I don't disagree, but how does 3/5 = average = 5/10?
3/5 is literally 6/10, i.e. above average.
I'm hoping we move to hair personally.It's fun watching the games industry move from stars to 100 point scales back to stars.
Just don't have a score. Make people read reviews
Just don't have a score. Make people read reviews
Most scores are 8+ BECAUSE most games we play today ARE 8+.
If we moved to a different score system it wouldn't change ANYTHING.
You got it?
I think he's using an 11-point scale and including zero. 5 would be the average in that scenario.Huh, how is 5/10 average?
1
2
3
4
5
----
6
7
8
9
10
If anything, it's below average by your standards.
Three stars is garbage? You're part of the problem. Zero or one stars is garbage. Three stars is above average.
how it is not a problem when it doesn't work and most of that scale has no uses at all literally for years now?I am going to say this one last time.
The review score system is NOT the problem.
The fact that we mostly only bother with good games IS the "problem".
Most scores are 8+ BECAUSE most games we play today ARE 8+.
If we moved to a different score system it wouldn't change ANYTHING.
You got it?
Best scale is Don't buy/Wait/Buy.The absolute best thing for reviews is to just do away with scores altogether.
I think he's using an 11-point scale and including zero. 5 would be the average in that scenario.
how it is not a problem when it doesn't work and most of that scale has no uses at all literally for years now?
I don't know what problem is, if that is not a problem.
We would change from one nonworking system to working one. It is a good change in my books.
As I said before, I wouldn't mind losing scores altogether, but that's not gonna happen, so why not make it better?
No, I don't. What is a 8/10 game lol? Compared to what? Surely, review scales should scale with the quality of contemporary games?
exactly! we would be constantly using 60% of 5 star scale on constant basis, and it covers all what we need, while we use 30% of 10/10 scale at best.I already explained it in my 1st post (#67), so I'll post it again
The only "problem" is that we have far more percentage of good games then we used to have, coupled with the fact that bad games get no exposure and thus aren't reviewed so we only see the good games that generate hits and those are all 8+ games. What would be the point if IGN or some other big journalist did a review for every steam greenlit game? Nobody cares for the bad ones and the good ones get around and those are the ones that get reviewed and again get 8+ ratings.
Your system would just mean that every game out there would get 4 or 5 stars, it wouldn't magically make everyone review shitty games. Only a high profile, highly expected game that really blows gets low ratings and there aren't (luckily) that many of them. Rejoice in the fact that there are enough great games around that you don't have to bother with shitty games for the rest of your life.
Karak's system is the best, buy/wait for sale/never touch it again. Then again I love him because he is not afraid to dig deep into dirt to get us some incredibly poor or incredibly underappreciated games.
It's not though. I mean the first "award" is "Recommended" so anything below that is automatically something they don't recommend. Which, to me, doesn't sound like a good game.
exactly! we would be constantly using 60% of 5 star scale on constant basis, and it covers all what we need, while we use 30% of 10/10 scale at best.
That's what not working scale means, when it has very little to no use and there are better alternatives.
I don't see how buy/wait for sale/never touch it system works at all, I'm not talking about personal like (thumbs up)/don't like (thumbs down) system, which has its uses, true) but about a review system. Unless you have exactly the same taste as person using this system, it does not work, it can't. steam has thumbs up/down system (it lacks neutral position though), and it kinda works when we are talking about millions of people but steam reviews still work in a way that you have to read them, that's no score, that's more like a pointer, which games can be looked deeper into.
While aggregate review scores are used by itself, even review scores of gaming sites are being used as such and that's what we are talking about, covering all bases and having comprehensible useful review score system.
everything in between can be covered by decimals, like if a game is not that much broken or buggy, we can give it 1.8/5.
But but the faces are the wrong way round. How the hell am I meant to know what's going onJust switch to a ): |: system. I don't see why anything more is needed.
everything in between can be covered by decimals, like if a game is not that much broken or buggy, we can give it 1.8/5.
Just don't have a score. Make people read reviews
I'm not even sure if somebody would use 3 stars, maybe they would, who knows. It doesn't really change much, only popular games will be reviewed and all those are good regardless of their score except for very rare cases like the Batman game that ran terribly on PC.
Karak's system is good because it simply tells you. The game is absolutely worth the asking price now = buy. The game is good but not THAT good so wait for a price drop and a couple of patches before you get it = wait for sale. The game is not really worth your time and money, there are hundreds if not thousands of better games out there = never touch it again. Now couple that with his in-depth reviews which talk about everything and you really can't have a much better system.
now that would be progress!My hope is that we can fold game scores into the metric system so that we can finally find an objective way to measure a game. Let's say that 1 star equals 1 square Joule, for example. That way we can measure it without anyone needing to play it in order to find out if it's good or not.
10 (Sterling): A 10 represents the finest of the fine, an exemplar of its genre, and the current game of its type to beat. While nothing in life is perfect, these games come as close to the ideal as one can get. Such a score is not given lightly, and is reserved for true pinnacles of the medium. A pinnacle can be relative – another game may eventually come that bests it, but for now, this is the kind of stuff the industry ought to strive for.
9 (Superb): A 9 represents excellence in almost every area, or at least a consistently delightful experience from beginning to end. There may be problems with the game, but they’re of a negligible variety, and often include such criticisms as, “I wish there were more of the thing that was brilliant.” While not a genre leader, it’s truly a beautiful game in several significant ways.
8 (Great): An 8 represents something that could prove immensely enjoyable to a majority of people, if not everybody. There are one or two noteworthy blemishes on their records, something holding them back, but nothing so major as to not be worth a lot of peoples’ time and energy.
7 (Good): A 7 represents a favorable slice of entertainment that ought to prove welcome in the right house. Not the most glamorous, polished, or jawdropping, but most definitely good for a chuckle or two.
6 (Alright): A 6 represents an acceptable game, the kind of experience unimaginative reviewers (like me) would call “solid.” These workaday games put the hours in, do their time, and manage not to offend the senses too much. They’re okay!
5 (Mediocre): A 5 represents “true neutral” on the scale. It’s not good, it’s not bad. It sits perfectly in between, doing nothing to stand out. It’s not going to ruin your day, but it’s not going to add anything positive, either. Truly the kind of videogame that exists solely to exist.
4 (Subpar): A 4 represents a below average, inferior experience. There may be some high points, a couple of hopeful moments, but they soon give way to the notably less favorable issues.
3 (Poor): A 3 represents a game with some significant damage. While it may have had some potential at one point, that’s been lost to lousy design, glitches, or some other unfortunate failure. Might be interesting… sometimes… but rarely.
2 (Bad): A 2 represents a straight-up bad game. A thorough disaster, there is no hope of a positive experience ever shining through all the broken features and atrocious ideas. Only the truly desperate will be able to dig through the mire and find something passable.
1 (Accursed): A 1 represents not just a bad game, but something offensively bad. Typically, but not always, something so truly vile that the reviewer can’t even manage to get a fraction of the way into it. The game doesn’t have to be broken beyond playability, but that’s common. It could also be so unintuitively designed, intellectually insulting, or even morally bankrupt as to render it beyond salvation. Either way, there is NO potential for a good time, even a meager one. There’s no talent, no skill, no depth, and no hope. This is… The Accursed.
Just switch to a ): |: system. I don't see why anything more is needed.
Why do ratings need to be distinguishable from one another? The point in the rating is to quantify how much the reviewer liked it, not to provide some insecure fanboys ammunition for their X>Y arguments.
Australian emoticons.Colons on the right hand side!? What madness is this!?