Dissecting review scores: Too high, too low, and too soon

review scores anger

Ah, review scores. They’re the flame that draws the moth-like lazy readers who want anywhere from 500 to 2,000 words summed up in a single number. If that sentence doesn’t convey their inherent problem — and years of watching the Olympics or receiving grades on exams haven’t clued you in — then consider how much grey area exists between one and 100.

Any form of media, from books to games, is not made of the same stuff as a 100-point exam, either. If each test question is worth one point, then figuring out the grade the student deserves is an easy enough calculation. It’s when the teacher starts awarding half points and quarters-points that you storm over to her desk and demand an explanation.

As a reviewer of various things, I assign scores. Outlets tend to use their own criteria, forming a total out of 10 or 100, for example, or maybe even adopting letter grades. Even so, what a “9” represents on one website is not the same somewhere else even though we like to qualify it as such on aggregate sites like Metacritic.

I’ve switched over to letter grades (A through F) when reviewing for pleasure because it’s familiar and refreshingly straightforward. I don’t have to worry about how a 9 is minutely different from an 8 when a 6 is in a separate league of awfulness. Ironically, the grading system we turn to for simplicity has poisoned how we measure quality. (And worse, I can’t seem to stop throwing in pluses and minuses. Help!)

It’s hard to determine the best score. We get so bogged down by what’s “fair” that we have no idea what fair means, but the truth of the matter is that no one will ever agree on a single verdict. You’re always wrong to someone. There is no perfect number because the numbers mean little to begin with.

This is what gives writers grief: Numbers do carry weight. Readers don’t read reviews as much as they hunt for the end result and then go back and read the evidence — not for educational purposes and to better understand but for ammunition to attack the critic with.

You might think otherwise, but reviewers really do care. In video games, I obsess over a score more than I should and usually end up regretting it later no matter what choice I make. But we do weigh the pros and cons, shuffle around the numbers in our head, and put forth a great effort than a lot of people seem to believe.

The source of the problem is not the system itself but in how we’re inclined to interpret it. Even the places that crack down — making a point to stretch their legs in all that numerical space — can’t seem to budge out of a certain range.

For example, all Game Informer loves to give is 8s, and all Polygon feels comfortable with are 6s. You can’t count too many high scores without seeing an immediate, almost predictable drop as though the staff is meeting some sort of quota for the month.

SimCity 2013

I love both those sites dearly, but what we need is to do away with the 10-point system entirely. No one possesses the sort of reflex that enables them to operate well within that range because we were all raised on the same grading system in America, where As and Bs are good and everything else is shameful. Better not show that one to your parents.

If we’re all so awkward at assigning scores that we’re making it up as we go along, why even bother to have them? Well, they’re expected. Mandatory. A part of the industry and the universal language for “good” and “bad” product. A thumbs-up and thumbs-down are too basic; we need more flexibility to allow for degrees of quality.

That concept just gets out of control.

What’s worse is when we take back scores under pressure, like Polygon did recently with one of its articles. What happened is this: Electronic Arts released SimCity on its always-online service Origin, and early reviewers had no problem playing around in the game, which is apparently quite good. Then launch day came, and the public servers were fired up, and no one could access the game they had paid $60 for.

So Polygon downgraded its score for a very generous 9.5 to an 8.0 and then to a 4.0. You can see the history and the reasons given for it on the review page.

This withdrawal seems like more of an attempt to be a voice of the people than to present an honest assessment. But game “journalists” aren’t gamers’ friends even though we’re gamers ourselves. When you change a score, you’re giving readers a reason to doubt your credibility. It’s not uncommon for a game experience to change before or after release, mostly due to performance-enhancing or bug-fixing patches, but reviewers rate a game based on the state they played it — not external factors that take effect afterward.

And moving from an 8 to a 4 is a mental reconfiguration equal to a geographic landslide.

The bottom line is that connectivity is a temporary issue. Even Blizzard’s Diablo III failed to launch when it was supposed to, but servers do not make a game. As embarrassing as it is, shouldn’t Polygon be obligated to restore its original outcome once these problems are completely resolved and the experience is, well, good again? Amazingly good, apparently. A 9.5 is pretty outstanding.

SimCity itself doesn’t sound like a low-quality game to me, but unfortunately, the business doesn’t separate reviews scores into sections: one for the game and one for server maintenance. Maybe it should.

4 thoughts on “Dissecting review scores: Too high, too low, and too soon”

  1. But the problem is, it is a low quality game in a lot of respects; the server problems were just the tip of the iceberg. The game is near unplayable after a few hours because of a poorly designed AI system. I think it is closer to the truth that most games are rated far too prematurely. Reviewers oftentimes give a score on only a few hours of gameplay, if even that. Is that enough time to truly determine a game’s worth? I think giving SimCity a 9.5, as some people did pre-launch, was much too generous.


    1. I don’t know — I’ve heard just the opposite: That SimCity is good, and it’s unfortunate that EA/Maxis can’t offer an offline experience.

      Reviewers are supposed to give as much time as possible to a game before writing their impressions. Many do, although we’re often under tight deadlines as well.

      Perhaps a 9.5 was too generous; Polygon certainly seems to think so now. But the very debate over whether a score is too lenient or too harsh reiterates what I’m saying: the 10-point and 100-point systems are flawed.


  2. I can definitely attest to SimCity being an awesome experience. It’s better than the other SimCity’s in probably every way.

    Polygon originally gave SimCity a 9.5, based solely on the gaming experience before the public servers went live, and has since revised the review twice to reflect the connection and server issues: a 6 and then a 4.5.

    I’d agree with you completely, Stephanie, in that maybe a dual review score would be in order (I’m not so sure about letter grading; not against it, but I think we could run into similar problems of quantifying quality with all the B+ and C-s out there. :P).

    Perhaps its because online only single player games are brand new, so we didn’t have to really think about a dual system? Diablo 3 and SimCity both got flak for being online only; we expect it from an MMO, but not from single player. Maybe it’s time we seriously start to separate the game from how we connect to it.

    It reminds me of people who review a product on Amazon and give it 1 star because of shipping woes rather than how good the product itself is, and I wish Amazon would have two review systems, you know?


    1. Mike! :) Good to hear from you, as always.

      Letter grades, 1-5 — anything on a 5-point scale would be better, I think. There’s too much wiggle room with bigger systems, like 10s and 100s. But yeah, I know what you mean with pluses and minuses. That’s the exact thing I don’t want but end up using sometimes on my blog. ;P But, hey! It’s my blog.

      I was mostly just pondering at the end of the post when I suggested enforcing dual scores, but it’s worth considering. Polygon should have done what it did differently — it could have written a separate post to the effect or added a note of consideration, all without changing the score. It should have stood by its original number. But I think you’re absolutely right when you say, “Maybe it’s time we seriously start to separate the game from how we connect to it” — at least in terms of the core experience. While the always-on connection is an integral part of SimCity, it’s not representative of the game itself. So while it’s currently impossible to detach SimCity from Origin’s performance, that’s only because of a business decision. Change that element, and SimCity is otherwise amazing. It’s such a shame that EA seems unwilling to.

      In other cases, though, maybe we can’t separate a game from the way we connect to it — if the problem is inherent to the design. Like a mobile game, for example, where the touch controls just don’t work well. It’s an interesting issue, for sure, and one worth debating. I don’t know that there’s one surefire answer, but it’s fun to discuss.

      I think if you’re going to make an online-only experience, you’re automatically going to polarize your audience — especially if your history was mostly offline. (The same happens when you uproot from one platform to another, or become exclusive, like with Bayonetta 2.) If you’re going to move in a new direction and isolate longtime players (not everyone can play online), you need to do it well. Blizzard didn’t. EA and Maxis didn’t. They’re now paying for those mistakes and oversights. They didn’t prepare for what would seem to inevitably be a rocky launch. If they had a better plan in place to deal with the server overload, it wouldn’t have been so bad. But they showed poor damage control — as if they didn’t see it coming.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s