As I will always preach, the content of the review should be what matters, not the numerical score.
Bingo. Unless a game is awful, a good review should simultaneously tell some people that they should have a look and others that they should ignore the game and move on.
Though it's perhaps unfortunate that this site has a different rating scale for games from hardware. The average game score here would be unusually bad for a hardware review.
There was a mention. Invasion were mentioned in the article:
"...PvE invasions that can downgrade a settlement"
Expeditions were the third "Pro" bullet point:
"Expeditions are excellent - more of these"
That said, I think it was probably worth a slightly higher grade as some of the stuff just appear to be "just released MMO" gripes that come up on every release. Not to say I would have scored it too much higher. Amazon seems like they have the personnel and resources to have avoided some of the issues.
It's fun (to me), but I get where people are coming from on bugs/exploits and their own fun factor.
Both were very slight and almost easy to overlook statements which really did not put any worth into the importance of either. That is what I mean that there was no mention. To me, it felt as though the reviewer was making light of the importance of either in the game.
It is nice (and rare) to see a professional game journalist spend 120 hours on a game, so he can do a proper in depth review. Kudos.
Appreciate this. MMOs are such beasts that I think throughout the industry you will find the vast majority of MMO reviewers out there take this approach. Amazon themselves recommended at least 40 hours, but even that felt too low. I know the reviewer at IGN spent about 180 hours on his review. Us MMORPG reviewers have this in common I think, but of course not every site or reviewer is going to spend that much time on a game, especially when it may not be the most profitable to both.
I think there is a curve for game reviews. 5 isn't average, even though it is the median.
The curve:
9-10 -- fantastic game
8 -- good game
7 - decent game
6 - not that good game
5 and below - trash
Based on this, a 6 is about right for where NW is now.
So you're not wrong, since scales work differently for each site (not every 10 point scale means the same since there is not standardized system) it's always best to take scores for what they are: a quick, numerical snapshot. We use a 100 point scale in our reviews, and on MMORPG 5 does actually mean average. But that doesn't mean it's an average across the industry. Just with us. More info (since we recently updated this page) can be found here if anyone is interested in seeing exactly how our scale shakes out.
I think it is admirable that the site uses its own rating system, but how does Metacritic handle that? If the scales work differently for each site do Metacritic make an adjustment?
Well, every site uses their own scale. This is where Metacritic and Open Critic don't paint the full picture as they take the scores, regardless of what the individual numbers mean on a site by site basis, and average them out across the industry. This is where the lack of a standardized system hurts (though myself and many in the industry don't think scores should exist anymore, but Google/SEO is King).
As I will always preach, the content of the review should be what matters, not the numerical score. But we also understand people want that easy snapshot to describe a game. But the lack of a standard system across the industry, shifting scores, and the fact that every single review is a subjective opinion of myriad writers causes scores to vary wildly. A 5 on our site doesn't mean the same as a 5 on others. For us, a 5 is a thoroughly average game. Not terrible, something you'd grab in a Steam sale or something. For others, 5 is the beginning of a "bad" game. But even then, the way we describe things within scoring is subjective - what is average to one person is downright horrible to another, and is great to another person.
My recommendation always is for the sites you frequent, familiarize yourself with their scales if they use one. But always take the content of the review as the end all, be all. That should inform the opinion and drive the discussion, not the number at the bottom.
This really deserves an editorial of its own, as review scores can be horrifically divisive, as well as the idea that a review is subjective (they all are, they are all opinion pieces. There is no such thing as an objective review). But it's something that will continue to be discussed. It's why I felt the need to put our scale in my response, so that people reading can refamiliarize how we approach reviews on our site. But as always, read as many opinions as you can and come to your own informed decision. Don't just read us - in fact, I recommend reading everything you can, especially when it comes down to spending your hard earned money on a game.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk, I'll get off my soapbox now. Truly appreciate every one of you reading!
This is insightful, but I don't see as much of a problem as you do. My guess is that scores will seem too high and too low because of the different scoring scales but that will even out by the time Metacritic averages them. As you say know your reviewer, Steam even uses that to suggest people for their users to check out as reviewers.
We do need scores, I think by and large players realise how subjective a score is and only react when they think it is way off. But it is true that some players will put an albatross around a reviewers neck for future reviews if they think he got one badly wrong, that is silly but emotions can run deep about games. It might be an idea to put a bit more than "OK" (for a 6.0) in the orange section where you get the score, that might bring readers attention more to what a score means, but I think just "OK" is a snappy summation so not sure it is better left as it is.
Players just need more heads up on how subjective and ballpark a score is but they are crucial to a review and help maintain standards in the industry to my mind.
This feels like a very incomplete review to me. I find expeditions and the later game landmark exploration / fights to be the real meat of the game. Despite the bugs, I would give it a 7.5, as there is a lot more to do than you seem to touch on here.
Errr that is what literally happaned. If anyone who loves PvE titles believed NW has something unique or interesting to offer in that area, I'm sorry, but you were naive.
Comments
Though it's perhaps unfortunate that this site has a different rating scale for games from hardware. The average game score here would be unusually bad for a hardware review.
Both were very slight and almost easy to overlook statements which really did not put any worth into the importance of either. That is what I mean that there was no mention. To me, it felt as though the reviewer was making light of the importance of either in the game.
Let's party like it is 1863!
We do need scores, I think by and large players realise how subjective a score is and only react when they think it is way off. But it is true that some players will put an albatross around a reviewers neck for future reviews if they think he got one badly wrong, that is silly but emotions can run deep about games. It might be an idea to put a bit more than "OK" (for a 6.0) in the orange section where you get the score, that might bring readers attention more to what a score means, but I think just "OK" is a snappy summation so not sure it is better left as it is.
Players just need more heads up on how subjective and ballpark a score is but they are crucial to a review and help maintain standards in the industry to my mind.
Errr that is what literally happaned. If anyone who loves PvE titles believed NW has something unique or interesting to offer in that area, I'm sorry, but you were naive.