I do believe that you can have a numerical representation of a game's overall quality, but a 1-10 scale is just too many choices, and dividing each into ten more increments is just asking for trouble.

A 1-5 scale is more effective I think, with 1 being terrible, 2 being poor, 3 being decent, 4 being great, and 5 being a rare "buy this damn game" score.

Also, 1-10 reviewers tend to review in terms of 7-10, with everything below that being TERRIBLE.

It depends on the reviewer. Some reviewers, like Yahtzee, are pretty clear if they like or didn't like a game and that's that. Other reviewers are more about the actual quality of a game. I for one would a combination of Giantbomb and Yahtzee; something in the middle. I think the five star system works amazingly well:

5 = Excellent, amazing game. Not perfect, mind you, but definitely awesome. (MGS4, GTA4, Gears 2)
4 = Great but not for everyone; not flawless. (Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Viva Pinata: TIP)
3 = Good but flawed Still worth playing if you're interested. (Star Wars: TFU, Mirror's Edge).
2 = Bad, with a little charm. This is probably what a reviewer might call "mediocre" (Fracture).
1 = Awful.(Rock Revolution)

I like it because it doesn't get as nitty-gritty as a lot of systems do. You know, like IGN's system that makes you believe there is a real difference between 9.8 and 9.9. I guess some people like that, but you should really read a review to justify a score and the star system is best at that. E.g, "why Mortal Kombat vs. DC get five stars?"

To me, the problem with giving a game a score gives a false impression of a definite, scientifically calculated answer when the very notion that fun and enjoyment is something that can be systematically calculated out using a cookie cutter set of equations and metrics would strike most as asinine.

The end result of any game review ought to be one of two things: either the reviewer throws any hope of objectivity out the window and says they did or did not enjoy, or they quite simply give you a list of uninteresting facts about the game.

As an example, Mercenaries 2 was one of the most enjoyable and yet profoundly disappointing gaming experiences of the last year for me. The 6 - 7 scores it was given by sites like gamespy seem to be, by my accounting at any rate, incredibly generous. The game was absolutely chock full of bugs - a problem made all the worse because I had truly enjoyed the first installment. After I nearly threw the disk aside in disgust, a friend and I gave the game a go cooperatively. Though the problems were still present and often more noticable in multiplayer, I found that I actually had quite a bit of fun playing the game. The only difference was that a single character that existed in my little game world was suddenly controlled by a friend; that was all it took to make me overlook the giant festering pile of garbage that the game consisted of.

How can I measure such a factor objectively? The game itself was barely worth playing from a single player standpoint. The story was predictable, uninspired and unneeded. The graphics themselves were far from groundbreaking, and in fact seemed little improved over the prequel. Neither the AI nor the difficulty were improved in the slightest, and most enemies would be charitably described as "suicidal" making the game incredibly easy most of the time unless you happened to be particularly unlucky (in fact, Yahtzee's review of the single player game mirrors my own opinions so just watch that instead). By itself, I would never recommend the game meaning that if I were to assign the game a score it would probably sit well under 5 on a 1 - 10 scale. With a good friend added, it easily becomes a solid 8 or 9.

Did a bad game suddenly become good? No - it's still objectively speaking a bad game. Only by bringing in additional factors that one can hardly credit to the developers is it suddenly worth playing. Giving the game a score makes a complex issue seem much more two dimensional. I'd rather get a review where someone tells me where the game succeeds and fails in their minds because what I'm really looking for is something to base a future purchase or rental on. I can give it an imaginary score later if I'm really that interested.

If the number represents a very simple summary of a reviewer's opinion, then that's fine. But the system has to be defined. You can't just say a game deserves an 8.8 out of 10 without defining that 8-range games are generally great games, and a higher 8 is quite excellent.

A major problem is the association between score and purchase potential. Most gamers refuse to buy anything with an average score less than 8/10, leading a vast majority of reviewers to operate on something of a "Buy" (8+), Rent (7) or Avoid (1-6) scale anyway, regardless of whether or not they mean to. The Escapist is an obvious example.

It's only words
And words are all I have
To take your heart away

Zetona:
If the number represents a very simple summary of a reviewer's opinion, then that's fine. But the system has to be defined. You can't just say a game deserves an 8.8 out of 10 without defining that 8-range games are generally great games, and a higher 8 is quite excellent.

That is indeed a problem with many review sites and the previously noted 7 - 10 rating scale. To me, a 7 means a game that mostly succeeds but does so with notable points of failure or perhaps does so without any flash. When gamespot hands out a 7, it means the game is damn near unplayable.

It isn't like we haven't seen the 1 - 10 metric elsewhere in our lives - afterall most of us have had some level of formal education (by which I mean at least attended school long enough to learn to read and write) where you are constantly appraised on a very similar system. If I get a game that has a 10.0 rating it had better be perfect - if it isn't it didn't earn the absolute highest score. Even my favorite games of all time are not worthy of that 10.0 rating though because I have never played a game that I think was impossible to improve upon (portal could have had more levels for example, deus ex could have been less linear and so forth)

It's difficult to summarize how good or bad a game is with a number that's why. "Do you really need someone from higher authority to give you a simple yay or nay before buying a game? Why don't you let them step on the other side of your face!". Wise words...

doxcology:
It's difficult to summarize how good or bad a game is with a number that's why. "Do you really need someone from higher authority to give you a simple yay or nay before buying a game? Why don't you let them step on the other side of your face!". Wise words...

I don't think it's difficult to summarize how good a game is with a number; the problem is many people won't share my particular outlook on the situation. A number gives a false sense of objectivity to what is nothing more than an arbitrary value given after a subjective experience. I absolutely cannot stand playing metal gear solid and if I gave it a numeric score based on what I like it would be a 3. But, while I find it's story silly and it's control maddening, I am in a tiny minority. I can recognize that it has qualities that people like but I have to be incredibly desperate for entertainment before I resort to a MGS title.

Maybe reviewers rate video games with a number because that makes them feel like they're objective, important and some other words that make your self-esteem grow.

i personally don't hate them, but i find them to be a little too black and white, i think reviewers should just tell you about the game and leave you to decide

veekter:
i personally don't hate them, but i find them to be a little too black and white, i think reviewers should just tell you about the game and leave you to decide

I'd agree with this. I do expect a recommendation at the end though. Afterall, if someone consistently likes the same games I like then their recommendation is probably going to be fairly accurate. That is, in the end what people really want to know: is game X worth my money?

I personally think that a numeric value doesn't convey as much information or have the same affect on a reader as an indepth description does. I for one cannot relate to a "6/10" score that someone stamps on the bottom, partly because it makes me think "and that means?" and secondly because I panic whenever I see number because my maths is terrible...

Someone will someday jump from out behind a bush and scream two times ten and send me into a coma...

But that's just me.

it tends to distract people from going "Ok, it scored a 9.5, 'kay i'll bother with that" *close browser*

considering this trend of companies telling reviewers what kind of people should play and review their games is growing a number just doesn't adequately represent what a game is really like, whereas if you have someone actually discuss the game (albeit to themselves) you're much likely to gain a much better understanding of how the game will play out.

personally, i prefer the no number approach.

You know what, you have a point. I give this topic a 9/10.

I think numbers are unnecessary. Some people have suggested the five star methods, but if you actually read a review and couldn't figure out where it fell in that scale there is something wrong with you. In that sense numbers pander to the lazy or those who don't want to read your review. You could be doing your work a disservice to give a numerical value for a review.

What? I'm alright with a numerical rating. It's a simple representational summary of the reviewers opinion. I mean, I really couldn't care less whether people use them or not, it doesn't really change anything.

They're lazy, they're arbitrary and cater to the ignorant unwashed masses that are too lazy to read.

As Yahtzee once said: "I don't believe in numeric reviews because I don't believe a numeric review can be expressed numerically."

thatstheguy:
You know what, you have a point. I give this topic a 9/10.

Thank you!

And I will clarify, I do think that decimals are just stupid. If something gets a 7.7, it's like "Well, is it a 7 or an 8?" It just needlessly complicates things.

I think numerical scores can't describe how fun a game is. The reason for this is that they're too limiting. Saying Left 4 Dead deserves a 5/10 is no different than me just saying "Left 4 Dead sucks!" I'm sure I've turned a few heads by now and most you are going to ask "How could you say that?" To prove my point, I'm not going to tell you, I'm just going to say 5/10. Another problem is the person who's reviewing it. Does the reader and reviewer share mutual interest? I could say Starcraft deserves a 9/10, but if you don't like RTS' then I would say it's not for you. Some people may be patient when it comes to long load times and cutscenes, but someone like me would butcher a considerable portion of respect for that. When I'm using a single number, I could not say "This game is for this type of person." Or "If you like design aspects X and Y, then you'll love this game." Yahtzee has done this in several of his videos so now I can tell my fish eating caveman friend to disregard the 67 Sonic Unleashed got on Metacritics.

If we were to use numerical scores, think of how many games there are and how many numbers you can use. 5, 10, 100. In my opinion, there's a vast difference in how much I enjoyed OoT and Half-Life but I would give them both a 4/5 and 9/9 because they're both superb(One less than the best because they would have to be perfect in order for me to give them those scores). Even 100 possible numbers is not be enough because I'll have to make sure my favorite games score higher than other games I would give 90s to. Numerical scores are also somewhat ambiguous. If I were to tag a number on something I'd go "I unno, bout an 8.5, hmmm, bout maybe bout an 8.7."

inu-kun:
You can't really compare the scores them to other games, so Halo 3 gets a higher score in everything than valkyria chronicles, despite the perfection of the latter.

you calling any game "perfect" makes you sound like an ass, just letting you know.

Railu:
I don't hate the concept of numbered reviews, I just hate the flawed principle on which most operate. Especially ones like Gamespot that use a 6-9 rating whose final rating has nothing to do with the actual scores it rates the individual criteria. If you give controls a 6 and graphics an 8, why is it rated 9.5 overall? That's ridiculous.

They're a flawed concept. and As much as I hate gamestop, certain things matter less than others, and I'm pretty sure they have 5 criteria for a game.

Dajmin:
I like reviews with numbers. The only problem really comes when you use one score to judge it AGAINST another game. And if that other game is completely different then it's not fair to say it's better or worse.

However, if I'm looking at a couple basketball games, for example, I know that each one is going to have the same basic idea. Pass the ball, put the ball through the net. Any features outside of that are purely optional and that's when you need to actually look at a box or read a review. But I can tell from a score right away that one game is better at the core parts than the other.
Same goes for a lot of racing games and fighting games, and - let's be honest here - half of the FPS games on the market.

The score on it's own isn't enough to completely sell it, but if something has a 16/100 rating from half a dozen different sources, do you really need to even bother reading the review? That is an instant "yes, buy this" or "no, don't buy this" moment. The numbers should be to make you read (or not) the review, not to say whether you'd like the game or not.

That's ridiculous. You're trusting that the reviewer likes X feature as much as you do by trusting that their score on a basketball game will reflect your opinion on the game in comparison to another one. You got to listen to the review and figure out why the reviewer scored it as such. I hate unskippable cutscenes more than any reviewer I've ever seen/heard/read so maybe while they rate a game with unskippable cutscenes a 8, I'd rate it 6.5 (yea I hate it that much)

I'd read a review for something rated 16/100. If I can't trust that the reviewers will be right about something rated highly (like halo,uncharted, and I think the witcher) then I won't trust them on a crappy game either.

Scores tend to be more memorable however I don't like the rigidity of them. With comments only, you can form your own opinion and decide if you want to try the game out or not. Many people will pass on games because they got a low score, but sometimes that will be because the game had certain things that the review didn't like. Doesn't me you don't like some of those things

Personaly I prefer one line summations that give you an idea of the reviewers opinion without the pretense that a game can ever be distilled to a number.

When you read ACTION BUTTON write something like
Dead Space is "A gamefuneral".

or

Gears of War 2 is "Videogames: The Videogame".

You get the idea and it's more entertaining.

...

Why can't reviewers just use an adjective for a score? A 8.7 can mean great, or good. Crappy means crappy. I never trust the scores, most reviewers gave Saints row 2 something around an 8/10. I love the game, and I give it an awesome out of awesome.

The same reason intelligence shouldn't be measured in numbers. Such a broad subject could not be accurately expressed as linear.

Rating a game is very pointless. One could express one's opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion that is opt to differ greatly from the interests of another.

EDIT: Jesus Christ. Though I sometimes speak like this, I should stop being so fancy for my age.
Should I dumb it down a bit?

1 to 10 doesn't work well, it's retarded. Essentially, grades 1-5 are completely useless, meaning, it doesnt matter if the game gets a 1 or a 4, either way it's shit and not worth playing, according to the review. So the 1 to 10 system effectively goes from 5 to 10.

Beyond that, to put a number like that on a game is just a gross oversimplification, and I just don't find it helpful.

TaborMallory:
The same reason intelligence shouldn't be measured in numbers. Such a broad subject could not be accurately expressed as linear.

Rating a game is very pointless. One could express one's opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion that is opt to differ greatly from the interests of another.

EDIT: Jesus Christ. Though I sometimes speak like this, I should stop being so fancy for my age.
Should I dumb it down a bit?

It's cool man, you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Thanks for checkin' in on us though!

My position on the subject is that a number system is okay, but the Buy/Rent/Leave system is better. Numbers are very subjective. Someone's ten may be very different from another person's. Reviews are meant to help you decide whether you should spend your cash or not, and the Buy/Rent/Leave system is a lot better for that.

On an aside, I find that number scores and subheadings tend to go hand in hand. I prefer reviews to flow, as it makes reading a little more fun.

A good example of how the numbers game is perceived by the public is to check out the comments thread for pretty much any popular review on Eurogamer. If a game gets 9/10, for example, you will see a procession of comments such as -

"So, better than MGS4 then?" [Eurogamer gave MGS4 8/10, it's a recurring theme)
"This game is never a 9, no more than an 8 at best."
"This review reads like a 7, I was surprised to see the score."
"Yet Halo 3 got 10/10, and this is clearly a much better game."
"This reviewer clearly sucks / takes bribes / has been affected by the advertising."

The thread will later be joined by the 'reviews are subjective / 5 is average' crowd.

Ultimately I think there is some aspect of human nature that likes to see even fairly nebulous concepts quantified, hence all the pointless stats that you see in sports coverage. And don't forget, there are plenty of TL:DR people out there, who only want the score - look at the rise of metacritic.

From the point of view of the reviewers / publications / websites it makes sense to include a number and keep everybody happy; these people are mostly concerned about 'bums on seats', not the finer points of the nature of criticism and reviews.

Its extremely bad because most of the reviewers who have 10 numbers at their disposal forget that 5= average game, and only use numbers 5-10

The first problem with numbered reviews is the douchebags who use them.

Example; GTA4 got 100/100, or equivalent, from virtually every reviewer. It doesn't deserve that. It doesn't come ANYWHERE close to deserving that! It's so bloody obvious the people doing the reviews were working under the "praise it or get fired!" mentality it voids the point of a review.

The second problem is that Numbers mean jack. The Mona Lisa would get 10/10 for graphics, but that doesn't mean it's an amazing videogame.

Case in point, I reviewed World of Warcraft a long while back on another site, and tried to give a "numbered" Review. People bitched about the fact I'd given Graphics and Sound high scores (8 or 9 out of 10), yet overall I gave it a 4/10. They somehow believed that you MUST pull everything up, and that seems bloody stupid. My logic was that it looked and sounded beautiful, but the gameplay was nothing new and it got boring very fast. As such, the cosmetics were not enough to save it.

People who don't feel the need to compile everything to an arbitrary number tend to do a better job overall of getting across whether the game is worth playing. After all, these days a 7/10 is a Bad Review, so the system's obviously not working.

fallout 3 was given 100% by Gamespy.. the game is perfect..

oh wait..

that's whats wrong with numbers.. it doesn't get across a sentiment.. to want to play a game based of a review you want to know what to expect.. if a game got a perfect score I fully expect it to grip me by my unmentionables and massage them, while simultaneously fulfilling my desires for violence, meaningful character development, and gripping story line.

A score wont and can't get across what to expect from a game in terms of whether or not it will fulfill your criteria of what you are looking for.

I3uster:
Its extremely bad because most of the reviewers who have 10 numbers at their disposal forget that 5= average game, and only use numbers 5-10

As said before, reviews are rated on a four point scale. Everything under a 7/10 means the game isn't worth your money.
This isn't the fault of reviewers, they are forced to do review games like that in order to keep their jobs. It's the fault of publishers.
If a gaming magazine gave CoD1 a 5/10, Activision could just refuse to send that magazine an early copy of all other Call of Duty games, meaning that magazine just lost a huge amount of subscribers because they're no longer able to provide early or exclusive content.

harhol:

At least a badly written review with a number gives you some kind of insight into the player's mind. Not everyone can articulate their thoughts & feelings into pretty paragraphs. There might be people out there who have played 1000s of games but who can barely string a sentence together. Their opinions matter just as much as someone who can write effusively but who has very little knowledge of games, arguably more so. Numbers are only inherrently bad when they are either (A) higher than 10 (or use more than ten denominations), or (B) used to score individual parts of a game.

While it may be true that gaming knowledge and writing skill doesn't always come together, a number still doesn't tell me anything about the game, it is just a number. A sentence, even a badly phrased one tells me something about the game. A number doesn't tell me whether or not I will enjoy the game, it tells me whether or not the reviewer liked the game.

And I probably should have said this earlier, but I don't have anything against reveiws with scores on the end, I just don't pay as much attention to the number as I do to the argumentation.