Generally games which get less than say, a 5 usually don't get far into production, and even if they did they would not garner enough response for websites to justify a review, for such mediocrity would just be ignored.
Poll: Is "average" a five or a seven?
- Thread starter pppppppppppppppppp
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
This, although I don't think I've actually used a score for judging a game for a couple of years now, instead I just read some reviews for find out the details and judge it by that. The only time I'd consider a score is if it's consistently much lower than average across reviews as that's an indicator there's something deeply wrong with the game.Yukichin said:
I really don't give a crap about the scores reviewers give. They're pretty much meaningless if you read/listen to what he has to say and if I'm not convinced I should get it in my current situation, a score is going to do nothing to change my opinion. In all honesty I think they should be eliminated.
The score of 7 isn't an average, it's a baseline that the reviewers use. It isn't a mathematically calculated average as such. Also, even if it were an average, only with the median would you expect a average score of 5. Mean and mode stats can be easily skewed by positive or negative ratings, especially the mean, which is what most people consider when they say average.
And the reason that places like IGN and Gamespot have a system where 7 is an average game is because it gives them more licence to give out higher numbers. At the minute, people go "How the hell did CoD get a 9!!??" and such, and that's when it's only 2 marks higher than most other games. Imagine they went for a true neutral scale, where Average Game: The Averaging scores 50%, and then CoD comes along and gets a 90% again.
And the reason that places like IGN and Gamespot have a system where 7 is an average game is because it gives them more licence to give out higher numbers. At the minute, people go "How the hell did CoD get a 9!!??" and such, and that's when it's only 2 marks higher than most other games. Imagine they went for a true neutral scale, where Average Game: The Averaging scores 50%, and then CoD comes along and gets a 90% again.
I see five as game that works, but isn't fun. Anything that is higher starts being fun to play. A game that is buggy as hell but is great fun to play should outscore a game that works but is no fun to play. Of course you need extreme low scores for shit like Shadow Complex: Phantom Ops. *shudder*
Depends what you mean by average.Glass Joe the Champ said:
To me the score that represtents average (as in not good or bad) game play, graphics, story etc would be a 5 on a scale of 1-10, whereas, a decent game would get a 7ish. Now if the majority of games are decent then 7 is the average score attained. Maybe this means that the bar should be raised on what makes an excellent game so that the average makes more sense.
For example I'm a big fan of MW2 I've just checked and IGN gave it a 9.5/10, which should mean its pretty close to reaching FPS zen. Now without trying to start a war over this most people should be able to agree that it's a pretty well put together game ( yes I know it has more than it's fair share of flaws please don't point any out I'm just using it as an example), but does it deserve a 9.5 I personally would say no as it's far from perfect but it's better than average.
Theres probably a better way of phasing all of this but I hope you get my point.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
As you can see, a 5.5 is the average number here.
It would seem to me that anyone using a scale that is supposed to make sense and be helpful, just has to balance out the scores somewhat evenly over all numbers, instead of having users guess for a median and other quantiles when they just want to compare games. That would not be a hard function to program. It does require reviewers to review everything that comes out though, including crap they don't want to play
.
As you can see, a 5.5 is the average number here.
It would seem to me that anyone using a scale that is supposed to make sense and be helpful, just has to balance out the scores somewhat evenly over all numbers, instead of having users guess for a median and other quantiles when they just want to compare games. That would not be a hard function to program. It does require reviewers to review everything that comes out though, including crap they don't want to play
.
Where do you live where a "7" is average for a grading scale? "70" is barely passing, and 80-85 is considered average. 7 would be the rough equivalent to "startlingly stupid."Glass Joe the Champ said:
It's inflated to sell copies of shit games. It's inflated to sell everything, because the "journalists" at Game Informer are actually employed by the pothea-I mean salespeople at Gamestop. 5. 1/2way to 10. 7. Better than 70% of everyone else. If you refer to a girl as a "7," you aren't calling her average, are you? How hard is this to figure out?
Whether or not 5 is "Average" (in the normal vernacular as median) depends on whether reviews are normally distributed on the 1-10 range. They're not.
Really, you'd need a representative sample to figure out the actual values, but since I'm pretty sure you're talking about trusting reviews rather than looking for a lesson in statistics, I'll say this: given the "grade inflation" of game reviews the past couple of years or so, I have to agree with the guy above who said "average" is about an 8.
Anywhere under that, and you're looking at a high chance of stinking badly, IMAE.
OTOH, since my tastes seem to vary so far from the norm these days, I just pretty much ignore the reviews and count on Yahtzee to give me the downsides.
Really, you'd need a representative sample to figure out the actual values, but since I'm pretty sure you're talking about trusting reviews rather than looking for a lesson in statistics, I'll say this: given the "grade inflation" of game reviews the past couple of years or so, I have to agree with the guy above who said "average" is about an 8.
Anywhere under that, and you're looking at a high chance of stinking badly, IMAE.
OTOH, since my tastes seem to vary so far from the norm these days, I just pretty much ignore the reviews and count on Yahtzee to give me the downsides.
6 Is an average in my book.
My chart is:
10- Someones payed to say rate it this.
9- Rated by a fan of the series who will overlook anything thats not game breaking.
8- A great game, rated fairly, with the reviewer showing all of its flaws
7- a good game, with solid controls, and above average gameplay, but with a few flaws or balance issues that could be potentially game breaking. ((See: Modern Warfare 2))
6- Above average game that doesnt truly shine in any respect. It delivers what it promises and nothing more.
5- A game not worth buying, but definitely worth playing. ((By renting, or at a friends house of course))
4- Below average clone of a game of higher quality. Probably buggy with game breaking elements.
3- Dont buy this, because they could make another one.
2- Travesty upon mankind. Production Manager needs to be flogged with a glass covered sledgehammer.
1-
My chart is:
10- Someones payed to say rate it this.
9- Rated by a fan of the series who will overlook anything thats not game breaking.
8- A great game, rated fairly, with the reviewer showing all of its flaws
7- a good game, with solid controls, and above average gameplay, but with a few flaws or balance issues that could be potentially game breaking. ((See: Modern Warfare 2))
6- Above average game that doesnt truly shine in any respect. It delivers what it promises and nothing more.
5- A game not worth buying, but definitely worth playing. ((By renting, or at a friends house of course))
4- Below average clone of a game of higher quality. Probably buggy with game breaking elements.
3- Dont buy this, because they could make another one.
2- Travesty upon mankind. Production Manager needs to be flogged with a glass covered sledgehammer.
1-
It's not 'average.'
It's supposed to be: 1 is absolutely the worst, 10 is absolutely the best.
5 is neutral, neither good nor bad.
Anything above a five implies that the game has upside and is a favorable review. Any game that is bad, or considered bad should be rated below a 5.
Average has nothing to do with it.
PS: Wtf captcha, my keyboard doesn't have the greek letters nor math symbols to do your dumb shit
It's supposed to be: 1 is absolutely the worst, 10 is absolutely the best.
5 is neutral, neither good nor bad.
Anything above a five implies that the game has upside and is a favorable review. Any game that is bad, or considered bad should be rated below a 5.
Average has nothing to do with it.
PS: Wtf captcha, my keyboard doesn't have the greek letters nor math symbols to do your dumb shit
I think the 7, or 70, being average extends from the fact that 70%=C and C=average grade, and 50%=failing. I guess it depends on what kind of system you're looking at, a grade system or a number system.
Then again, I don't give a damn about ratings. I play what I like.
Then again, I don't give a damn about ratings. I play what I like.
I'd say that 5 was mediocre and 7 was average, i.e. that your average movie, game, song etc. is a 7, but for something to be a 5 it needs to be mediocre.
On many forums it's usually 7 as the average, which never made any sense to me when 5 is the middle ground. Personally, I reckon 3 would be a better average, then you can judge it by quality more accurately since you have more numbers to choose from.
I see average as 7/10 and plain good or dull good as 8/10.Arluza said:
I won't buy any game that has an 8/10 review or less as I know the game will be a let down. Although I think Mass effect got a higher score and that was a dull good game. Nothing special just good in the blandest sense.
