trialz.jpg The somewhat bizarrely named NeoGAF, which is where the gigantic pedantic Gaming-Age Forums hang out nowadays, also posts features, and its latest is named 'A Tale of Two Scores: Video Game Reviews and Their Conflicting Metamessages'.

The intriguing piece, which appears to be some kind of first-year J-school essay, conducted actual research, which revealed that independent viewers estimating scores based on the text of a video game review tended to underestimate the resulting score by anywhere between 0.8 and 1.3 points out of 10, depending which of two slightly convoluted ranking methods were used.

The conclusion: "In conclusion, well, there really is no clear conclusion, just as there is no clear cause of conflicting metamessages and no clear solution. Thanks to their unique composition, video game reviews carry two metamessages, and for whatever reason, these metamessages don’t always reinforce one another as they should."

[We think this sucks/rocks, and rather thought that it showed that actual scores are higher than game review texts currently 'imply'. But we were never that good at reading graphs.]