News Eurogamer reviews are changing, moving from 4 badges to a 5 star rating system

[BassForever]

It's 100% for click bait review engagement. Like I said in the JSS thread, if you actually didn't want negative attention from giving games "too low/high" review scores relative to the average you'd stop doing scored reviews. The problem is when you do that the engagement you get for reviews drops like a stone, which means less money. Now I'm not suggesting most reviewers intentionally give games a low/high score for attention, but I do think they aren't upset when they have an outlier opinion.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

The timing is really unfortunate because I think their TotK is really well-written and imo justifies the 4/5 they gave it.

 

[Hocot8]

RIP Eurogamer. Probably not going to matter how genuine their review is people are going to be cynical and jaded.

 

[kvetcha]

The timing is really unfortunate because I think their TotK is really well-written and imo justifies the 4/5 they gave it.

From reading the review, I genuinely think if they'd gone with half-stars it would have ended up at a 4.5/5.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

From reading the review, I genuinely think if they'd gone with half-stars it would have ended up at a 4.5/5.

Yeah, I think this is ultimately the issue with changing to a 5-star-system that only has full stars. Readers and Metacritic are inevitably going to try to map it to the scale that the rest of the industry uses and it's often going to be unsatisfactory. To some, the review will read like a 4.5/5, others will see it as a 3.5/5. As I said earlier in the thread, I understand their reasoning but this is a half-measure solution to a self-inflicted problem.

 

[anderson64]

Four stars for TOTK incoming

How does he do it???

 

[hologram]

While it's reasonable to point out that this is likely to get them flamed online, I actually think review discourse would be healthier if more outlets ignored potential impact to the Metascore and instead prioritized a sensible scoring system.

A 5-star review system is IMO a clear, concise way of categorizing reviews into tiers, and is broadly understood. A review of 4 stars typically means excellent, with a few things here and there preventing it from getting a perfect 5 stars. I haven't read the review, but a few people here whose opinion I trust say the review itself is a good read and fairly lays out why it's worthy of 4 stars and not 5.

The conspiratorial takes which suggest that they intentionally timed this change and deliberately only gave TOTK 4 stars in order to drive outrage and clicks are a little embarrassing, honestly

 

[Dcubed]

So they timed it on purpose to make them look tough on reviews?

An interesting choice. They're no EDGE though, and this little PR stunt isn't going to go over well or age well I'm sure...

 

[Armoured_Bear]

Sadly Eurogamer under Reedpop is not the same as under the Lowman brothers.
The Tom Bramwell days were great.

 

[balgajo]

If they were going to give a 8/10 this a good way of avoiding more hate. 4/5 feels better than 8/10.

 

[BassForever]

While it's reasonable to point out that this is likely to get them flamed online, I actually think review discourse would be healthier if more outlets ignored potential impact to the Metascore and instead prioritized a sensible scoring system.

A 5-star review system is IMO a clear, concise way of categorizing reviews into tiers, and is broadly understood. A review of 4 stars typically means excellent, with a few things here and there preventing it from getting a perfect 5 stars. I haven't read the review, but a few people here whose opinion I trust say the review itself is a good read and fairly lays out why it's worthy of 4 stars and not 5.

The conspiratorial takes which suggest that they intentionally timed this change and deliberately only gave TOTK 4 stars in order to drive outrage and clicks are a little embarrassing, honestly

I think both things can be true

There was no conspiracy by EG to get clicks by giving TotK a 4/5, the reviewer did their job and gave the game their honest and fair opinion, and scored it based upon the criteria their boss gave them.

EG changed to this system exactly for the kind of engagement they're now getting. They've likely gotten more clicks and discussion for this review then had this exact same review word for word had their old "recommended" stamp on it.

 

[Dcubed]

I think both things can be true

There was no conspiracy by EG to get clicks by giving TotK a 4/5, the reviewer did their job and gave the game their honest and fair opinion, and scored it based upon the criteria their boss gave them.

EG changed to this system exactly for the kind of engagement they're now getting. They've likely gotten more clicks and discussion for this review then had this exact same review word for word had their old "recommended" stamp on it.

They could easily have changed it after their TOTK review came out. There's no way it wasn't done on purpose to make them look like tough reviewers with strong integrity, as they knew full well what score they were giving TOTK before they announced the change. The timing was 100% intentional and done in order to prevent people from claiming that the site was now going soft as they capitulated to industry pressure over review scores.

And you know what? Given the rough position they're in? I don't blame them one bit for pulling this PR stunt, I probably would've done the same thing myself.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Giving any game a 100% score is as clickbaity as giving it a perceived "too low" of a score in my opinion. Numerical scores should be abolished.

 

[Armoured_Bear]

Giving any game a 100% score is as clickbaity as giving it a perceived "too low" of a score in my opinion. Numerical scores should be abolished.

Someone clearly hasn't played BOTW.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Someone clearly hasn't played BOTW.

I have.

 

[RochHoch]

"We changed our scoring system. How do we use abuse this to get the most clicks?"

So laughably transparent. It's pathetic.

 

[Lugia667]

the problem mainly lies is 4/5 being read as an 80% when that's probably not what it means

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

the problem mainly lies is 4/5 being read as an 80% when that's probably not what it means

That's more of a flaw of review aggregates, not the 5 star system.