- Joined
- Oct 19, 2015
We all know it - review scores for video games lean heavily towards the upper end of the spectrum to the point where some people don't even consider a game if it doesn't have the equivalent of an 8 out of 10 and everything at or below a 5 is seen as straight up garbage. As a result, small differences of scores in the upper regions can cause incredibly volatile reactions (like that infamous 8.8 thing) but consensus seems more easily reached on straight up garbage games.
Basically, the reason I'm making this thread is twofold:
- a post in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread talking about how much the poster liked the King's Field games despite the series receiving middling reviews
- the general question of "what does a particular score even mean"?
Now, obviously you can't turn video game reviewing into objective science since we're talking about subjective interpretations of personal taste, though stuff like this puts score aggregation sites into question since dozens of scores that are achieved by different people applying different scoring metrics and then mushing them together into one average that may or may not represent an approximation of the quality of the product.
The most satisfying was I can think of for how scores can be interpreted is, if taken out of 100, as a rough estimation in percent of how likely it is that you'll enjoy the game. The degree to how much you would isn't measured by it, however - like how for Deadly Preminition, the score averages out to about 70, but the scores taken range from a perfect 100 to a dismal 20. Or take Nier, for instance - about the same average score, but the fanbase was passionate enough that it received a somewhat-sequel over half a decade after release.
Essentially, going by the average alone derives us of a whole bunch of information about whether one would enjoy a game or not, though this may come down to how lopsided game score are seeing how other fields have less qualms with applying scores beneath a 5.
Basically, the reason I'm making this thread is twofold:
- a post in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread talking about how much the poster liked the King's Field games despite the series receiving middling reviews
- the general question of "what does a particular score even mean"?
Now, obviously you can't turn video game reviewing into objective science since we're talking about subjective interpretations of personal taste, though stuff like this puts score aggregation sites into question since dozens of scores that are achieved by different people applying different scoring metrics and then mushing them together into one average that may or may not represent an approximation of the quality of the product.
The most satisfying was I can think of for how scores can be interpreted is, if taken out of 100, as a rough estimation in percent of how likely it is that you'll enjoy the game. The degree to how much you would isn't measured by it, however - like how for Deadly Preminition, the score averages out to about 70, but the scores taken range from a perfect 100 to a dismal 20. Or take Nier, for instance - about the same average score, but the fanbase was passionate enough that it received a somewhat-sequel over half a decade after release.
Essentially, going by the average alone derives us of a whole bunch of information about whether one would enjoy a game or not, though this may come down to how lopsided game score are seeing how other fields have less qualms with applying scores beneath a 5.
