Gamespot changes review system, adds 'medals'

by Ross Miller { Jun 24th 2007 at 1:45PM }

Gamespot editorial director Jeff Gerstmann has announced that next week the website will be changing its review system. Starting next week, the self-described formulaic score will be replaced with a 19-point scale -- "that's 1.0 to 10.0 with half-step [0.5] increments," he said. In the absence of sub-scores for graphics, sound, audio, etc., the reviews will also add a medal system to award games for specific merits such as graphics (artistic or technical). There are reportedly 60 medals currently planned, with room for later expansion.

Gerstmann cited the evolution of the games industry as a reason for the new system. "The assumption [the previous system] makes is that graphics are just as important in a driving game as they are in a rhythm game. You shouldn't need me to tell you that they aren't," he said. Gerstmann also notes that the content of the review, unsurprisingly, is not going to change. The new system coincides with a Gamespaces redesign; a preview of the new look can be found here.

By merit of being one of the two biggest video game websites around (the other being IGN), Gamespot has dealt with its fair share of criticism regarding its reviews. (Remember the backlash when they gave Twilight Princess a meager 8.8?) With this marked change in the site's eleven-year review system, we're hoping the website will use this opportunity to shift the grade scale bell curve to 5.0 instead of 7.0, giving their higher scores more of an impact.

[Via Gamestooge]

Tags: game spot, GameSpot

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Alex MacIntosh @ Jun 24th 2007 1:52PM

Gerstmann is a complete asswipe. I wonder if he even plays the games he reviews half the time.

Patrick @ Jun 24th 2007 2:04PM

aight, i just wish somehow everyone would use the same thing, or that metacritic takes its scale into account somehow

Joshua @ Jun 24th 2007 2:11PM

"'The assumption [the previous system] makes is that graphics are just as important in a driving game as they are in a rhythm game. You shouldn't need me to tell you that they aren't,' he said."

That's only if your final score is an average of all the other scores, which is just absolutely stupid. IGN rates each category, then gives a final score that is not the average of the other scores. That is the way it should be done, Gamespot.

Grog @ Jun 24th 2007 2:17PM

There is no reason for the scale to average out to a 5.0 since there is no expectation that the quality of games assumes a normal distribution. For one thing, the worst games don't ever get to the point where they can be reviewed since they aren't developed or published. In other words, the average game should be *good* since the majority of poor games should never be made.

Other than that, I like the changes they are making.

CakeOrDeath @ Jun 24th 2007 2:28PM

"we're hoping the website will use this opportunity to shift the grade scale bell curve to 5.0 instead of 7.0, giving their higher scores more of an impact."

I doubt it considering that;

"And just to note it here, we will not be going back into the system and updating old reviews to this new system. The definition of the numbers isn't changing, and we feel that the new system does maintain compatibility with our old score style."

Bloog @ Jun 24th 2007 2:33PM

Lmao, fanboys still sore from the zelda thing? you've all had enough time to play it now, and you all should have realised that 8.8 was generous.

Ian Von Porter @ Jun 24th 2007 2:37PM

lol.. the funny thing is that wario ware got a 9.1 ... poor zelda, they havent done anything new in that series since oot.

Vancaeyzeele @ Jun 24th 2007 2:40PM

The current rating method has been invented in a time that 'noise' was actually a sound-channel and cows were made of 25 polygons.
One should look for images of SimCopter, one of the first 3D games i tried. I mean in those times you could clearly state that one game looked better then the other one. Now we actually have reviews comparing screen by screen, multiple versions of the same game to look if the one looks better then the other.

I think it was indeed time that they had a review of the review. A game featuring 25k polygons over 10k polygons, that was awesome. But now they are comparing an X layer 250k poly with dynamic modeling and multiple lights and dynamic shadows... I mean, you have to be an expert to see the differences, how could we ever experience them?

Furthermore the games are evolving, we had way too many FPS games and now we have these experience games: horror in Doom3, motion in the Wii, perfect story in ocarina, steal a car in GTA and beat all people up like zombies: manhunt.

i'm glad they have a new review system, i hope many will follow

Borat @ Jun 24th 2007 2:41PM

9.1 was definitely too high for Warioware, and I would say 8.8 is good enough for Zelda (or a 9.0 according to the new scale).

Kyouryuu @ Jun 24th 2007 2:55PM

Wait, Gerstmann! I thought all GameSpot reviews were factual!

From the "About GameSpot's Reviews and Ratings":

"'Wait, reviews are just opinions. Right?'
Actually, we don't think so. We make no excuses for our verdicts about games and believe our reviews stand for themselves. While our reviews, of course, do contain an element of subjectivity to them, we see the process of reviewing games as one that primarily involves the reporting of facts. To an extent, we naturally color these facts based on our own experiences of having spent much time playing other games in the past, but we make every effort to look at every game on its own merits, and we describe each game in the most factual terms possible. To this end, in the rare event that one of our reviews contains a factual inaccuracy, we will correct the inaccuracy and will acknowledge it in an editor's note that's appended to the end of the review."

Har har. XD

ferrarimanf355 @ Jun 24th 2007 3:29PM

Alex MacIntosh,

Awww, baby, still irked that Zelda TP got an 8.8? Build a bridge and get over it.

Bangbang... @ Jun 24th 2007 3:31PM

I was wondering how review sites were going to rate wii games graphics, because "it looks good for a wii game" is getting kinda tired.

copa @ Jun 24th 2007 3:40PM

Gamespot overall review scores have never been computed as a straight average of the component scores, so I really don't understand what the big change is.

Eddie @ Jun 24th 2007 4:02PM

I wonder what effect this new system will have on meta raking sites like gamerankings? Gamestop reviews are usually included in their averages and if they start handing out 5's left and right these will be averaged in as a 50% score by those sites, which consequently may drop an otherwise good score signficantly. I fear that might not sit too well with many gamers!

Stevo @ Jun 24th 2007 4:11PM

Greg Kasavin was the only reason I'd travel to Gamespot, well..him and their news. Obviously I've found a new (and better) source for news and since Greg's departure, I've also found IGN and Gamerankings to be a better review tandem. RIP Gamespot.

Tony @ Jun 24th 2007 4:22PM

I doubt it's an original idea, but this kind of bothers me because I was working on a 360 site that had goofy achievements for game reviews... whether good or bad. I thought it would be fun, but now that Gamestop does it it'll be hard to look like I'm doing anything but copying them.

Tony @ Jun 24th 2007 4:22PM

"That's only if your final score is an average of all the other scores, which is just absolutely stupid. IGN rates each category, then gives a final score that is not the average of the other scores. That is the way it should be done, Gamespot."

How is that not flawed either? By that standard, the final score is even MORE arbitrary than it would have been in the first place. If none of the previous aspects of the score matter for the final, then what the hell would explain the difference between an 8.9 and an 8.8?

Stevo @ Jun 24th 2007 5:01PM

Tony-- by not using the average of the scores, the reviewer is essentially saying that each 'category' isn't evenly weighted...which if you think about it, they aren't.

For an extreme example, look at Doom 3..Graphics were incredible, but everything else sorta sucked. Fortunately for the game, the graphics made up for SOME of the slack for the rest of the game (although not all of it..hehe). With an average of the scores, Doom would tank...but you can really show in the score how the overall game is by not averaging the scores.

Also notable is that Gamespot justifies the averaging with their 'Tilt' category....which is essentially their tool for manipulating the ending score.

Mr Khan @ Jun 24th 2007 5:30PM

@ Bangbang

But you have to be objective based upon the possibilities of the hardware, a game like, say Sonic and the Secret Rings could get a better score in the graphics department then say, Dead Rising, because the former did more to push the hardware than the latter, even though the latter clearly looked better

An example of this is in 2005 when IGN gave their awards for that year, they gave Resident Evil 4 the "graphics technology" award, even though other titles (notably FEAR, PDZ, and Call of Duty 2 360) looked much better, because RE4 pushed the GC hardware much more

One thing plagueing reviews these days is the fact that a fraction of reviewers don't like the Wii remote at all, and scores will summarily suffer (RE4 Wii again is a good example, EuroGamer gave it a 70% while others gave it 90s and 100s)

lack of objectivity can ruin the validity of a review, easily

Jim @ Jun 24th 2007 5:41PM

@Alex MacIntosh: *LOL*

At least one website had the guts to give the Zelda:TP game a reasonable score.

TP was the first Zelda that I didn't finish because it was soooo Ocarina 1.5.

Gerstmann is a hero! ;-)

Antonio @ Jun 24th 2007 5:47PM

The medal system seems silly and unnecessary.

bm @ Jun 24th 2007 5:50PM

More like "Many months later, Sony and/or MS fangirls are -still- creaming their pants over the fact that -one- crappy website out of all of them gave Zelda less than a 9". Feel threatened much? ;D

Jack @ Jun 24th 2007 5:50PM

@12, 21

What, are you kids retarded? Alex never even brought up TP, and you're putting words in his mouth. Comments like yours make me wish Joystiq would do away with the whole comments system.

accidental @ Jun 24th 2007 5:56PM

Only a review site that considers the Wii to be 'next gen' can rate Wii's graphics against the PS3 & 360's.
If anyone was to do that, they'd also have to mark 360 & PS3 games down in the controls department if they were inferior to what the Wii 'could' do.

Keyword "could": A Wii exclusive has graphics that 'could' be better on the PS3/360, a PS3/360 exclusive has controls that 'could' be better on Wii.

But all that would just be a pain in the ass so you're going to have to live with the "graphics are good for a Wii game" line.

Cheesebob57 @ Jun 24th 2007 6:01PM

GameSpot's game average of a 7.0 was explained by former executive editor Greg Kasavin. He said that "the average score is a 7.0, which is good. This means that the average game that comes out isn't actually that bad."

Alex MacIntosh @ Jun 24th 2007 6:01PM

@ Jim & Ferrarriman

I was actually referring to hsi very recent review of Scarface for the Wii. It was filled with ludicrous errors and complete disregard for the quality of the game.

I'm only being fair...IGN gave the game an 8.5 and he gave it a 5.8...

He says literally the exact opposite of what everyone else is saying.

I don't even read Gamespot, but I heard about his rating and read some threads on him. He's really quite the hack.

Dirtyboy @ Jun 24th 2007 6:02PM

I could care less about the actual review numbers, it's what the person playing it has to actually say about it that interests me. There are games that don't get high scores I enjoy and ones that are highly rated I don't, so I look for the things I like in the reviews. They should just make it a thumbs up or thumbs down.

Ignatius @ Jun 24th 2007 6:11PM

I got banned from GameSpot over that whole 8.8 fiasco.

I had one of the beginning GameSpot Subscriber accounts too. Ah well, they can screw off, Gerstmann especially.

Chainblast @ Jun 24th 2007 6:11PM

Less is more should be the philosophy in designing a review system. Designate a single number, write up a review and award any medals for exceptional performance in certain areas. Too many people base opinions on numbers given and not so much what the written portion says. We don't need numbers detailing individual portions of the game. If a portion (like graphics) stands out, recognize it by awarding a medal for excellence in graphical performance.

Simple as that.

chris3116 @ Jun 24th 2007 6:24PM

I lost respect GameSpot on the reviews when they gave Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 on Ps2 a 10/10.

I'm still using their forums except the System Wars board. But IGN is my source of news.

synce @ Jun 24th 2007 6:26PM

This new review system is better than the old one, but it still sucks, as does Gamespot and its users in general. A 5 point scale will suffice, where the average is actually in the middle (7.0 = average? What is this, grade school?)

Dan @ Jun 24th 2007 6:27PM

I think they should have no numerical score, and only the medal system, that way people would actually read the content of the reviews rather than just looking at the score and nothing else.

kingofwale @ Jun 24th 2007 6:36PM

>(Remember the backlash when they gave Twilight Princess a meager 8.8?)

it's not as outrageous as Warioware getting 9.1. enough said. It's not that they are screwing Nintendo (just the opposite, they love Nintendo), they just can't rate a game to save their lives.

Mr Khan @ Jun 24th 2007 6:47PM

@ kingofwale

Maybe its an appeal to the ADD generation or something

the shorter the game, the higher the score, vice versa ;)

Kyouryuu @ Jun 24th 2007 7:13PM

Really, if you want to hear other opinions on a game, the best places are the amalgamators like GameStats or Game Rankings (when the latter is actually on-line). I usually read the best, the worst, and the median reviews for games. Often times, it's the worst reviews that are the most illuminating because they are devoid of fan bias. The more hype and spin a game has around it (such as anything Rockstar or Nintendo puts out), the more important the negative reviews become. You will not get a fair opinion about these games from the massive GameSpot and IGN.

On the flip side of the coin, I really don't like reading half-baked 6.0 - 7.0 reviews that don't adequately explain why such a rating is given. You know the type. "It's good, it's solid, it's fun to play. I give it a 6." Well, wait, that's a D. That's near failure in most schools of thought. Care to explain that a bit more? GameSpot: "It's the TILT, man!"

jman @ Jun 24th 2007 7:38PM

I used to like Gamespot until i found how ridiculously bad they really do rate games...now i go here or IGN but this could convince me to try again...

Shagittarius @ Jun 24th 2007 8:17PM

I think TP deserved a 7.5.

Ikke2003 @ Jun 24th 2007 8:35PM

8.8 really was too much for a 1997 game like TP. Actually, that goes for all current wii games.

bm @ Jun 24th 2007 9:38PM

1997 game? Haha! I've got one acronym for you. FPS.

You know, the shit that's all over your beloved console of choice (either one). ;)

Shaggi: and guess what? I thought Oblivion deserved a 7. Lost Planet, 7.5 maybe. Dead or Alive 4 was basically Dead or Alive 1, so that's a 5 then. As for the PS3, it doesn't have any exclusives that are even worth a 6, let alone any that I could insult by giving them a 7.5! Oh well! :D

Dan @ Jun 24th 2007 9:50PM

Hey, what about 1UP? (something I missed?)

BPM @ Jun 24th 2007 11:14PM

I think GameSpot's score for Zelda was fair. It was fun, but it didn't seem to bring much new to the table as previous 3D Zeldas did.

OoT - First 3D Zelda.
MM - Various forms, through the masks. Classic time limit feel (think original Prince of Persia, except the ability to rewind time)
TWW - Very expressive characters, partially thanks to the unique art style. Vast world, with sea exploration (albeit, it was kinda dull after a while)
TP - Twilight Realm. Wolf Link.
Twilight Realm was kinda like the Dark World of ALttP, except not a permanent, parallel world. Wolf Link was just a transformation, like MM's Link has already done.

It was fun, and long, but wasn't as innovative as other entries in the series.
However, I think the Wii version should've had the 8.9, and the GameCube version the 8.8. The Wii controls were great for two reasons:
1) Aiming with the various weapons was much better.
2) The ability to equip four items (B button, +Control Pad Left, Right, and Down) instead of just two (X and Y)

And the story was pretty weak.

So, yeah, I think GameSpot's score was accurate. It was a great game, but not Nintendo's A-effort.

Kizzle @ Jun 25th 2007 9:21AM

That's only if your final score is an average of all the other scores, which is just absolutely stupid. IGN rates each category, then gives a final score that is not the average of the other scores. That is the way it should be done, Gamespot."

^^^ Could have stopped comments after that. As much as I hate IGN, their method of rating games has always been far superior to Gamespot's.

Anam @ Jun 25th 2007 9:48AM

I almost always agree with GameSpot's reviews, though I agree with Kyouryuu about them not explaining enough about the "okay" games. It's like they only take the time on the really good games.

Twilight Princess got a very fair review. Although I thought it was a fantastic game, it didn't do anything new and the technical aspects (graphics/sound) were below par for a Zelda game.

WarioWare, however, was a crap game. It was more like a tech demo showing off the Wii controls. It was boring as hell after 20-30 minutes. I bought that game specifically because of the GameSpot review, because they had never led me wrong before. First big mistake they've made (that I know about).

I think as far as number go, I like Famitsu's system the most: four reviewers that give it 1-10, allowing a total score of 4-40. Best way to go.

Genius @ Jun 25th 2007 11:06AM

Considering that I bought TP when I got my Wii and I coulndt force myself to play more than 8 hours in. 8.8 is a hell of a lot more than I would have ever given that game for a review score. That aside, I think gamespots reviews are pretty crappy anyway so I could care less what they are doing with it.

bl13 @ Jun 25th 2007 11:11AM

"That's only if your final score is an average of all the other scores, which is just absolutely stupid. IGN rates each category, then gives a final score that is not the average of the other scores. That is the way it should be done, Gamespot."

Um, that's also exactly how Gamespot does it. Their final score is not an average of the 5 categories.

I've always found Gamespot reviews reliable. IGN tends to overrate games but I rarely find a game rated over 9 on Gamespot disappointing.

ZippyDSMlee @ Jun 25th 2007 2:57PM

Once you remove 2 or 3 points from some of the games they score it balances out to

1-3 Bad,fail try again.
4 Sub average.
5 AVERAGE.
6 Above avrage.
7 Good
8 great
9 godly (they don't make 9's any more much less 10's)

so basically anything they rate as a 9 is a 7-8 anythign thats a 7 is more like a 5-6 and some of the games that are 5-7 are really 7-8 because they are to busy drooling over flagship/mainstream games to give the "lesser" games their due.

this is pretty much the same for all game rags....

silentdrone @ Jul 2nd 2007 1:17PM

Lets see a nineteen point scale, half the games are good, half the games are bad. That means we get 9.5 different levels of suck. That's alot of kinds of suck. Awesome!