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

[Lucane]

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.

 

[ryukage_sama]

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.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

>5: Crap
6: Bad
7: Decent or Average
8: Good
9: Excellent
10: AWESOME

It makes no sense that a 5/10 is crap with a 6/10 being bad and a 7/10 being merely decent yet many people believe this. These assertions are incorrect by definition using any sensible interpretation of the ten-point scale. That said, I believe I understand the underlying thinking and it amounts to this "I work/study, my free time is precious". People don't have the time to play a merely alright game so they dismiss anything below a 7. This is understandable and perfectly acceptable. What bothers me is that people believe games below a 7 to be not merely unworthy of their time but to be actually bad games. To properly judge a game's quality the amount of time you personally have to play it can't be taken into consideration because that has nothing to do with how well the game is made. The proper response then to a 6/10 is "It's seems alright but I just don't have the time" not "it's bad" which is untrue by definition.

And yet time and time again the reviews match up on those scales.

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"

 

[lacktheknack]

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.)

 

[NBSRDan]

"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.

 

[JPArbiter]

this is why I like Screwattacks buy it/Rent it/Eff it system, and more recently how they use the WHOLE 1-10 scale. for example Bodycount got a 4 out of 10

 

[genericusername64]

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

 

[Valkyrie101]

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.

 

[Draconalis]

Gods... I really don't know why... I read the title this in terms of penis size.

In any case, I tend to think of 6 as average, 5 as slightly below average, and 7 as slightly above average, with 8 being good, 9 being great, and 10 slightly below theoretical perfect.

Also... in my grading score... 3 is the worst you can get... not even 1 and 2 are as bad as 3...

I hate the number 3.

 

[Vonnis]

5.5 is average. I use the same system we used when I was in school (1-10, 1 being shit, 10 being perfect, 5.5 being just adequate), even if I'm the only one.
That said, I don't attach any value to numeric scores, and never rate things on a numeric scale myself.

 

[Woodsey]

7, because that's what reviewers now consider them.

Personally I think most reviewers should use a five-star system that correlates directly to "shit", "poor", "average", "good", and "excellent", since most of the are incapapble of using a full 10, or 100-point scale.

PCG are about the only ones I have seen use the entire thing, actually.

 

[Aroth Khashar]

Gods... I really don't know why... I read the title this in terms of penis size.

That's ok, I thought it was about the way people rate girls (or guys). In case anyone is now wondering, the medically accepted "average" is between 5.5 and 6.5. (Don't ask, please.)

OT: Mathematically, the average of a rage from 1 - 10 is 5.5, from 1 - 100 is 50.5. As a measure of quality however, most reviewers who aren't paid to rate otherwise will veer towards ~7 being an "average" score. Depending on personal opinion that might be closer to 6 or even 8. Ironically enough my experience has been that this also applies to what I originally thought the thread was about xD.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I find anywhere from a 6 to a 6.9 (repeated) average, as its the average of those two averages.

 

[Phlakes]

5 was average 15 years ago. Now most games that would have been shit at least have a licensed engine to save them.

 

[McMullen]

For video games, and most other works, average is about 3 on a linear scale, if we're talking about where most games fit.

If I had my way, 10 would be must-buy, 7 would be "It's worth the price", 5 would be "it's worth the time spent playing it", and 1 would be "You can sell something like this and not get arrested for fraud?!"