NTSC-uk reviews - behind the scenes

[Neon Ignition]

Not directly related to this particular review, more generally something that's cropped up in my mind given the recent heavily poor or high scores in the latest reviews.

How does the review system for NTSC-UK work? I know there's some discussion about the score before it's set but if ultimately the review is subject entirely to the reviewers personal opinion rather than a view to do a more objective stance, how is it different from the First Play thread?

Like I said, it's nothing negative aimed at any of the reviews, just wondering how the assessment is made if reviews are aimed to be representative of the sites stance on key titles as some of the reviews do seem quite personalised which is fine in First Play but not ideal as a review basis. Curious I am

As far as this review itself goes, I can see how some of the issues the game has are big gripes, some are behind my not finishing it completely. That said, I think the score from a review point isn't really justifiable. To score it a 3 is to quite heavily mark it down when there's a lot it does right and though Blur is the better game Split/Second is better made than a huge number of racers on the market itself. I'd say it was more a 6 or 7 with a lot of room for a sequel to nail the formula.

[charlesr]

Moved here from the Split/Second: Velocity comments thread.

[charlesr]

Reviewers review whatever they are playing and submit a draft.
Other writers and mods can comment on the draft, either in terms of improvements or bits they disagree with. If the reviewer justifies their alternative opinion properly, it remains.

Everyone votes on a score based on what the text sounds like (not their opinion of the game). I have final say. It's not a site stance on a game. It's an individual opinion.

[Neon Ignition]

That makes more sense. For a casual visitor the reviews on the front page look like general site reviews rather than User reviews so I sometimes found it a bit confusing at how 'extreme' the scoring could sometimes be. Then again, I suppose under a more traditional scoring scheme Red Seeds Profile couldn't score 11/10

[averybluemonkey]

It's also worth bearing in mind that most writers don't own the same games. Unlike the First Play threads, though, writers can bring each other to task on things they feel the review gets wrong and the reviewer needs to justify themselves if the text hasn't done so.

[charlesr]

Score system

Score system:
5/10 is an average game, so still worth playing.
On most sites, 7/10 means avoid completely.

edit: above line should say: "On most sites, 5/10 means avoid completely."

[noobish hat]

Which sites are these?

[charlesr]

Oh, meant to say 5/10 is "avoid" e.g. random article (in the conclusion, it quite clearly says, don't bother with this).

[noobish hat]

Yeah that is the general feeling I get from a 5/10 - avoid. In my experience that's how it's always been in all but the snottiest of magazines (coughEDGEcough). A 7 is average to me. It doesn't really make any sense, because there are so many marks left over to assign to below-average games; how do you differeniate between a 2 game and a 3 game? But really it's a flaw in the out-of-10 system, because it's too wide. Mostly using the upper half makes sense, and you can save the lower end when you really want to emphasise just how ****ty a game like, say, Bayonetta, actually is. On top of that, 7 = average is just what people are used to. I don't think it's a GREAT idea to stick so rigidly to this system of 5 = average; I think it's misleading to most people and not worth it just for the sake of being technically more appropriate. It's like calling the Elephant Man Joseph Merrick - that was his actual name, but EVERYONE thinks he was called John Merrick. You're not doing yourself any favours by calling him Joseph.

[Jebus]

In this day and age, if a 5 is average and average means "avoid"...well...why would anyone want to play an "average" game, with the level of quality being so high?

[sj33]

7/10 has become perceived as the new 'average' (instead of 5/10) simply because games are expensive, and most people can't afford to spend money on a game that is exactly middle of the scale (i.e. 5/10). So the goalposts are shifted, and 7/10 becomes perceived as the 'minimum' score for a game to be considered a worthwhile purchase. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

[abigsmurf]

There is something to be said about avoiding 5/10 points. I know when I was doing DVD reviews, you didn't dread the 2/10s, you dreaded the 5/10s. Nothing more dull than writing about a perfectly average title.

This is also a problem with submitted reviews.

People don't like talking about average titles and they tend not to buy awful games. As a result there's a bit of a skew towards high marks.

[Charlie]

I say do away with scores altogether. People get far too hung up on them, arguing said game should have scored at least a 7 and not a 6 and what have you. It's disheartening, not to mention futile, to see people arguing over something that cannot be proven or settled one way or the other.

[dvdx2]

I say do away with scores altogether. People get far too hung up on them, arguing said game should have scored at least a 7 and not a 6 and what have you. It's disheartening, not to mention futile, to see people arguing over something that cannot be proven or settled one way or the other.

aye, but a 3 is a big difference, when its clearly a quality game...

[Charlie]

It's quality clearly merits a greater score in your eyes but not the reviewer's. And that's my whole point, how can you argue a person should like something more than they do?