Some Nobody
Junior Member
Just so. This is kinda long, so if you cba, skip to the bolded after the first paragraph I guess. I see people complain about the 8-10 scale all the time, and while I initially agreed, the more I thought about it, the less I could validate why I did. Between both K-12 and college, I've got something like 17 years of education telling me that 90-100 is exemplary, 80-89 is good, and pretty much everything below that is garbage. So why am I still pretending that a 6/10 is something I'd actually be interested in.
That's when I sat down and started thinking about what the 1-10 scale really means to me. And this is what I came up with. Obviously this is a pretty unprofessional scale, but it's how things work in my head.
1.0 - Basically, this is a game that doesn't even fucking work. You bought it, downloaded it onto your HD or put the disc in your PC/console, and if you're lucky a start screen is all you see.
2.0 - This one's a little fuzzy, as I honestly can't really think of what differentiates a 1 from a 2. Let's just define it as, "you can get past the start screen, but not much else".
3.0 - It Works...at first. A 3.0 is a game that, the longer you play it, the more you find things wrong with it. And not like, funny glitches, but things that actively keep you from completing (or even enjoying!) the game. Basically, this is where your average Day One Ubisoft game tends to find itself.
4.0 - It works! ....And, that's about all you can say about it. Definably a "bad" game. Often has very little about it worth mention, unless it's something bad. The glitches are few and far between, and there's definitely nothing game-breaking, but there's probably enough to screw your immersion up.
5.0 - Rock solid average. Basically, there's nothing at all wrong with the game on a mechanic level. It's just, there. Nothing about it stands out. It doesn't have "bad" graphics or "good" graphics. The music is serviceable, the gameplay is nothing new or interesting in the slightest.
6.0 - Just Okay. May or may not have a stand out element. It's a game you'd play if you've played damn near everything else in the genre and just need something else to occupy your time, or one you might play because you picked it up in a Humble Bundle or in a bargain bin. Otherwise the only way you shell out for this is if a publisher's hype machine put in a LOT of work.
7.0 - Decent. Probably has one or two standout element, like good graphics or a beautiful soundtrack. What's holding it back from being "A Good Game" is that it's rough around the edges. You wouldn't recommend this to someone who's looking for "their first ____" game, but to hardcore [insert genre here] fans, it's worth playing if only to enjoy the decent parts and discuss what went wrong and what could be improved on the next installment.
8.0 - A Good Game. You bought it, you finished it, you enjoyed yourself. You felt like you got your money's worth. At the end of the day, anyone should be proud to reach this level. A game like this has multiple stand out elements that make it worth recommending to any core gamer and most fans of whatever genre it belongs in.
9.0 - Gaming excellence. All the elements of the game from graphics to story to soundtrack work both as stand out elements worthy of mention, but come together to make a fantastic experience.
10 - A shining example of video games as a medium of entertainment. The difference between a 9 and a 10 in my eyes is this: 10s should pretty much be played by everyone, even if you're not a huge fan of the genre. Not only that, 10s are essentially titles that form the blueprint for how gaming in general will work going forward.
There are obviously some exceptions to this. There are "Good Games" that have glitches, for instance, but if the most notable things you recall about a game are its glitches then there's probably an issue. And of course, games can "lose" points as well, but I'd think this is where subjective opinion comes in.
My scale is by no means anyone's end-all or be-all but my own, so where's everyone else stand on the scale? Or do you use a different one entirely, like 1-5 or 1-7?
That's when I sat down and started thinking about what the 1-10 scale really means to me. And this is what I came up with. Obviously this is a pretty unprofessional scale, but it's how things work in my head.
1.0 - Basically, this is a game that doesn't even fucking work. You bought it, downloaded it onto your HD or put the disc in your PC/console, and if you're lucky a start screen is all you see.
2.0 - This one's a little fuzzy, as I honestly can't really think of what differentiates a 1 from a 2. Let's just define it as, "you can get past the start screen, but not much else".
3.0 - It Works...at first. A 3.0 is a game that, the longer you play it, the more you find things wrong with it. And not like, funny glitches, but things that actively keep you from completing (or even enjoying!) the game. Basically, this is where your average Day One Ubisoft game tends to find itself.
4.0 - It works! ....And, that's about all you can say about it. Definably a "bad" game. Often has very little about it worth mention, unless it's something bad. The glitches are few and far between, and there's definitely nothing game-breaking, but there's probably enough to screw your immersion up.
5.0 - Rock solid average. Basically, there's nothing at all wrong with the game on a mechanic level. It's just, there. Nothing about it stands out. It doesn't have "bad" graphics or "good" graphics. The music is serviceable, the gameplay is nothing new or interesting in the slightest.
6.0 - Just Okay. May or may not have a stand out element. It's a game you'd play if you've played damn near everything else in the genre and just need something else to occupy your time, or one you might play because you picked it up in a Humble Bundle or in a bargain bin. Otherwise the only way you shell out for this is if a publisher's hype machine put in a LOT of work.
7.0 - Decent. Probably has one or two standout element, like good graphics or a beautiful soundtrack. What's holding it back from being "A Good Game" is that it's rough around the edges. You wouldn't recommend this to someone who's looking for "their first ____" game, but to hardcore [insert genre here] fans, it's worth playing if only to enjoy the decent parts and discuss what went wrong and what could be improved on the next installment.
8.0 - A Good Game. You bought it, you finished it, you enjoyed yourself. You felt like you got your money's worth. At the end of the day, anyone should be proud to reach this level. A game like this has multiple stand out elements that make it worth recommending to any core gamer and most fans of whatever genre it belongs in.
9.0 - Gaming excellence. All the elements of the game from graphics to story to soundtrack work both as stand out elements worthy of mention, but come together to make a fantastic experience.
10 - A shining example of video games as a medium of entertainment. The difference between a 9 and a 10 in my eyes is this: 10s should pretty much be played by everyone, even if you're not a huge fan of the genre. Not only that, 10s are essentially titles that form the blueprint for how gaming in general will work going forward.
There are obviously some exceptions to this. There are "Good Games" that have glitches, for instance, but if the most notable things you recall about a game are its glitches then there's probably an issue. And of course, games can "lose" points as well, but I'd think this is where subjective opinion comes in.
My scale is by no means anyone's end-all or be-all but my own, so where's everyone else stand on the scale? Or do you use a different one entirely, like 1-5 or 1-7?
- I dont like it
