EZA review scale changing to numerical system

  • @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"?

  • I welcome the switch-up, but I now ask what we all know is the most pressing question regarding this change. Are we also trading the stars for numerical emotes on twitch?

  • This is probably for the best, the out of 10 system is so ingrained that the stars never really caught on. It's just one of those things where to trying to change it is like trying to swim up stream.

  • I disagree strongly with this change.

    From a purely emotional perspective the stars are part of the EZA brand for me. To lose them means giving up a major part of its identity, and that's a bummer.

    But it also doesn't even make sense within the context of their explanation.

    This is not a site that reviews bad games. We will never, ever see a game rated 5 or less. So what's the point of making the scale bigger?

    Further, numerical scales always invite comparison in a way that stars do not. reviews will always fall apart when you start comparing them, especially across different reviewers.

    This must be due to some outdated notion that Metacritic in any way provides visibility. It doesn't. Think of other sites on the same strata as EZA - how many use 20 point scoring scale? How many score games at all? Not Kinda Funny Games. Not Giant Bomb.

    You're removing something that makes EZA unique and replacing it with something that has no benefits. It's impossible to be happy with that.

  • I'm firmly in the camp of "scores are dumb and anything beyond a buy/rent/pass rating is a waste of time" but I get that such a thing doesn't gel with metacritic scores which is all most people (not the reviewers or the people on this board, but I mean at large) ever care about, so whatever. The only thing that actually matters is the review itself anyway.

  • Ya, I'm also in the camp of not really caring about the actual score but I'm glad they made this change for themselves. Clearly they didn't like how the star were thought of by aggregate sites and probably viewers too so now being able to get those a bit more accurate will help.

    As for the people that did complain that too many reviews were 4 stars or whatever, I really just don't get that complaint. It would be unbelievably negligence to just give one game 3.5 and another 4.5 just so the overall score spread of EZA reviews could be more diverse.

    For me, nothing changes, the words have always been the most important thing.

  • 10 points, 100 points or any system is stupid if you don't use the other half the scale. I fully support a 5 being an mediocre game. This isn't academics.

    The real problem is that the industry is so stuck in their ways and it would be risky for any reviewer to change the system with actually scoring an okay game with 5. It would anger publishers, your review would be pulled and you would be talked to by your higher ups. Because a 5 on any 10 point scale looks like complete shit because that's what we're so accustomed to with reviews.

    I dont think it really chsnges to much except that 10 points is cleaner to deal with and for ppl to understand.

    I would rather no scores and ppl read. But I do also like quick figures. With how limited I am for time for games I usually don't buy less than a 9 and am already liking what I hear. So scores work against publishers for ppl like me.