle between 3D Realms and 2K games, until in 2010, it was announced that Gearbox Software would be finishing the development of the game. The game was just released in 2011, after 15 years of hype and disbelief. The background of the game definitely has a bearing on the review scores.
Generally, most reviews agree that the game is mediocre-at-best, and is worthy of 1 play through at the most. However, some reviews say practically the same things about the game, but give them different scores, ranging from .5 to 2 whole points. The question this raises is whether all reviewers should stick to a general reviewing system, such as 1 specific score meaning a specific thing. This would benefit gamers because this system works without any hype or presumptions affecting the score, just the game's quality. However, this may take away reviewer's disappointments which other reader's may agree with, even if they are from hype or what they took the game to be.
In the end, gaming review scores are only opinions, but it is very interesting to see what changes some people's opinions, and in turn the review scores. Some reviewers review the game on it's merits as a stand-alone product, away from any hype and comparisons with other games. Whilst this prevents the reviewer's pre-conceived notions affecting the score, it also does not factor in better options within the gaming market, which may lead to a reader feeling scammed. On the other hand, some reviewers like to incorporate their own opinions and other games heavily into their reviews, in order to make the review much more representative of the game's 'stature' within the gaming market as a whole.
Now this post did not exactly have one sole purpose, except to view game reviews from a different perspective, especially as consumers are beginning to look for reviews to separate 'must-buys' from 'rentals' in these hard times. In my opinion, gaming reviews are not rules to follow, but merely guidelines and sophisticated recommendations from the industry's experts, which is why I prefer reviews to have opinions galore and to involve everything, ranging from the effect of the game's hype (or lack thereof) to what the reviewer was initially expecting. But this is just my opinion, so feel free to comment and let me know how you feel about gaming reviews, and what they represent.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-12-duke-nukem-forever-review?page=3#justposted
Daniel Cartwright
Reader Comments