Review scores don’t work, and Death Stranding shows us why

A game about helping Norman Reedus deliver parcels, aided by a baby in a tube, was never going to be simple to rate. By now, critics are lining up to cash in their thoughts on Death Stranding, and responses have been mixed. IGN gave it a 6.8 — notably less than its rating of NBA 2K20, a gambling sim that masquerades as a basketball game. Kotaku’s Heather Alexandra calls it a ‘fantastic mess’. The game is described as being entirely composed of fetch quests by Russ Frushtick of Polygon. It’s fair to say that it is a polarising game and will not appeal to anyone, and it’s a good example of how impossible it is to compress these opinions into a number.

In a world where attention spans are at a premium, it’s obvious why they are currently accepted, despite their shortcomings: for money and marketing. The higher the score, the easier it is to sell a game via plastering numbers and stars over some box-art or into a trailer. It works, too: look to the comments of any major site’s review articles and you’ll usually end up finding someone taking issue with the number used. Giving a game a 5, 6 or a 7 out of 10 is often an invitation to receive some nasty comments and tweets.

Metacritic fares no better, and users aren’t afraid to nuke a title with negative scores for seemingly any reason — usually as a protest and as an attempt to harm a title’s performance.

Highlighting the stock that companies can place in integers, back in 2012, Kotaku’s Jason Schreier covered a tweet by Obsidian’s Chris Avellone about Fallout: New Vegas. In it, Chris says the following:

“FNV was a straight payment, no royalties, only a bonus if we got an 85+ on Metacritic, which we didn’t.”

Looking on the Metacritic page ourselves, we can see that Fallout: New Vegas got an average of 84, missing out on a bonus from Bethesda by a single point. A very real financial consequence for arbitrary numbers given to a game decreed by Metacritic as ‘generally favourable’.

Jason goes on to argue that there is no such thing as an objectively bad game, nor is there a universally praised good game. He opines that this practice will lead to publishers appeasing reviewers over consumers, particularly when a certain score from some establishments carries more weight than others (literally so, in Metacritic’s case). It turns out that he was right, except influencers are now also brought along for the ride.

A year later, Jason wrote a report on how review scores are linked to the industry as a whole. It turns out that it is common practice for a company to withhold bonuses unless a developer’s track record is particularly outstanding — and in this case, ‘outstanding’ means anything above 85 or 90. It’s gotten to the point, according to Jason’s source, where developers will do anything to ensure a score reflects well on them. They would hire out notorious reviewers to review their game, ensuring that their score could not be reflected on them on Metacritic. Developers would artificially stuff games full of the content that gets higher scores from reviewers, at the expense of consumers.

The result of all this is that we get a system that aims to appease reviewers, for the sake of developers getting a bonus, at the cost of gamers not getting enough information about what they are playing.

I agree with him. Despite being a cliche, it is a fact of life that it is impossible to please everyone. Saying that a game is 10/10, for example, suggests that the game is perfect, or close to perfect, or that the consumer will at least have a perfect experience when playing. To some people, perhaps, but would someone with a fleeting interest in RPG titles find lasting enjoyment in games like Skyrim or The Witcher 3? It’s impossible to know for sure, and scores do not adequately reflect that. It also encourages lazy analysis. Some players value in-depth storytelling or worldbuilding, other players may want fluid controls and combat, and others still may crave different difficulty levels, in either direction. A number does not speak to all of these people at once, but some of these people will skip the text and go straight to the data.

When a game like Death Stranding comes along, the whole system falls apart. It’s a title that wants to raise questions and discussion, not perform to numbers or metrics, and it feels like it would be committing a sin to try and brand it with a number. I’ve not played the game myself, and I am excited to get stuck in when it releases, but I recognise that it will not be a game that speaks to everyone. It won’t be for the guy I know who needs detailed character customisation in his games. It won’t be for some of my Overwatch teammates. To them, the game would probably elicit a 4/10. To others, though, the game will score higher. For people who enjoy a story, or slower gameplay, this would be something of interest; especially if they like original ideas, and Death Stranding is nothing if not an original idea.

It’s not my intention to put the game on a pedestal, but it is an example of how futile it is to try and grade something quite so unique in the same way that you would grade yet another FIFA title. I don’t just want to know if a game is good or if it is bad. I want to know what makes a game stand out, as well as what holds a game back.

With that in mind, here is my suggestion for a review summary.

I would stray away from using numbers because people seem to be laser-focused on comparing scores between titles. Saying that, a summary is necessary. People like quick content, and a balance can be struck between informative and brief.

With that in mind, I crafted an example below based on a game I played this week: Muse Dash, a mind-meltingly cute rhythm action game:

Muse Dash
Muse Dash is a sickeningly Japanese rhythm action game, complete with hyperactive music and characters.

What’s good?

The music is addictive, and satisfying to play through.
Pretty stylish.
A good price point to enter.

What’s bad?

Extra tracks cost a lot to buy.
Could do with more powerups.
English localisation needs more work.

You would like this if:

You don’t mind your rhythm action games being incredibly kawaii, you have inhuman reflexes for the later levels.

On reflection, I’d probably give this game a 7/10. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, but it is an acquired taste. If you dislike anything too cutesy or anime-like, you would truly hate this game. How do I boil that down into a single number? Why should I, if it means I’m possibly deciding the fate of a team based on the choice between a 6 or a 7?

This review style can be improved on, but I think we need to focus on specifics more than chasing after an elusive number that tries to appeal to everyone and succeeds only in appealing to almost no-one.