Support NeoGAF

[Zimmy64]

I really, really, really, really hate the 5 star system. I usually end up with weird situations where two games get the same score even though I think one of them is much better due to not having enough options to express my preferences. I prefer the 20 point scale 1-10 with the middle included (5.5,6.5,7.5, etc).

 

[Poimandres]

The pic in the OP is wrong. I can't speak for the 80's, but gaming reviews in the 90's and early 2000's were the same way (ie; 70 is average).

In anything, there's been a backswing lately with lots of outlets being harsher with their scores.

I like the 10 point scale personally.

 

[Salty Hippo]

This diagram is such bullshit. Reviewers have actually become harder to please since the 90s, not the opposite. The "anything below 8 is shitsux" mentality doesn't come from current review scales, but from consumers themselves. It's engraved in people's minds exactly because reviews used to give 9-10s to any game in the past. This doesn't happen anymore.

 

[Trojan]

I thought we all agreed that the Rotten Tomatoes scale of "yes" or "no" was the best. It loses some of the nuance at each end of the scale, but its a much better reflection of a games true appeal across reviewers.

 

[hank_tree]

CVG did that during its golden Paul Davies helmed era.

Works for me.

Truth.

 

[Calvero]

No score is better. Make a system like Kotaku's

 

[cooltrainer]

"Oh shit I got a 6/10 on my quiz. I'm gonna fail this class."

"Naw man you don't understand review scales. The prof uses the whole scale. 6/10 is above average."

 

[pswii60]

No lie, when I see "three stars" I equate it to garbage. I'd think higher of a 7, tbh. I actually despise the star rating just because of that--lacks too much nuance.

Usually the only system I have any fondness for is scoreless, though. When I'm reading a review I'm more impressed by any unique view you bring to the game. As for watching reviews...I only ever do Angry Joe and the rating at the end is the least relevant part of the video.

If I see a movie with 3 stars, I don't think garbage. 3 stars in movie land is good, 4 great, 5 incredible. 2 stars a bit shit and 1 star avoid.

But videogames cost more in terms of money, time and effort. As such console and PC gamers are more ruthless with limited time on their hands, and won't waste it on anything less than 'great' or 'incredible'. And that's why 'good' games fail so badly, especially at retail.

 

[Gnome Scat]

And no bloody half-stars! Using half-stars just turns the whole thing into a 1-10 system.

Exactly, that's just cheating the best system.

 

[Dunan]

Here's my scale: "Percentage of the retail price you should pay".

$60 game that might be fun once it's in the $19.99 bin? 33%.

$60 game that's so amazing you should be willing to pay $10 extra for one-day shipping to get it to you ASAP? 117%.

 

[Bishop89]

It's not going to change anything.

It'll just change to
1-4 = sucks shit
5 = GOTY

 

[razorblade79]

I think 5 stars is the best you can get. 2-3-4 is "bad don't play" - "good if you like the genre/type" - "great"

You have a couple outstanding(ly bad) games a year that deserve 1s and 5s.

Rating scales are to see how a game fares at a quick glance according to a person. If you actually really care about details, read the review. No review can be objective (except a couple who have been written for comedic effect) and are always the opinion of a person. Without the explanation why that person likes / dislikes something it is completely useless beyond a general idea that a 5 star system can easily convey.

 

[Tenck]

I read the reviews so it makes no difference to me what they use.

 

[Dragonslayer_023]

Here's my scale: "Percentage of the retail price you should pay".

$60 game that might be fun once it's in the $19.99 bin? 33%.

$60 game that's so amazing you should be willing to pay $10 extra for one-day shipping to get it to you ASAP? 117%.

I hate the idea of factoring cost into reviews, personally. Money should have nothing to do with it.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Numbers are relative. 4/5 might mean a game is shit to someone. Just like 8/10 now.

You want adjectives like

Good
Great
Bad
Horrible
Excellent
Superb
Average
Etc

There's no mistaking what they mean.

 

[DeadManWalking]

Can we move to no scores at all. Who cares about numbers.

 

[Trojan]

Can we move to no scores at all. Who cares about numbers.

The vast majority of people want numbers, even if they say they don't.

 

[More_Badass]

The problem isn't the scores or the scale. It's how people perceive scores. Doesnt matter if it's out of 100, or 10, or 5, or whatever, changing the scale isnt going to change people

 

[HarryKS]

Just 3 stars

* = skip it

** = give it a try (rent)

*** = buy it

 

[Primethius]

For my personal spreadsheet in which I keep track of my games played and backlog, I prefer the 6-point word approach.

Exceptional, Great, Good, Decent, Poor, Awful

I find it much in both assigning ratings to the games and being better overall descriptors of how I felt about them (as opposed to a number). It also makes me kind of use the entire scale.

I've thought about adding a 7th point on the negative side of things to make everything even, but haven't found a compelling enough reason to as of yet.

 

[bumpkin]

I'm a fan of a simple Avoid it, Rent it, Buy it scale.

 

[Arthea]

The problem isn't the scores or the scale. It's how people perceive scores. Doesnt matter if it's out of 100, or 10, or 5, or whatever, changing the scale isnt going to change people

but that's my point, we already don't use 10 scale, we use very small part of it, why not make it official? Why we cling to the system that lost all meaning?

 

[xevis]

How about no. You'd get a sea of 3/5s and 4/5s that would be even more indistinguishable from each other than the 7s and 8s we get now.

Which is the point: when it comes to art we cannot make fine-grained objective appraisals. What we can do is generally agree about what's good, what's bad and what's controversial, and why. Trying to pretend like there's a difference between a 7 and an 8 is bullshit; much less e.g. an 83 vs. an 85.

 

[daninthemix]

I prefer scores out of 10. Then again I mostly go by YouTube and Twitch footage nowadays anyway.

 

[mcz117chief]

but that's my point, we already don't use 10 scale, we use very small part of it, why not make it official? Why we cling to the system that lost all meaning?

He's saying what I have been telling you the entire time. If you move from 1-10 to 1-5 the only thing that will change is that only number 4 and 5 will be used. Then you would say "ugh, nobody is using 1,2 and 3 stars, let's make a new system with only 3 stars." and so on and so forth.

I made my points on the previous page in great detail, I don't think I need to repeat myself yet again.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Which is the point: when it comes to art we cannot make fine-grained objective appraisals. What we can do is generally agree about what's good, what's bad and what's controversial, and why. Trying to pretend like there's a difference between a 7 and an 8 is bullshit; much less e.g. an 83 vs. an 85.

Can't really "grade" art, I agree.

 

[datwr]

Scores in general is just useless. Nobody have the same scale and everyone likes and thinks different things are good.

Only time scores would actually work is when it come from the same person, or based on actual fact and not opinion. Because in those cases you have an reference point to compare to. Know the person likes or the facts it's based on.

With such a difference in opinions between people, the reference point is so widespread it's useless as an basis.

 

[Arthea]

He's saying what I have been telling you the entire time. If you move from 1-10 to 1-5 the only thing that will change is that only number 4 and 5 will be used. Then you would say "ugh, nobody is using 1,2 and 3 stars, let's make a new system with only 3 stars." and so on and so forth.

I made my points on the previous page in great detail, I don't think I need to repeat myself yet again.

and I said before like 5 times, this argument has no meaning, yes, there are not so many bad games, for obvious reasons, but not like they are non existent. having rare 1 and 2 is not the same that having rare 1 2 3 4 5 6, no is it?
And again most games should be in 4-7 range if 10 scale was working, but it doesn't and in 5 star system most games will be in 3-4 star category how it should be!

 

[More_Badass]

but that's my point, we already don't use 10 scale, we use very small part of it, why not make it official? Why we cling to the system that lost all meaning?

Make what official? A score is just a condensation of that individual writer's opinion. You might feel it "lost all meaning", doesnt mean that it's actually meaningless.

He's saying what I have been telling you the entire time. If you move from 1-10 to 1-5 the only thing that will change is that only number 4 and 5 will be used. Then you would say "ugh, nobody is using 1,2 and 3 stars, let's make a new system with only 3 stars." and so on and so forth.

Basically. The metric doesn't matter because the same thing would happen regardless of scale.

Also people tend to prefer writing about games that they like and enjoyed and feel others should play. That's why scores tend to lean towards the higher end, because why would I waste my time playing a shit game and give it a 1 or 2 or 3 when I can play something that looks decent and promising and that I actually like. Time is limited, the games never stop coming, so you have to curate what you play.

That doesn't change if it's an 100, 10, 5, 3-point scale. Most games would be in the higher scores, few on the lower end. Because people like playing good games and not wasting their time playing bad ones

 

[Trup1aya]

a five star system solves none of the issues with reviews.

At the end of the day, the reviews is still trying to use an number/graphic to represent a subjective sentiment.

You are still subject to consumer interpretations and you will still have issue where similarly scored titles are actually recieved very differently.

These simply no way a reviewer can express all of their feelings in an infographic. And any numerical representation will be destorted based on individual perceptions of those numbers.

Ideally, reviewer would stop trying to use any sort of numerica scale, since there's no empirical way to review titles. They should just write reviews and give recommendations.

 

[More_Badass]

and I said before like 5 times, this argument has no meaning, yes, there are not so many bad games, for obvious reasons, but not like they are non existent. having rare 1 and 2 is not the same that having rare 1 2 3 4 5 6, no is it?
And again most games should be in 4-7 range if 10 scale was working, but it doesn't and in 5 star system most games will be in 3-4 star category how it should be!

According to who? You?

How can you say most games should be in a "4-7 range"? It isn't a math formula, where you can say "so the graphics and gameplay and length and so on mean a game must have this score, but reviewers give it that score instead". Reviewing games doesn't work like that.

It isn't some concrete thing. A game review (or a movie review or a book review, etc., etc.) isn't an appraisal of quality. It's just what the one person thinks of a game, and what that score means is a case-by-case basis. Different for each writer on every site, with the genre of the game and life experience and preferences and expectations and so on defining each individual writer's opinion.

Spoiler

Trust me, I review games

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

1- BAD
2- MEDIOCRE
3- AVERAGE
4- GOOD
5- GREAT

 

[Arthea]

Make what official? A score is just a condensation of that individual writer's opinion. You might feel it "lost all meaning", doesnt mean that it's actually meaningless.


Basicallly. The metric doesn't matter because the same thing would happen regardless of scale.

Also people tend to prefer writing about games that they like and enjoyed and feel othes should play. That's why scores tend to lean towards the higher end, because why would I waste my time playing a shit game and give it a 1 or 2 or 3 when I can play something that looks decent and promising and that I actually like. Time is limited, the games never stop coming, so you have to curate what you play.

That doesn't change if it's an 100, 10, 5, 3-point scale. Most games would be in the higher scores, few on the lower end. Because people like playing good games and not wasting their time playing bad ones

That's not how I see it, gaf seems to like pretending that scores doesn't matter, but in an outside world they do and I think everybody knows it.

metrics very much matters, that's why we have SI system that's well thought and works perfectly. That's why it is used for sciences around a globe, because it helps to have a good metric system.
Systems that don't work are useless and are abandoned and forgotten.

Scale changes a lot of things, most of games are good, but not great, meaning in the middle range of score scale and it gives people a good perspective, while with 10/10 system not working, it fails in everything.

Now I agree that games scores are personal, but so are movie and music scores and we still use those, don't we? Because we need some perspective, nobody can try everything and have informed opinion about everything. Scores serve this purpose, we like it or not.

 

[HyperCubed4]

Make what official? A score is just a condensation of that individual writer's opinion. You might feel it "lost all meaning", doesnt mean that it's actually meaningless.


Basicallly. The metric doesn't matter because the same thing would happen regardless of scale.

Also people tend to prefer writing about games that they like and enjoyed and feel othes should play. That's why scores tend to lean towards the higher end, because why would I waste my time playing a shit game and give it a 1 or 2 or 3 when I can play something that looks decent and promising and that I actually like. Time is limited, the games never stop coming, so you have to curate what you play.

That doesn't change if it's an 100, 10, 5, 3-point scale. Most games would be in the higher scores, few on the lower end. Because people like playing good games and not wasting their time playing bad ones

Why has this never occurred to me? That's so obvious.

So, what's the solution? Just read reviews from reviewers who suggest games you've actually liked?

But wouldn't something like that just limit the amount of games you play and/or limit your gaming tastes?

 

[Trup1aya]

That's not how I see it, gaf seems to like pretending that scores doesn't matter, but in an outside world they do and I think everybody knows it.

metrics very much matters, that's why we have SI system that's well thought and works perfectly. That's why it is used for sciences around a globe, because it helps to have a good metric system.
Systems that don't work are useless and are abandoned and forgotten.

Scale changes a lot of things, most of games are good, but not great, meaning in the middle range of score scale and it gives people a good perspective, while with 10/10 system not working, it fails in everything.

Now I agree that games scores are personal, but so are movie and music scores and we still use those, don't we? Because we need some perspective, nobody can try everything and have informed opinion about everything. Scores serve this purpose, we like it or not.

The problem is, reviewing things isn't a science. Unlike the sciences, it's absolutely impossible to have a scale that every single reviewer adheres to. This is because the practice is purely subjective.

Even a single reviewer playing multiple games might weigh similar issues differently depending on the game she's playing.

This problem exists whether you use 5 stars, 5/5, 10/10, A-F or 100%.

 

[thepenguin55]

Personally, I've always preferred the 1up letter grade system. The letter grade system is something that immediately makes sense. Having said that, I'm fine with a 5 star system as well.

 

[munchie64]

I hate the "x outta 5" system, but I HATE the thumbs up/down system. There's so much to me that's lost when I don't know the shade of quality being presented in front of me. Art is never simple enough for a yay or nay for me, in fact there's plenty of art that I absolutely despise that I think require everyone's indulgence.

Out of 5 isn't flexible enough to express the differences between "below average" and "bad" as well as the wonderful shades of greatness.

I love the "x outta 10" system.

That's why you read the whole review and don't base things off rating systems.

 

[Pizza]

We already have a five-point scale:

Nothing gets below a 5/10 unless it's absolute trash, and 5/10 is bad. Most stuff falls in the 7-8 range, except triple A titles that regularly get 8-9. You get a 10 if the reviewer personally loved your game, generally regardless of actual quality.

So it's more like a 5-9 four point scale, with some being 10's because they're special snowflakes. Also most games aren't 5's or 6's but that's aight

 

[More_Badass]

That's not how I see it, gaf seems to like pretending that scores doesn't matter, but in an outside world they do and I think everybody knows it.

metrics very much matters, that's why we have SI system that's well thought and works perfectly. That's why it is used for sciences around a globe, because it helps to have a good metric system.
Systems that don't work are useless and are abandoned and forgotten.

Reviewing a game isn't a science. It's not a concrete defined metric. Unlike research and experimental science, there aren't formulas or mathematical proofs that you can plug in the aspects of a game and get a definite irrefutable score of that game's quality.

The score is simply the person trying to represent their personal opinion in a single value. That's the purpose of a score.

Why has this never occurred to me? That's so obvious.

So, what's the solution? Just read reviews from reviewers who suggest games you've actually liked?

But wouldn't something like that just limit the amount of games you play and/or limit your gaming tastes?

Well, yeah. Everyone has games and genres that they like. Of course, one should be open to trying new things but if you don't like linear scripted platformers with puzzles and lots of death, or really challenging platformers, you're probably not going to like Inside or Super Meat Boy regardless of what the reviews say

Trust me, I know that struggle. I mainly play indie games. And the thing about indie games is that they never stop coming. I discover at least 10 new games every week that I have never heard of. So yeah, as much as I'd love to play them all, I can't. So I tend to stick to the genres and gameplay I like, and wishlist games that look cool or reviews said were interesting or worth checking out

 

[Wulfram]

Numbers are relative. 4/5 might mean a game is shit to someone. Just like 8/10 now.

You want adjectives like

Good
Great
Bad
Horrible
Excellent
Superb
Average
Etc

There's no mistaking what they mean.

Eh, I think the boundary between "great" and "excellent" is as unclear as "8" and "9". And I don't even know if superb is better or worse than those two words.

 

[HyperCubed4]

Well, yeah. Everyone has games and genres that they like. Of course, one should be open to trying new things but if you don't like linear scripted platformers with puzzles and lots of death, or really challenging platformers, you're probably not going to like Inside or Super Meat Boy regardless of what the reviews say

Trust me, I know that struggle. I mainly play indie games. And the thing about indie games is that they never stop coming. I discover at least 10 new games every week that I have never heard of. So yeah, as much as I'd love to play them all, I can't. So I tend to stick to the genres and gameplay I like, and wishlist games that look cool or reviews said were interesting or worth checking out

That makes sense. Goes to show how little review scores actually matter in an objective sense. Everybody doesn't enjoy the same types of games, so a review score seems... trivial, in that sense.

It's quite a shame that most people don't see reviews that way and really just look at it as an indicator of quality.

 

[DeepEnigma]

For my personal spreadsheet in which I keep track of my games played and backlog, I prefer the 6-point word approach.

Exceptional, Great, Good, Decent, Poor, Awful

I find it much in both assigning ratings to the games and being better overall descriptors of how I felt about them (as opposed to a number). It also makes me kind of use the entire scale.

I've thought about adding a 7th point on the negative side of things to make everything even, but haven't found a compelling enough reason to as of yet.

Pretty much what I do as well.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

How about no scores so people actually read the reviewers thoughts instead of scrolling down to some number and becoming indignant/vindicated? Anyone?

 

[Noobcraft]

I wouldn't see 3 out of 5 stars as a good game. XBL has a star rating system in the store, and if a game had 3/5 stars I probably wouldn't buy it.

 

[More_Badass]

How about no scores so people actually read the reviewers thoughts instead of scrolling down to some number and becoming indignant/vindicated? Anyone?

Scores didn't stop you from doing that. That's problem with the audience, not the writers or reviews

That makes sense. Goes to show how little review scores actually matter in an objective sense. Everybody doesn't enjoy the same types of games, so a review score seems... trivial, in that sense.

It's quite a shame that most people don't see reviews that way and really just look at it as an indicator of quality.

I tend to read reviews for one of three reasons;
- it's a game I liked and I'm curious to read what others thought
- it's a game I'm on the fence about and what to get a sense of what the game's like, its strengths and flaws
- it's something I never heard of and it intrigues me, and I want to learn more about it

Now one might say you can just watch gameplay to learn that, but I disagree. Reviews can do things that just watching some gameplay in a Let's Play can't

1) Offer context and impressions on the game as a whole. Watching gameplay is like reading a chapter in a book or one episode in a show. Might give you a sense of tone and style, but it won't tell you about the work as a whole or if it improves throughout
2) Offers a retrospective angle on a game. Someone had to think back, consider their time with the game, what worked for them, what didn't, etc. A clip of SOMA might show off the atmosphere, but it doesn't tell you how haunting it can be and how you might be thinking about it days after you finish it
3) Offers perspectives other than your own, that you might have not considered. Happened to me with Gravity Rush, didn't have much interest in the game, but then I saw comparisons to Infamous and Spiderman 2, stuff I never would have implied from just watching some gameplay. Game is great

 

[muteki]

Any numbers-based scale has the same problem.

No score is how it should be.

 

[MassiveNights]

The five star scale is perfect for both movies and video games. See: Empire and Giant Bomb.

 

[mobilesworking]

My preference is to move away from review scores altogether but I understand the reasons that make it unlikely. Take the 5-star system that OP advocates. By itself, such a rubric efficiently renders a verdict without wading into the guesswork of a 10-point (or worse, 10-point plus decimals) scale. Unfortunately, Metacritic distorts the 5-star scale to suit its own purposes. Do readers interpret 3 stars (a 'good' game) the same way they interpret 60 out of 100 points? I doubt many would draw an equivalency between the two; I certainly don't.

 

[thatJohann]

It should be:

"Did we like Bloodborne?"

- Yes! ❤️
- It's Ok 😐
- No 💔

Simple.

 

[KHlover]

I thought we all agreed that the Rotten Tomatoes scale of "yes" or "no" was the best. It loses some of the nuance at each end of the scale, but its a much better reflection of a games true appeal across reviewers.

Rotten Tomato sucks. 20 51% reviews - 100% fresh.