Home
SAM FISHER
XBL -NONE-
PSN -NONE-
WII
-NONE-
STEAM -NONE-
SAM FISHER'S SPONSOR
POST BY THIS AUTHOR (0)
COMMENTS BY THIS AUTHOR (3)
"BTW: this is an example of the (hopelessly amateur) way I write a review: http://itoeunited.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-zombies-just-like-old-zombies.html"
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
"
Used correctly, the “monetary value” rating system should be the most informative, and thus the one most likely to make Metacritic’s system irrelevant.
To begin with, I disagree with Mr. Vazquez that “[i]deally, a game's evaluated price and actual price will match.” The “ideal” game -- from the gamer’s point of view -- should be one with an evaluated price that exceeds the actual price. For example, Portal is currently available for $20. In retrospect, I would have been willing to pay $30 for the game if I had known ahead of time how much I was going to enjoy the first play-through. That’s equivalent to a score of a 15 on a 1 to 10 scale.
The problem with using a 1 to 10 scale (or other fixed-range metrics) is that it imposes an arbitrary limitation on the reviewer’s ability to communicate his/her level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a game. So, a 15 for Portal would be a technically invalid score, even though you might think it earns that score. That’s why the monetary value system is superior: there are no constraints.
It’s much more rhetorically effective for a reviewer to conclude that “the developer should have paid me to play this game” than it is to simply award the lowest possible score. If you allow for a negative dollar value, a $0 score means “play it only if you get it free,” and a negative value means “even if you get it for free, you’re never going to get those hours of your life back.”
The other problem with fixed-range scoring systems is that once you deduct points, the game can never earn them back. A game may, for example, have a host of technical issues, but could still be worth the asking price. The monetary value system can account for that. There’s a devoted community of Vampire - the Masquerade - Bloodlines fans out there that would argue that the game is still worth buying on Steam for 20 bucks, even though it’s buggy as hell.
The other strength of the monetary value system is that it provides a more practical way to score games with monthly subscription fees. If you have to drop $15 a month to play a given MMO, a reviewer should be able to offer a more nuanced judgment about the value of the subscription, not just the initial purchase price of the base game.
At the end of the day, gamers want two pieces of information from professional reviewers: (1) whether the game’s systems work reasonably well, and (2) whether the game is fun to play. The reviewer can break things down any way he/she likes: +$20 for a great story, -$5 for technical issues, etc. As long as the monetary value system is logical, consistent, and doesn’t have any arbitrary constraints, it can be a much more effective means for the reviewer to communicate with the reader, compared to a fixed-range scoring system that uses undefined units.
Is a 72/100 the same as a 7/10, and are either of those equivalent to a C-? I have no idea. But if you tell me the Orange Box was worth $75 at release, I’ll pay attention.
To begin with, I disagree with Mr. Vazquez that “[i]deally, a game's evaluated price and actual price will match.” The “ideal” game -- from the gamer’s point of view -- should be one with an evaluated price that exceeds the actual price. For example, Portal is currently available for $20. In retrospect, I would have been willing to pay $30 for the game if I had known ahead of time how much I was going to enjoy the first play-through. That’s equivalent to a score of a 15 on a 1 to 10 scale.
The problem with using a 1 to 10 scale (or other fixed-range metrics) is that it imposes an arbitrary limitation on the reviewer’s ability to communicate his/her level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a game. So, a 15 for Portal would be a technically invalid score, even though you might think it earns that score. That’s why the monetary value system is superior: there are no constraints.
It’s much more rhetorically effective for a reviewer to conclude that “the developer should have paid me to play this game” than it is to simply award the lowest possible score. If you allow for a negative dollar value, a $0 score means “play it only if you get it free,” and a negative value means “even if you get it for free, you’re never going to get those hours of your life back.”
The other problem with fixed-range scoring systems is that once you deduct points, the game can never earn them back. A game may, for example, have a host of technical issues, but could still be worth the asking price. The monetary value system can account for that. There’s a devoted community of Vampire - the Masquerade - Bloodlines fans out there that would argue that the game is still worth buying on Steam for 20 bucks, even though it’s buggy as hell.
The other strength of the monetary value system is that it provides a more practical way to score games with monthly subscription fees. If you have to drop $15 a month to play a given MMO, a reviewer should be able to offer a more nuanced judgment about the value of the subscription, not just the initial purchase price of the base game.
At the end of the day, gamers want two pieces of information from professional reviewers: (1) whether the game’s systems work reasonably well, and (2) whether the game is fun to play. The reviewer can break things down any way he/she likes: +$20 for a great story, -$5 for technical issues, etc. As long as the monetary value system is logical, consistent, and doesn’t have any arbitrary constraints, it can be a much more effective means for the reviewer to communicate with the reader, compared to a fixed-range scoring system that uses undefined units.
Is a 72/100 the same as a 7/10, and are either of those equivalent to a C-? I have no idea. But if you tell me the Orange Box was worth $75 at release, I’ll pay attention.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
- Site Links
- About Us
- Bitmob Staff
- Submission Guidelines
- Terms Of Use
- Privacy
- Popular Games
- Max Payne 3
- Star Wars: The Old Republic
- Diablo Iii
- Journey
- Fez
- Mass Effect 3
Copyright Bitmob Media 2010
SITE DESIGN BY Karen Chu
I take your point, but I have two counters: (1) most of your readers would recognize the hyperbole in the "abusive" ratings for the games you used as examples, and (2) very many WoW players have spent a hell of a lot more than $200 to keep playing that game.
I do appreciate that you want to be accountable to your readers. That's why I think the system I described would work well for you: you wouldn't risk your credibility by awarding absurd, out-of-market values.
Either way, I plan on reading your next review. The debate has been interesting."