Support NeoGAF

[Zero83]

Bullshit, 5 star systems suck.

Everything is going to get a 4, because it's difficult to justify a 'perfect' game.

No thanks. That's not useful information.

Why? Music reviewers and movie reviewers are able to use the full scale. 5 stars doesn't mean that the product is objectively perfect, it means that the reviewer finds the product essential.

It's so weird to me that a lot of gamers feel like reviewing games is some kind of science.

CVG too used the full scale, I remember every issue of the magazine had a few 1s and 2s, some 3s and 4s and often a couple of 5s.

 

[gabbo]

People can't even read past the title of a thread here.

If that was a shot at what I posted, har har, I read his comment. The 'scale' diagram isn't solved by shifting the values down from 1,8-10 to 1, 4.5-5 which is all a 10 point scale from 1 to 5 would do. Using a scale will become a crutch for both sides in the end

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not a huge fan of scores the past decade or so...

But anyone who clings onto the tenth scale (or 100 point) still, as in the 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 has got to go.

That is the dumbest review scale with zero ability to try and justify without sounding full of shit out there.

 

[Neiteio]

I think scores are terrible in general since too many people look at the number at the end and not the context articulated in the review copy.

That being said, since most reviewers only use half the 10-point scale, might as well move to a 5-point system.

 

[mcz117chief]

Karak's system does not work, it implies that we buy (or should) every good game, we don't, we only buy those that interests us, even not so good if we like what we see/read about them. Not every good game is worth buying, nobody can possible buy all good games released these days, although some try, true, but we aren't talking about collectors here.
Only in depth reviews, vids, screens can tell us what to buy, yet again that's not what this thread is about.
It's about score system we use, that results in pages of talk (in every review thread) about said score consisting mostly of "7(=1) is garbage", "that's not what 7,8,9 means" and "only 8? no buy", etc.
I mean, why can't we face it as adults, 10/10 system outlived itself, time to move on, nobody knows how to use it properly anymore, or so it would seem.
If most games are good these days, and they are, having lesser scale to cover it only works to our advantage. Don't you agree?

You must remember one thing though. Reviews are subjective, just because Karak likes it doesn't mean I like it. All he is asking is "is the game worth the money if you are interested in it?" he isn't forcing you to buy the game, you just ask him the same question he is asking himself, the fact that you clicked on his review means that you have some form of interest in the game being reviewed.

The score system is not being used because bad games are not being reviewed by most companies. There is enough good games around which can be reviewed and thus there isn't much reason to review some garbage tier steam greenlight game.

Is the current 1-10 rating scale redundant? For most companies it effectively is if they only choose to review games that fall withing the 8+ category, but again that is not the problem with the rating system itself but with the reviewers. Basically if a game appears on IGN it almost automatically means it is a good game regadless of the score.

If we had lesser scale then all games would just be 4 or 5 stars, nothing will change as long as people are only going to care about good games.

Ideally we would have 2 kinds of review sites, ones which go full 1-10, 1-5, buy/sale/doomed and really dig into the shit games to achieve that or the other ones that don't need a score system and just the fact that the review appears on that site automatically means that the game is good. So hypotetically, if you heard somewhere "IGN did a review of Doom 4" you would know that Doom 4 is good and you would go buy it just because it is featured on IGN. Think of it like the Michelin Stars of gaming, they would only use system like 1 = fantastic game, 2 = amazing game, 3 = historical achievement/legendary status.

 

[Par Score]

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.

So you actually want a 50 point scale? That's almost as insane as a 100 point scale. I dare you to tell me the difference between a 2.6 and a 2.7

5 stars, starting at 0 stars, no half stars. Best review scale. Done.

 

[DistortionOfReality]

Colons on the right hand side!? What madness is this!?

My man

 

[ManeKast]

Eurogamer works for me;

Essential, I'll look into it as a priority, see if it's for me.
Reccomended, if it's a genre or game I'm into, I'll look into it.
No score? Read
Avoid? Ok.

Thats 1-4 stars. So yes OP, I agree but zero to one star will be tricky. Just how bad is it?!

 

[Blade30]

I've felt for a long time that 5 stars is all you need.

On top of that, drop the objective aspirations of reviews. Most people aren't qualified enough to really go for that and nowadays every outlet is personality based, with their podcast and video presence often being their lifeblood. Users know who the reviewers are and what they like so just rate it without the pretense of being objective.

5 - Loved it
4 - Really liked it
3 - Liked it
2 - It's okay
1 - Didn't like it / Really didn't like it

By the way, no one cares (or should care) how much you dislike a game so just leave one point to cover that range. Plus, reviewers tend to know which games they'll dislike or not bother with so they'll only review them if they have to.

I'd go for a 4 tier system.

Bad
Okay (but has problems)
Good
Great

This is pretty much self-explanatory and you don't have to be nitpicky becaue it didn't get ... rating.

 

[Sephzilla]

The 10 star system itself isn't the problem. The problem is that an overwhelmingly high amount of reviewers view the system as the traditional high school grading scale where everything below 6/10 is considered failing.

 

[Crash331]

I think you've got some rose colored glasses as far as how the scores used to be. 7.9'd was a thing back in like 2002 at least.

 

[mdubs]

Just don't have a score. Make people read reviews

You can't avoid the fact that not everyone has the time to read reviews. Numbers are easier, it's a fact of life. Same reason why we have grades in schools and such

 

[Wulfram]

The 10 star system itself isn't the problem. The problem is that an overwhelmingly high amount of reviewers view the system as the traditional high school grading scale where everything below 6/10 is considered failing.

Why is this a problem?

 

[mdubs]

The 10 star system itself isn't the problem. The problem is that an overwhelmingly high amount of reviewers view the system as the traditional high school grading scale where everything below 6/10 is considered failing.

This is ingrained in people (at least in North America) as the way the grading system functions though. A review similarly grades a game, so it makes sense that it should be understood similarly to school grades. Really moving to letter grades would probably be the easiest - people know what an A means, and what a C means.

 

[Lion Heart]

Love me some 100 point scale. Its too good. 5 star blows.

 

[Wiped89]

I don't buy for a second that review scores average high because only good games get reviewed. My mind is literally blown that anyone actually believes that.



You can't blame the user of reviews when it's not the users fault that, historically, review scores are slanted so high that 3/5 to most reviewers is pretty bad.

Am I really supposed to ignore this and give it my own meaning just because that's how it should be?

No it isn't your fault but you should approach reviews with a sense of what they consider an average score. I am all about the Edge model, as it should be. 5/10 = average.

For example I would score Need For Speed (2015) on PS4 as a 5 or 6/10. I found it okay, some bits were fun, some were not. It could have been much better, but if you like open world racing (and you dont have an Xbox for Forza Horizon) I would still suggest giving it a try. We need to use the whole scale.

I have reviewed games professionally before (not for Edge) and I use the whole scale. I've given out some 3-6 scores.

 

[yyr]

so why oh why are we stuck with system that doesn't work for years now?

This sort of system has taken hold of much of our society, not just game review scores.

Look at school grades. C is supposed to mean "average," B is supposed to mean "above average," and A is supposed to be exceptional. But the reality is that grade inflation and the pressures of modern society force everyone to strive for As.

Many kids feel that if you don't get an A, you're a failure, because that's the standard. Why should entertainment review scores be any different? =\

 

[Leafhopper]

I like those and I miss when 1UP did those letter grades.

 

[flkraven]

Once you find reviewers you trust or have similar tastes as, numbers become irrelevant.

 

[Trey]

Let people review however they want, people and fanboys are going to overreact and complain regardless.

 

[Hakai]

I never ever thought the review system was a problem regardless.

And then I enter the internet and discovered this huge discussion about the different review systems and how one is better than the other. To me, it makes no difference still since it is a subjective thing anyway.

 

[Cyrano]

I never ever thought the review system was a problem regardless.

And then I enter the internet and discovered this huge discussion about the different review systems and how one is better than the other. To me, it makes no difference still since it is a subjective thing anyway.

The review system right now (based on aggregates) does suck but changing the way the numbers are displayed isn't going to fix it. It's also not going to make anyone happy, given what this thread puts on display.

It's a review culture problem in videogames and not a numbers issue.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Bullshit, 5 star systems suck.

Everything is going to get a 4, because it's difficult to justify a 'perfect' game.

No thanks. That's not useful information.

The answer is just to use the scale in a smart way. Good games should be 3s (good, and where most decent, unexceptional games worth playing would fall), 4s (excellent), and 5s (outstanding games - but this shouldn't be a "sacred" score like some sites treat the 10/10 as). Easy problem to solve.

 

[gabbo]

You can't avoid the fact that not everyone has the time to read reviews. Numbers are easier, it's a fact of life. Same reason why we have grades in schools and such

Having a score will inevitably lead to the same problems the OP listed, just with different numbers being the problem. Especially if the review reads one way, but the numbers read another.

 

[Tain]

Having scores is better than not, and the scale in OP is the right amount of granularity. I'm on board.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Eh.. I guess I'm biased because the last 200+ reviews I've written have been for Steam, but there really should just be a thumbs up/thumbs down system.

If the reviewer can't sufficiently explain whether or not a game is good with words, how can they expect to do the same with numbers/stars/letter grades?

 

[UberLevi]

Use a 5-point system but make the points words/phrases rather than stars or numbers.

Don't Play
Mediocre
Good
Great
Must Play

 

[kingwingin]

I like the dvd review guy on attack of the show. Talked about it and said either buy, rent or skip.

No bullshit numbers or stars

 

[Nirolak]

This topic strikes me as insane when review scores have went down dramatically post-2011 and 90+ Metacritic scores are now very rare, with 6s and 7s not even being that uncommon for major titles.

 

[blame space]

the only scale that matters

 

[Dr.Acula]

We do use the whole 10-point scale, it's just that most well-funded games from prominent publishers don't ever drop below the 5/6 threshhold.

Honestly, the 2/10 games just never get reviewed. PC Gamer used to give games 23%, but those were for janky shovelware crap they reviewed for fun.

Go play some 99 cent game made in RPG Maker on Steam, and you'll see the bottom half of the 10 point scale.

 

[1er tigre]

I think we all have seen this diagram by now



do you know why it is so funny? because it's true!

The one who did this diagram clearly didn't read the video games press in the 80's/90's/00's.
Really good games scored between 90 and 100, good games were between 80 and 90 and the remaining games were considered shit.

 

[Dragonslayer_023]

Once you find reviewers you trust or have similar tastes as, numbers become irrelevant.

One you find your own tastes reviews become irrelevant. Can't remember the last time I bought/didn't buy a game because of a review.

 

[pablito]

Yeah I vastly prefer 5, even with decimals. Can be broken down in simple ways like OP, and I feel like I'd use more numbers of a 5 scale vs a 10. Even though they're the same percentage, 2 is only 3 numbers from a 5, vs a 4 being 6 numbers away from 10. It feels less harsh, but just as honest.

 

[HyperCubed4]

No I think we should move to color gradient based squares. Then we can bicker over which game got slightly more red in it's square.

Mantis Shrimp confirmed to be the pickiest critics

 

[antitrop]

If you think about review scales like US high school grades, it makes a lot more sense that 7 is average.

There's also a bias towards reviewers being more likely to cover games that people actually care about, ones that would get higher scores, and to ignore shovelware. Yeah, occasionally you'll get a somewhat high profile piece of garbage like Ride to Hell or Tony Hawk 5 that reviewers love to tear down en masse, but most of that stuff just gets completely ignored.

I don't think the way reviewers use the 10 point scale is a problem.

 

[iconoclast]

Nah, 20-point systems are perfect (eg. 7/10, 7.5/10, 8/10 etc). Anything less doesn't have enough nuance to properly separate games by quality, and anything more is excessive.

I don't like 5-point systems at all. That's what I have with my foobar setup and I'm frequently stuck having to over or underrate songs that don't fit squarely into a 3 or 4-star rating. 10-point systems should be the bare minimum.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

I don't see how a 5 start score would be any different that a 5 point score.

I'm just going to stick with the "what does gaf think about this game" method to see if a game sucks or not.

 

[CronoRobo]

Just don't have a score. Make people read reviews

OMG this, please.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

People probably need to stop depending on the numbers all together. Research what they are in the market for, look for average player opinions (or trusted streams/youtube plays that aren't sponsored) to supplement your research, and make an informed decision on your purchase. This is the age of social media, use it to your advantage. Journalist reviews aren't even needed anymore.

 

[Song of the Turtle]

How would this change anything? 3 stars would become the new 7/10 and nobody would care about 2 stars anyway.

Just don't have a score. Make people read reviews

This is the best answer. Highly unrealistic though, since most people problably would't want to invest time in actually reading reviews.
I also like the more individual rating systems like cinema observer.

 

[Brandon F]

Easier fix:

There is Monster Hunter and Witcher 3, and everything else is dogshit.

 

[KevinCow]

I definitely prefer a 5 star system.

It baffles me how reviewers from major publications can give something a score like an 8.9. Like, really? It's exactly .1 away from a 9.0? How do you quantify that? What exactly is the difference between an 8.9 game and a 9.0 game?

 

[Glass Shark]

You don't need a 5-star system to use the whole scale. Look at Polygon... they have a published rubric that describes exactly what each score means, and they regularly use scores at the lower end of the scale.

 

[mindsale]

5-star system?! (spits out coffee)

I propose a 1-star system.

1 star with five points. And each point designates 20% toward the quality of a game.

And if a game's REALLY good, make it a Star of David.

 

[gabbo]

I like the dvd review guy on attack of the show. Talked about it and said either buy, rent or skip.

No bullshit numbers or stars

Buy = 10, rent = 5, skip =1. or 5, 2.5, 1/0

 

[Dice]

No, don't ruin it with decimals.

 

[SMG]

Any review scale without a middle is pointless.

 

[bunbun777]

Million point scale. No two games should ever review the same, right?

 

[Aters]

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.

This. So much this. I fucking hate it when one game is 7.8, the other is 7.9. What makes the later slightly better? A three star game is worse than a four star game, that's clear.