Poll: 0-10 The rating Sytem!

[Jumplion]

The rating system is usualy on a scale of 0 or 1-10. There's nothing wrong with that, but the "average" of games is a "7". Wouldn't the average be a "5"?

Here's the basic gist of what games reviewed by a 0-10 scale can achieve:

10: Practically perfect in every way.

9: Amazing, can't be missed.

8: Great game, buy it.

7: Average, a couple of flaws but could be worth your money.

6: Not so average, could be better.

5: Not so good, you shouldn't really buy it. Buy it if you're a fan of the series.

4: Bad, only if you're a true fan but even THEN reconsider!

3: Really bad, don't bother

2: Terrible, don't even look at the box art!

1: Horrid! What were they thinking?!?

0: A sin against god, the developers should be burned!

If you take notice at the text in the BOLD that is usualy the limit to when a "good" game is rated. Now, take a look at the text UNDERLINES, and that is usualy a game that is rated "not good" or "sub par"

It seems to me that this gap between good games and bad games are too thin, and that a game could easily be rated as "bad".

And then we've got the decimals! Including the 1-100 scale, it doesn't really help to know what version of a game is better for what system.

Lets say "GAME X" got a 7.75 and "GAME Y" got a 7.5. What is the significant difference? And then "GAME X" got a 3.5 while "GAME Y" got a 4.75. Again, what the hell is the difference? One is slightly better than the other, one has a minor glitch that isn't present in "GAME X". It's pretty confusing for me.

I prefer a 1-5 scale because it's a simple scale:

5: Practically perfect in every way.

4: Awesome, a few issues here and there, but definatly check it out.

3: Average, some will like it, some will hate it.

2: Not that good, might be worth a rent, but still consider "Bioshock" instead.

1: Utter trash, don't even look at the box art.

I think that definatly clears up some of the "Average" "Not Average" business.
What do you think about this?

Wow, this became a slight rant, didn't expect to type up so much.

 

[JakubK666]

I prefer to use 7-11 when reviewing hyped games.

 

[PurpleRain]

Definatly 'Other'

I've invented my own scale to determine how good a good a game is:

-Two chickens = Don't buy. Terrible.
-One chicken and two eggs = Poor but not rentworthy
-A barmaid = Adverage. Rent it if curious.
-Six gooses and an elephant calf = Better then most. Rent it.
-Wage civil war on the nearest country = Buy it
-Spill the blood of the impure and weak = It's Half Life

 

[GloatingSwine]

The reason why on a 1-10 scale, 7 is "Average", is that a game that's only half-good is no-good. C-Average products don't impress gamers.

Actually, the reason is more usually that games reviewers don't want to give bad scores in order to avoid pissing off games publishers, who provide lots of shiny advertising revenue.

Some publications actually do use 5 as the "Average" mark. Edge do, Eurogamer do. (Their average awarded score might be higher, but that's because both are selective, they don't give out low scores that often because they simply don't review all the shitty games, just a few particularly shitty ones.

I believe that if you're going to have a review score at all (and I'm as happy without one as with it), that either a 5 point or 10 point scale is the way to go. Anything more than a 10 point scale (And that includes half points) means that each individual point on the scale is harder to justify. Many places use a 100 point scale, but can they really tell you precisely what the difference between 8.3 and 8.4 is? And can they consistently apply that across a whole 100 point scale? No, and if they say they can, they're lying.

 

[fyrh56]

well, I'll have to go with the 1-100, although 1-10 is basically the same since it's unusual for the 1-100 system to use values like 85.5, it's pretty much the 1-10 by a factor of 10. 1-5 is too restrictive, and i would hardly call the buy it/rent it/kill it with fire a rating system, but more of a summarized suggestion.
Still, i think that any numbered rating system is flawed. GTA4 is getting straight 10's, yet i hate GTA with a passion. It's the full review/demo that wins my money

 

[stompy]

I'm with the 'Buy, rent and don't bother' system, simply because it's easy to understnad. Though, I'm floating away from reviews, and more towards what I'd like in a game. 'Specially after Oblivion.

 

[Piemaster]

I prefer the 1-10 system as it is basically a summary of the reviewers overall thoughts on the game, and is more flexible than a 1-5 rating. 1-100 is way to excessive though. I think that the whole "average=7" thing is alright because if the halfway mark was only 5, then really good games would only get 7 and 8s instead of 9 and 10s.

 

[mcderek3000]

I'll give it an 8.

Zing!

 

[Finnish(ed)]

I actually do not like any rating system. They are unreliable and unequal. Journalists should keep to the facts and leave their preferences and prejudices out of it. They could just tell about the style, mechanics and technical issues. It is also possible to make comparisons to other games, so that people would have easier time deciding for themselves.

Game journalism is continuously getting further away from actual journalism. I have little to no trust for any single review and I usually make my decisions based on what I have seen of the actual product with my own eyes. Game journalists often seem to think that they are some kind of rockstars. They impose their personal trivia and BS on the readers and expect the readers to be as enthusiastic about it as they are.

 

[iamnotincompliance]

The Yahtzee System:

Call of Duty 4 - "far from perfect"

Portal - near perfection

Jesus - perfection

Well, someone was bound to put it in here.

Anyway, I'll take any rating system that makes sense, even the work-in-progress Yahtzee system. Of course, I generally ignore ratings systems and buy what I already know I like, or get glowing recommendations from people with my kind of tastes, or (this has happened) just happen upon something and give it a shot, but that's a topic for another thread in progress I haven't added too yet.

 

[tagMaverick]

I'd rather have someone who has the same gaming preferances as me saying "Buy" or "Dont", but there probably arent enough reviewers to do that for everyone.

 

[JakubK666]

Speaking of which, I remember a very original rating system in some old magazine.

Basically breaks the game down into categories then adds it up to a 100:

Graphics ?/20
Music ?/10
Sugar(aka how awesome it is) ?/50
Replayability ?/20

One of the smartest systems I've ever came across as it was pretty much impossible to get a 100/100.

 

[Remnant]

The 0-10 system is great, but unfortunately it's been shuffled off to the side in favour of a 7-10 system.
I can't remember the last time I've seen a 5. And surely by now the fact that so many are getting 7s or 8s, they should realise that the benchmark for "average" is higher than they thought.

That said, a basic set up can work: This is what's good, this is what's bad, we'd suggest buy/rent/avoid like plague.

Jakub's got a good idea, re-using that old system.
If you made Multiplayer, single-player, story, etc. as the categories, it would certainly help. Some games get by entirely on the merit of multiplayer at the expense of a shoddy singleplayer - any game that falls in the 90+ category should earn it by being a complete experience, rather than doing one thing well.

 

[greygelgoog]

I prefer a rating system that's designed to actually make you read the review because it's intentionally arbitrary and complicated. Personally, I give this thread 23,047 out of 59,962 purple leopards.

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

im goin with 1-5 mostly because it seems more fair to me.

 

[greygelgoog]

23,047 out of 59,962 purple leopards.

That is a bit harsh really, i was thinking around 49.029

Well, I gave Portal 19 out of 23 bloodied pigeons.