Support NeoGAF

[RagnarokIV]

Shit site. Threw Rab Florence under the bus.

 

[Neilg]

Is a 3/5 a 60 or a 75? Huge difference.

I would argue that the difference between a 60 and a 75 is down to personal appeal, and is something you'd learn from reading the review. this way the score sets a ballpark.

 

[schaft0620]

I would argue that the difference between a 60 and a 75 is down to personal appeal, and is something you'd learn from reading the review. this way the score sets a ballpark.

OR the reviewer could score it with intent.

 

[Wildebeest]

Seems like a move to distract subs from the fact their staff are unprofessional trolls, even after lowering their sub price.

 

[BlackTron]

Using the same rating scale as everyone at large, but with honesty about how many degrees there are.

 

[Elysion]

I prefer a 10 point scale; anything less than that is just too vague, and anything more is too arbitrary. A 3/5 for example doesn’t really tell me anything. It could be the equivalent of a 5/10, in which case the game would be pretty meh, or it could be the equivalent of a 7/10, which means the game is pretty decent.

Regarding the issue that the lower half of a 10 point (or 100 point) scale is rarely used, I think that‘s mostly due to the fact that there are very few games these days (especially in the AAA space) that are genuinely terrible. It seems people have forgotten just how absolutely shitty and downright unplayable some games in the past used to be. Like, there aren’t really any modern equivalents to abominations like ET or Superman 64 for example, at least none that I can think of. I remember seeing quite a few scores below 5/10 (or 50/100) in gaming magazines during the 32-bit era (when I first started reading them); those kinds of scores got rarer during the PS2 era, and then almost vanished starting with 7th gen. And I think that’s because games on average have gotten much better since then.

 

[93xfan]

Should’ve moved to an 11 star just for last week and the new Zelda

 

[Tams]

I still laugh at the concept of the 100-point system. How on earth do you differentiate a 9.1 from a 9.2? Ratings with lower scales will always carry more weight because it requires the reviewer to at least consider the differences between scores.

Because that's just percentages?

You have 10 levels (100 being on its own and perfection) and within each 10% level, the you can get granularity. The exact percentage is subjective.

Stuff like that happens because at first something 'isn't a five, but four is too harsh'. So then you end up with half stars, or /10s. But then something 'isn't a 9/10, but 8/10 is too harsh. So you end up with .5s or /100.

 

[BaneIsPain]

Only years left till reviews just say "YES" or "NO"

YES
NO
MAYBE
I'DONT KNOW

Can you repeat the question?

 

[nkarafo]

This is the best rating system.

a 5/5 rating can fit every great/classic game, without necessarily being close to perfect. And you don't have to do pointless comparisons like "Why Zelda got 99 and GoW got only 95"? All games that get the same rating can be better or worse than each other, depending on taste. But when you break down the ratings to smaller numbers it's like you are nip picking too much.

 

[Thief1987]

Now i see why they returned to scoring system

Miasma Chronicles review - a disappointing follow-up to a tactics gem

Eurogamer's review of Miasma Chronicles, a disappointing tactics game.

www.eurogamer.net

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

If your reviewers can't handle a 10-point-scale because they "overuse" the upper half of it. I think you have a bigger problem on hour hands than just the number of points you give.

 

[Melon Husk]

Every rating system eventually tends towards a logarithmic scale, where 5/5 is ten times more desireable than 4/5, and so on.