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

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
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.
 

Ravnican

New member
Jul 19, 2010
114
0
0
To me 5 has always been average. I don't know why review sites keep pushing it to 6 or 7.

Furious Styles said:
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.
Mediocre and average, whether people like it or not, are synonyms.
 

Ubermetalhed

New member
Sep 15, 2009
905
0
0
Arluza said:
average is not the correct term we should be using. In game reviews (aside from people like Angry Joe who review on a REAL 10 point scale) average is about 8. Yes. 8. an 8 is both superb, yet also horrible. Check IGN and Gamespot coverage on games. only 9s or 10sare counted as good. 8 is called an "ok" game.
I see average as 7/10 and plain good or dull good as 8/10.

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.
 

Ravnican

New member
Jul 19, 2010
114
0
0
kouriichi said:
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-
Contradicted yourself there, mate.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
Tends to be 7 I would say, I know it's dumb but it's not exactly like im the one that made it that way, I have 5 as my average when im rating things.

Also: Dirty mind.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Hey guys, I was reading an article on how video game review scores are inflated and the average review score on many websites is around seven. They act like this is a really bad thing, but if I remember from the academic grading scale, seven is average and anything below that is bad. If it works for schools, it should work for us, right?

What do you guys think, on a 1-10 scale, what should be the average score and why? This doesn't apply to only game scores, really any scoring system based on 10s or 100s. (including, as I mentioned above, academic scoring)
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.
 

Valthek

New member
Aug 25, 2008
136
0
0
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.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
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.
 

DustStorm

New member
Oct 30, 2008
83
0
0
Everybody's going to answer differently because of different views over what a five or seven is as there is no universally agreed upon method to determining a five, seven or any other one. I'd say 5-7 is average, though.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
EverythingIncredible said:
I always read 5 as average. Even when the reviewers themselves don't.
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.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Hey guys, I was reading an article on how video game review scores are inflated and the average review score on many websites is around seven. They act like this is a really bad thing, but if I remember from the academic grading scale, seven is average and anything below that is bad. If it works for schools, it should work for us, right?

What do you guys think, on a 1-10 scale, what should be the average score and why? This doesn't apply to only game scores, really any scoring system based on 10s or 100s. (including, as I mentioned above, academic scoring)
The problem is how we define "average."

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.")
 

gideonkain

New member
Nov 12, 2010
525
0
0
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.
 

hitheremynameisbob

New member
Jun 25, 2008
103
0
0
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.