Heir: when we give those criticisms a score, we do something else. We make the criticism the focus of the entire product.
Heir: Shouldn’t a game that is trying to be a linear piece of Hollywood blockbuster be rated against how those types of games typically play and the expectation of the audience? Shouldn’t a review tell me if this piece of work is worth my time or not?
Klepek (On Skyrim): I want to read the review from the one guy that fucking hated it, the guy who wants to make the argument about why it’s actually terrible.
Klepek: “Well,” so the argument goes, “they gave Skyward Sword and Fruit Ninja Kinect a 4/5, so they’re both of equal quality.”
Klepek: I can only hope to string together a series of words and sentences that allow them to see why I came to my conclusion, and how they might draw another one.
Heir: if a site disagrees with its reviews being used on Metacritic, it should get them pulled from the site or make changes to how its scores are interpreted.
Klepek: If someone can tell me what the difference is between a 72 and a 73, I’d love to know.
Klepek: Games For Windows Magazine… dropped review scores for a short period, hoping to force readers to spend more time contemplating the text. They ended up ditching this plan, as people stopped reading the reviews as much.
Heir: there is tons of criticism that does indeed belong inside a review.
Klepek: that we’re even having this conversation proves the value of criticism.
That conversation makes me even gladder Kill Screen did away with review scores.