eurogamer review scores

content/post/2023/05/eurogamer-reintroduces-review-scores.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "Eurogamer Reintroduces Review Scores"
+date: 2023-05-30T08:22:00+02:00
+categories:
+  - education
+tags:
+  - lists
+---
+
+Eurogamer [recently announced](https://www.eurogamer.net/eurogamer-reviews-are-changing) that their review system will be changing yet again. Instead of the review badge system that was introduced in 2015 as a replacement for typical out of 10 scores, they now reintroduce the rating system but on a scale of five. Before, games weren't scored, but instead some were stamped with one of the following badges:
+
+- _Recommended_: exciting and fun games that they want to bring into attention;
+- _Essential_: the best of the best---expected to see only a few times a year;
+- _Avoid_: major flaws in design, technology, and/or concept mean it's best not to play.
+
+I really liked those badges and think it's a shame Eurogamer gets rid of them. As I mentioned before in my [Grading Systmes post](/post/2022/07/grading-systems), coming up with a decent rating system is very difficult. A score on 10 means the lower end won't ever be used, resulting in most games receiving a 7-8-9. 
+
+On the other hand, the above badge system means receiving no badge at all could result in disinterest of readers. If it's not recommended, then why play it? Does not receiving the badge "recommended" mean the game isn't recommended? An awful lot of games are quite good but just not good enough to be easily recommended. The editor-in-chief of Eurogamer, Tom Phillips, elaborates:
+
+> We ended up recommending a lot of games, or not giving a badge at all to many others - which meant readers not acquainted with our odd four-point scale had nothing to go on. We rarely used Avoid, because it always felt a bit mean. 
+
+Being mean can still be done by handing out a 1/5, as they did a few days ago with _The Lord of the Rings: Gollum_, so I don't think that argument really stands. Perhaps it's an idea to combine both if you really wanted to stick to grading? What is the _real_ underlying to partially revert to something you ditched in the first place? If you take the patience to read Eurogamer's explanation, you'll encounter this paragraph:
+
+> But the reality is reviews without scores will be seen by and read by fewer people, and have less influence on the industry overall. That's more than just a cynical point about 'getting clicks'. Trust me when I say reviews genuinely aren't major traffic drivers for sites like Eurogamer - even the ones you disagree with! - but we believe in our reviews, and their relative visibility and weight matter. 
+
+In a heated [ResetERA thread](https://www.resetera.com/threads/eurogamer-moving-to-a-five-star-rating-system-starting-with-tears-of-the-kingdom.718102/) discussing these changes, people seem to be especially upset about the above statement and I honestly can't blame them. They're admitting (and then trying to cover it up) that graded reviews do drive more traffic. Review aggregate sites like Open Critic rely on these numbers, and publishers hand out bonuses to developers depending on the average score---not if a site like Eurogamer awards a certain badge that's difficult to translate into a number. Of course, taking the average is ridiculous as each 3/5 has its own interpretation, but it's still done regardless.
+
+---
+
+Unfortunately, the first game that was treated with the new review system was the much anticipated _The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom_, which was awarded... "just" a 4 out of 5. Let the backlash begin! Quantifying something makes it easy for people to wrongly compare things: the next game that receives a 4 out of 5 will be "just as good as _Tears of the Kingdom_" and the next 5 will no doubt ironically be called out as "better than _Zelda_".
+
+Another problem is the lack of a label, which they purposely left out, but introduces even more interpretation bias. What is a 4 out of 5? "Great"? "Amazing"? "Well worth it but not the best"? A 4 out of 5 on Eurogamer will probably not compare to a 4 out of 5 on another game review site, even though the numbers are the same, and even tough Open Critic will happily squeeze both review summaries in the same column, only adding to the confusion. 
+
+Someone on ResetERA remarked we should get rid of grading systems when it comes to evaluating art. Is a game a work of art? If you think about the amount of work and diverse talent it requires to shape a virtual world, I'd say yes. If you gaze upon screenshots of games like Okami (HD), [as visible here](/post/2022/01/why-i-play-games/), I'd also say yes. Then who are we as a critic to say "that's a clear 4 out of 5 for me"? Are paintings judged that way too? Again, that's why I appreciated Eurogamer's badge system, even though clearly it also has its flaws. 
+
+Eurogamer states that, while the review scores should add information and provide a glimpse of what they think is a good or bad game, it shouldn't be the primary goal: the review text itself will still be a qualitative description of all individual components and how they fit in the whole, and I like that. I'm just a bit concerned that for highly regarded review sites like Eurogamer, nuances in text will get lost once the score has been glanced over. 
+
+As for my own game review website, I do still employ [a scoring system](https://jefklakscodex.com/about/#rating) that also saw multiple revisions over time, but that's more of a very personal game log site that happens to be public than a rigorous and professional journalism site. The whole Eurogamer debacle makes me think I should perhaps add badges _in addition_ to the scores. In a way, I do, as the 4 and 5 games make it to the GOTY lists. After that, it's up to the reader to experience the games and make up their own mind.