Poll: Is "average" a five or a seven?

[SoranMBane]

It should be 5, but ratings tend to get skewed between a combination of reviewers just pulling numbers out of their asses most of the time and the majority of publications not wanting to draw the ire of publishers and their readership by giving genuinely average but popular games low scores. When I did video game reviews for my school newspaper, whenever I gave a game the equivalent of a 6 or 7 (we used a 1-to-5 star system, but we could cut them in half, so it was really the same as a 1-to-10 system), I'd have to make it a point to stress that this actually meant above average in order to avoid confusion. When reading other people's reviews, I simply try to ignore whatever score they gave and just focus on their words, because I know it'll most likely be inflated.

 

[KarlMonster]

Woah..... I was totally thinking of something else when I read that...

That's what I thought too, Meester Deckhardt.
But... lets not give them ideas, eh?

 

[b3nn3tt]

Well, I think we can all agree that 5 should be the score for an average game, but reviews don't really work like that. Personally, I tend to pretty much ignore the score at the end of a review and focus on what it actually says about the game. If they mention some features I like the sound of, or some criticisms that would drastically change my enjoyment of the game, I take those into account. I also tend to watch the Zero Punctuation relating to a game, as I think it's helpful to know what is bad about a game, and where better to hear that?

Sorry, I went slightly off-topic. Basically, 5 should be average, but 7 tends to be average in most reviews. Hence, numerical scores are essentially worthless, as they are never an accurate representation of the reviewer's feelings on the game.

 

[random_bars]

Yes, it's like the school system - they're both wrong.

5/10 is average. That is what it literally means: it's exactly halfway between the worst game and the best game. This stuff about how 7/10 'should be average'... No, it shouldn't, WHY should it? That doesn't even make sense, you can't just change how statistics work to your liking.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Well a 5 is average, but 7 is "I'd so her sober" so it needs more attention. Average don't get papa's att... oh game review scores?

I don't read game reviews, they never accurately portray a game and I don't care about other people's opinions. However, like with girls, 5 is average, but no one wants to have a simply average game so 7 becomes the desired number.

 

[Smookyolo]

Oh... this thread is about game scores.

Carry on.

 

[Astoria]

It depends what they mean. It could either mean if you lined up every game ever made this is where this game is placed on the line or it could mean 1=crap 5=ok and 10=amazing. I think most reviewers use the second one.

 

[Denamic]

Games are scored how good they are on a scale.
1 is terrible and 10 is superb.
It's not based on an average.

 

[Thamian]

To me, 5 is always the average score/mark. And as for academic scoring... what hells forsaken education system did you go through OP? Every single one I've come across has had 70% as the boundary mark for and A/First. Certainly is here at uni...

 

[Mr Pantomime]

It always irks me that people base the average on the school system scores. It really doesnt make any sense. The reason 70% is a pass is that they want you to be able to answer 70% of the questions to be able to say you know the subject. But a review isnt a test, its a rating of quality. So 5 would be average.

The problem ive always had with review scores is that theres no set guideline for whats good, whats poor, and what is average. Some people go for the 4 point scale, some people dont, which makes metascores kind of useless.

 

[Souplex]

It depends on how you view the numbers.
If you were to get a 50% on a paper/test/academic bribery exam you would fail. If you got a 75% you'd get something in the C range with a margin of error depending on who's running things.
75%, 7.5/10, 3.75/5 are all about halfway up the good half of the scorechart, meaning the average of good.

 

[WayOutThere]

The heart of the matter is whether or not 5/10 should be defined as average. Using that approach then if the industry becomes really, really good at what they do and the vast majority of the games produced are excellent then the average game will be a 5/10 despite each game being an entirely worthwhile experience. If not, the average game will score in the eight through ten range. Today, if it's true the average review score is around seven, that means reviewers aren't using this approach because if they were the average score would be a 5/10 by definition. If the average score is a 7/10 that either means that the scores are innacurate or that the average game is a good game. I imagine that the issue here is that reviewers don't define 5/10 to be average while the larger gaming community does. Frequently the complaint is made that gaming today is derivative with little innovation in the industry. When reviewers give 7/10 scores to games that are the target of this criticism gamers cry that the scores are over bloated. The games are enjoyable which matters to the professional reviewers but at the same time they add little new which matters to the larger community. Many would like to see reviewers go harder on games that lack innovation in order to push the industry to innovate. They perceive these games as boring, not because they were poorly made but because the things they've done have been done better before. Basically, the larger community views the professional reviewers of being content with stagnation. (To be clear, I'm not arguing the medium is stagnant, I'm merely observing that's something a lot of people believe.) They find the fact that a lack of innovation means a boring experience compelling reason to define 5/10 as average because doing so takes into account the amount of innovation currently in the industry and as such discourages people from buying games that lack innovation.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. I hope they made sense and that I didn't come across as rambling.

Games are scored how good they are on a scale.
1 is terrible and 10 is superb.
It's not based on an average.

That's the way I like to go about it.

 

[AperioContra]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm always a little weary of a review that tries to represent the product as a number. I guess this would work with things like TV or Toaster oven which ideally never has variations on what it's supposed to do, but with movies and video games, mediums that are meant to be enjoyed and experienced, I just can't shake the feeling that the person reviewing has no idea how to convey a complex opinion and would rather dole out numbers to be filed at the North American Bureau of Video Game Entertainment Experiences.

 

[thiosk]

All this conversation does is really underscore the intrinsic weakness of a number based review system. We can't even agree on what is good, whats bad, and whats ok.

 

[Quellist]

I would call 7 average, 6 being acceptable and 5 mediocre. Below 5 means serious problems

 

[GundamSentinel]

I don't think average is the right word. Everything under 5 is a degree of awfulness, everything above is at least good enough. That doesn't mean the actual average is 5.

 

[WickedSkin]

I'll explain how it really should work:

1-2 Don't ever spend money on these titles. Just don't you stupid person.
3-4 Bad, you will only spend money on titles here if you also eat crayons.
5-6 Average, run of the mill, a time killer.
7-8 These are good games. You will kill time here. Even play them again at some point.
9 Brilliant, classic, you need this.
10 Should almost never be awarded, it means damned near perfection. If it's on/also on PC it must be that greatest of things, mod friendly (should be on console to... really it should). It must also not suffer from that most horrible, disfiguring and in every way incapacitating of diseases; GFWL (or one of those anti-2nd-hand deals or need to be always online... disgusting). That means not even Mass Effect can earn a 10/10.

Now 7 is average score given I guess.

 

[Floppertje]

depends on who's doing the reviewing. the stars system they use here works pretty well as far as I can tell. the primary gaming mag here though... not so much. they claim to give honest marks based on how much fun they had with it, but... well I can't be arsed to look it up again but they gave marks that made quite a few eyes roll out of their sockets when I posted it here.
for me, average is 7, (you know, it looks okay and it plays okay but doesn't do anything really special.)
6 is sufficient, if only barely, 8 is good, 9 is great, 10 is jesus.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

I'd say game review scores are inflated.
For games its a disaster if a game gets under 7/10, and for AAA games even 8/10 is pretty poor.

Whereas films rarely receive scores higher than 8/10, if you look at imdb (not perfect but nothing is) on the top 250 films list, there are only 3 films with 9/10 or higher... THREE, compare that to games, i can count at least 40 games sitting on a shelf a few feet away from me that are all 10/10 or 9/10.

Yes they're all good games but when there are 40 ALL with 9/10 or 10/10, you can immediatly see that the games system is almost completely arbitrary and doesnt really do anything other than give the marketing teams something to put in trailers.

Also the fact that its even possible for a game to get 10/10 is pretty ridiculous. There has never been a game that is perfect, EVER, yet there are hundreds of perfect scores for games, even my all time favourite games i couldnt give a 10/10.

 

[Neonit]

back where i live average = 5.5 ((10+1)/2)
and i agree with that

and... well... i think it is not good that most reviewers just put a 7 when "it works". then again, reviews are subjective, and thus trying to make some kind of "central grading system" would be pointless. i for one would fight the system and use letters to grade. or some kind of progressive smiley face. or fruit.