Poll: Rating system flawed since GTA IV's release

[SixAngryDwarves]

Notice how GTA IV had an average rating of about 9.7, or something like that. Most places gave it a 10, and a 9.5 was considered hatred. For example, when official xbox magazine reviewed it 9.5, people sent in letters complaining and saying it deserved a 10.
NO GAME EVER SHOULD GET A 10 (except maybe portal)
Now, every other reviewing system had become less lenient of game scores because they let GTA IV screw them over.
For example, Mercs 2 on gamespot. Wasn't the greatest, but didn't deserve a 5, thats for sure. Or, too human, which was discriminated because it was too hard for the simple gamer (Since GTA IV was easy, i blame this on it as well.)
Just keep one thing in mind, I loved GTA IV, but i think the world could have done without it.

EDIT!
My main argument would be the fact that the reviewers are finally doing their job. As yahtzee said "I'm a critic. If i put peoples balls in my mouth, i'de be a prostitute, or maybe a gamespot employee." Yes, their finally acting like CRITICS, not pussies

 

[neoman10]

I agree in a great degree!

 

[Amnestic]

What's that? Gaming discussion? A forum for this in the wrong place? This shit is bananas.

B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

 

[scarbunny]

Its been pretty much flawed since reviews started listening to hype to much, and getting paid copious cash for good reviews.

 

[Spartan Bannana]

Don't agree at all, while the rating system is flawed lately, I don't believe it was GTA's fault, also Too Human sucked and GTA IV wasn't that easy.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

The rating system has always been flawed, because with a 1-5 or 1-10 system, the maximum score has always been about percentages. (Think of it in terms of grades, if you must.)

So a 10 is not always a perfect 100, it can also be a 90% (an A).
9 is 80-89%
8 a 70-79%
7 a 60-69%
6 a 50-59%
5 or less (not even worth your money).

Really, it's a flawed system in and of itself. I prefer to rate games on their pros and cons, and then the summary of the parts (is it worth it?)

But really, it's a simplified way to get your message across.

 

[mipegg]

Honestly just dont go with what ANY of these rating sites say. When was the last time you saw a bad game get less than 6 or so? Yes, mercenaries got a 5 but I cant bloody understand that.

Read up on the game, play the demo or watch videos on youtube of people playing it and see if you want it. Dont bother trying to fathom how people turn opinions into numbers

 

[Evilbunny]

I think the whole score system has been flawed since its inception. You can't really sum up an entire game with a number ranging from 1 to 10. You're supposed to write what was good about it, what was bad about it, and if you would recommend others buy it. I don't think a score could possibly represent all that.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

It's the fan's fault. Anytime someone posts a negative review for a game that has been hyped, the magazine and writer have to endure a s*** storm of angry commenters and e-mails saying that the reviewer doesn't know what they're talking about.

Whether or not you agree with the review, the fact that someone could not possibly say something negative about GTA 4 without being told they're an idiot back pretty much sums up why no one said anything bad about it.

 

[afrophysics]

I still don't understand how you blame GTA IV for this mess.

 

[Gamer137]

I always think that big-name review sites give either too much credit to AAA titles, or don't give enough credit to lower type games. Why are non innovative titles like Halo 3 given perfect scores while games like Shadowrun take successful gambles and earn terrible scores?

As for the scoring debait, I have always thought that 5 scale systems are better, sence they are not percentages, and are just a summary of an opinion.

1-Terrible
2-Bad, but has potential. Something held it back.
3-Average. Playable.
4-Good.
5-True masterpiece.