EZA review scale changing to numerical system



  • There has been rumblings about this, but I didn't actually expect it to happen.

    Personally, I guess I'd have preferred that they ditch scores all together, but I understand that meta and opencritic are actually things that draw people into potentially following EZA. I just feel like, well, what are we supposed to do with old scores now?

    Youtube Video



  • @tokyoslim I edited my upcoming Cup of Jones question asking that very thing.

    So far, I'm seeing mostly support for this change, and I agree with you about ditching scores altogether. Also, the stars themselves are a massive part of their image, not just scores (In the background of some stream starts/ends, emotes, etc.), so I'm curious in what capacity stars will still be around.

    The only thing that would be a bigger cosmetic change would be their colors.



  • FINALLY! The old scale was so limiting, it got a little tiring seeing nearly every game end up at 4 or 4.5 stars. Plus, with most of the crew talking about games being 7s or 10s, it was strange their own system didn't reflect any of those scores at all. I'm sure the stars are here to stay, they just won't be appearing at the end of a review, which is fine by me. As much as I'd love to jump on the "don't get reviews a number" bandwagon, the fact is, a lot of people like something to be quantified. Having a number there doesn't remove my enjoyment at all... well, until Zelda fanboys start complaining about not receiving a perfect score.



  • @sabotagethetruth said in EZA review scale changing to numerical system:

    it got a little tiring seeing nearly every game end up at 4 or 4.5 stars

    I don't get it. This doesn't fix that problem. Reviewing worse games fixes that, and they've already said they're not really interested in doing that solely to have more diversified scores.



  • @tokyoslim More potential points means more variation of scores and more flexibility. With the old system, each half of a star carried so much weight that we ended up seeing the exact same scores, over and over. Will most of the scores be 7 and above still? Probably, yes.

    So with the old system, let's say the game is above average. If the average is 2.5 stars, you could then give the game the following - 3 stars, 3.5 stars, 4 stars, 4.5 stars, or a perfect 5 stars. You had 5 options available to you in this instance.

    With the new system, again, game is above average, average being 5. You double your options and thus, add a little more nuance to the whole thing.

    I'll be honest - in the end, whatever system they decide to use has little impact on me personally as I like to hear what they have to say. One other thing to note though is that people like Ben and Huber expressed frustration at being so limited in how they could approach a game so hopefully this alleviates some of that burden.



  • I seriously could not care less about scores and I'd rather see them go the way of the dodo.



  • @sabotagethetruth said in EZA review scale changing to numerical system:

    So with the old system, let's say the game is above average. If the average is 2.5 stars, you could then give the game the following - 3 stars, 3.5 stars, 4 stars, 4.5 stars, or a perfect 5 stars. You had 5 options available to you in this instance.
    With the new system, again, game is above average, average being 5. You double your options and thus, add a little more nuance to the whole thing.

    I think i disagree with how you think review scores work.



  • @tokyoslim Time will tell on this one. If every game ends up being an 8.5 or 9, then yeah, not much difference. I have a feeling there will be a noticeable change but if not, they can always switch to another scale, go back to the old way, or try out something entirely new. Nothing is set in stone so I'm not too worried. Best to see how it plays out before condemning it, y'know? (Not saying that's what you're doing).



  • I think this is a great compromise. Change or no change, people were going to be upset. Going from a 10 to a 20 point scale allows for more "granularity" while still maintaining the more general broad strokes approach. Personally speaking, I'm in the camp that you shouldn't need review scores at all, but I recognize that most people like them. I remember ScrewAttack used to be a "no score" site, but then they changed (coincidentally, I only watch screwattack when I was younger because I found them through GT). Either way I think we'll see a very vocal minority on both sides making a ruckus about something that's a generally reasonable change, but then in about a month that noise will quiet down and people will be used to it.



  • After re-watching the video, I'm kind of surprised that they didn't implement quarter-stars instead of half stars; keeps the current star system, but adds the 20-point scale.

    shrugs shoulders

    It all doesn't matter anyway. Only the Allies' thoughts on the games themselves.



  • @sabotagethetruth I think you're missing my point. In the case of EZA, you're just adding more numbers between 7 and 10, which is fine if you feel like you need that - but a 2.5 star game is not "average" on the previous scale and a 5.0 game will not be average on the new scale either. Most games the allies review are going to be 7.5, 8, 8.5, or 9 because games that fall below that range, they basically aren't interested in to begin with.

    Next year the same people complaining that all the review scores are 3.5, 4, 4.5, and 5 stars will be complaining about the new scale too.



  • @tokyoslim I don't think you understand how average works. 2.5 doesn't mean average.



  • @ib0show that is my exact point



  • @tokyoslim I think that's a problem with the industry honestly, which is probably based off of school grading systems in some weird way. You certainly aren't an average student if you're at a 50% for your grades, but personally, I'd love to see a shift in reviews where 5 truly does represent an average, a la Angry Joe.

    I still say we'll have less people upset in a year's time and I have enough confidence in that to offer up a bet but the unfortunate thing is, there's no way to quantify the number of angry people.

    Fun fact - The Inpatient received 2.5 stars and was marked as Inferior, if that helps your point any.



  • I don't get how Opencritics most trusted review site changed their scoring system to suit sites like Opencritic and Metacritic. It's not EZA with the problem it's the aggregaters



  • It's not even really a "problem" unless EZA feels like their scores are drastically being misrepresented by the aggregators , which according to general scoring consensus, they don't seem to be.


  • Global Moderator

    I welcome this so much! as fancy as the stars was, 10 with decimals really adds to the scale and makes (as they state) it easier to keep scores apart on a wider scale!



  • I'm open to this change, I think it'll work a bit better. Around that four star border we'll now have two or three more options which should offer some more variety and just in general reveal a bit more of the game's nature.

    The stars will live on in Ultima Brad's championship belt.



  • Just wait until Damiani is forced to choose between giving the next Zelda a 7.5.or an 8, but he really wants a score somewhere in the middle...You'll see how bad it can get. :p



  • So what is Wolfenstein 2: New Colossus? A "Nein/10"?