Poll: Is "average" a five or a seven?
- Thread starter pppppppppppppppppp
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Occasionally, one of the companies that I work for employs another company to do phone surveys. They get random customers to rate certain products and services out of 10. On that scale, 9 and 10 are considered positive, anything 6 or under is negative and 7 and 8 are both "okay". That's how the corporate world sees it, just so you know.Glass Joe the Champ said:
well, technically speaking, 5,5 would be the average in a scale from 1 to 10, but barring half-points, 5 is probably a good mark. Given that this is about review scores, I think no number should be given at all. A complex opinion about a game cannot be expressed in a linear scale from 1 to 10.
Average is 9. Has been for years.
I honestly don't mind games being rated like schoolwork. 70-79 as a "C."
However, it really makes the lower numbers useless. And in an era where pretty much all AAA titles get 9s, it'd be nice to see a bit more diversity in the ratings.
I honestly don't mind games being rated like schoolwork. 70-79 as a "C."
However, it really makes the lower numbers useless. And in an era where pretty much all AAA titles get 9s, it'd be nice to see a bit more diversity in the ratings.
I agree and do the same thing. I call a 10 perfect and have yet to play a game that I would rate as a 10(I've played several really good 9s though). 7 is just too high for me to think of it as "average", 7 ranges from "above average" to "good" for me.EverythingIncredible said:
The problem is how we define "average."Glass Joe the Champ said:
In schools, the grade of C is usually termed "average." But this is a measure of proficiency, which is why 50% is not considered "average." The average person is more than 50% proficient at adding and subtracting, for instance. The average student scores around 76-84% proficiency (or a C level) after thorough instruction.
So the grade isn't a measure of which students are above or below average, per se. The grade is a measure of proficiency with the task, and the label we assign to that grade is whether or not that proficiency represents the average level.
Some argue game reviews work the same way. If a game is rated around a 7.5, we're saying the game is functional, but not much good. If it's being rated lower than that, we might be meant to take that as a game that is not functioning properly. A student with a grade of C is getting the job done, but not in any stellar way... whereas a student with a grade lower than a C isn't really getting the job done.
Do reviewers actually think this way every time? Doubtful. But it's clear there are a certain number of "gimme" points for a game that functions enough to be sold, and the remaining points measure the value of the content. The grading scale isn't as uniform as we think.
(There's also the problem that most people consider themselves to be "above average." If asked to rate themselves on looks or intelligence or capability, most people would rate themselves at a 7 or above. We tend to think of "average" as "bad" because of our own inflated view of ourselves. This is often called the "Lake Wobegon Effect.")
My friends get confused about game scores, because movie and music scores use a 5.0 = average range, so if a movie like Matrix gets a 73 and the sequel gets 62, both are "above average" meaning most people would enjoy them.
But with games, anything below a 7.0 is a failure, something is wrong with the game that affects the overall enjoyment the average player would derive from it.
Here is how I see it:
7.0 = good game, its a legitimate play experience, but if could have been better
8.0 = this is a game worth playing
9.0+ = if you like the genre you NEED to play this game
Then of course personal bias comes into play, take the new WH40k Space Marine game, my friend has been playing the tabletop game for years, so obviously he's enamored with the lore/setting/characters he'd give it a 9.0 - where as I play it and see a arcade shooter, with the character being rammed through a cooridors, 7.0 and maybe higher if I played it more.
But with games, anything below a 7.0 is a failure, something is wrong with the game that affects the overall enjoyment the average player would derive from it.
Here is how I see it:
7.0 = good game, its a legitimate play experience, but if could have been better
8.0 = this is a game worth playing
9.0+ = if you like the genre you NEED to play this game
Then of course personal bias comes into play, take the new WH40k Space Marine game, my friend has been playing the tabletop game for years, so obviously he's enamored with the lore/setting/characters he'd give it a 9.0 - where as I play it and see a arcade shooter, with the character being rammed through a cooridors, 7.0 and maybe higher if I played it more.
It depends entirely on who made the rating scale. There's no "should mean this" about it - rating scales are subjective and only meaningful when they put two or more games' scores next to each other. The important thing isn't consistency from site to site, but rather consistency within each individual scale. If Gametrailers gives something a seven, it needs to line up with all the other sevens they've given. If Gamespot gives something a seven, it can mean something completely different than what it did on Gametrailers, and it's still fine SO LONG AS Gamespot is also consistent about what comparative quality gets a seven on their site.
This is one of the many reasons Metacritic is utterly useless. They don't even consider what the numbers for each individual site mean, assuming instead that every source centers their scale on a mean of five. As logical as that may seem, it's not a guarantee, and it's not necessary for ratings to work.
This is one of the many reasons Metacritic is utterly useless. They don't even consider what the numbers for each individual site mean, assuming instead that every source centers their scale on a mean of five. As logical as that may seem, it's not a guarantee, and it's not necessary for ratings to work.
I see it as this a "5" (out of 10) means it has as many parts good as it does bad or no great points in either direction (who'd want a game/etc that's as bad as it is good?) meaning using that as a basis anything lower than that is overall a bad game and only gets even worse maybe thing wouldn't be as bad for a fan of the style/type but 2-3 are kind of ment to be unless you enjoy the game being nearly unbeatable by it's own rules/flaws you'd be made to play leaving 1 like 10 reserved for the very worst of games that don't have a singal thing going for them like If the a new racing game came out with dozens of cars and you could only work on the pit crew and never actually see the race or the results just getting a mission passed or failed which isn't based on speed or skill just random selection by the A.I.
Meaning the average for profitable and/or fun games is around sevens since the pros outweigh the cons instead of 8-10 since those usually rarely cater to everyone all the time.
Meaning the average for profitable and/or fun games is around sevens since the pros outweigh the cons instead of 8-10 since those usually rarely cater to everyone all the time.
Review scores are like grades in school. The average score is not 50%, a failing grade in the American scale. Many games lag behind and have problems that actively hurt their enjoyability. The worst of the bunch frequently drop out and are never incorporated into the average.
And yet time and time again the reviews match up on those scales.WayOutThere said:
If you are even going to READ numbered reviews, you have to throw logic and sense out the window. I simply find several scores that I see as being consistent and go from there.
The issue isn't with the people. The issue is with the scores.
I will concede that 6 games are not bad, but almost always "Meh"
It depends on what the reviewer says.
It doesn't matter what number they pick, if they say "It's average" then the number they used means average.
(Note: I don't typically pay heed to numerical scores.)
It doesn't matter what number they pick, if they say "It's average" then the number they used means average.
(Note: I don't typically pay heed to numerical scores.)
"Average" is a mathematical term, meaning the sum of all variables, divided by the number of variables there are. That is the definition; you do not get to decide what average means (unless you invent a different definition for the word, the same way "homosexual" and "happy" are different definitions of the word gay). Generally this works out to about half of things being below average, and half above (again, mathematically, the average is an exact point, rather than an area that many data points would be likely to fall into).
In terms of of quality, a 1-10 numerical scale works out as follows:
1-2 = terrible
3-4 = bad
5-6 = mediocre
7-8 = good
9-10 = great
5-6 is not necessarily average just because it's in the middle, but it happens to work out that way. (the exact average might actually be a bit lower since it's easier to create a terrible work of art than a great one, but hold on- it's already a stretch to assign numbers to an emotional experience; let's not get nitty-gritty here.)
I subscribe to the philosophy that quality is absolute; an experience is influenced by many factors such as mood, expectations, and individual preference, but not requiring a comparison to works of the same medium (except in the measurement of novelty). If leftover excrement were the average meal, it would still be disgusting and I would spring for fine dining; if the average game were the excellent craft of geniuses, I would lament only my lack of time/money to play them all. A masterpiece is still a masterpiece; it doesn't become bland just because there exist even better masterpieces.
What you really want to ask is not what is average, but what level of quality is acceptable.
In terms of of quality, a 1-10 numerical scale works out as follows:
1-2 = terrible
3-4 = bad
5-6 = mediocre
7-8 = good
9-10 = great
5-6 is not necessarily average just because it's in the middle, but it happens to work out that way. (the exact average might actually be a bit lower since it's easier to create a terrible work of art than a great one, but hold on- it's already a stretch to assign numbers to an emotional experience; let's not get nitty-gritty here.)
I subscribe to the philosophy that quality is absolute; an experience is influenced by many factors such as mood, expectations, and individual preference, but not requiring a comparison to works of the same medium (except in the measurement of novelty). If leftover excrement were the average meal, it would still be disgusting and I would spring for fine dining; if the average game were the excellent craft of geniuses, I would lament only my lack of time/money to play them all. A masterpiece is still a masterpiece; it doesn't become bland just because there exist even better masterpieces.
What you really want to ask is not what is average, but what level of quality is acceptable.
Some sites like ign can't give a worse grade than a 5, they physically can't, Some sites like destructoid do use both ends of the spectrum
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/duke-nukem-forever
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/duke-nukem-forever
I'd consider it more of a quality scale, with 7 being pretty good but nothing special at all. That's the rough average for games. 5 is very middling quality, barely acceptable, which most games are above to some degree.