Scores out of Ten for Game Reviews - A Bad System

[Grey_Focks]

I really think the actual review, without any sort of number or chart stuck on the end, should be all that's needed. The whole point of the score system seems to just be to compare games to each other, and seeing which one is "better".

 

[jebussaves88]

The whole 10 point system doesn't work because people can't use it properly. You'd think that a game of average quality would get a 5/10, a good game, 7/10, and a poor game, 3/10. But no. All mainstream, popular games get scores between 6-10 (6 meaning rubbish, 7 meaning average, and 10 excellent). They are not using half of the scale, and people have gotten used to that. The problem is that "10" suggests a perfect game to which I say, there has not been one yet.

If you are going to use a numerical scale, do it out of 4. 4 being great, 3 being good, 2 being average/mediocre, 1 being poor. Or simpler yet, a three point scale (avoid it/rent it/ buy it). Or best of all, don't give any scale and expect people to actually read your review.

Actually, I would imagine the scale they work on is quite accurate, it's just they don't have to dwell in the sub-5's very often. A 6 would say "Why the hell would you play this when youcould be playing an 8 or 9 game? Oh, you have a thing for Ninjas? Well by all means, play Ninja Blade, you'll have some fun". Whereas when they do go below 5, there is a distinct reason, a 4 being "Even if you like Ninjas, don't get Ninja Captains, it is not even fun" and a 2 being "it looks like shit and it jams all the time... and why is everyone speaking Portugeuse with no translation?", and a 1 being "the 360 I played this on got up and hung itself with its own HDMI cable, I wouldn't recommend this". Perhaps this says more about quality control by publishers than it does about review scores.

 

[escapefish]

the letter system is quite a nobrainer
but the statsweb is a really really great idea
you worked it out really good an brought a suiting example i have nothing to add to that
i would really like to see this sort of rating in the future
but i doubt that reviewrs would really use it because they think that an amount of people would understand it
well maybe they are right, even thought my pokedex i had as a ten year old had this graphs so who knows

 

[Julianking93]

I hate numbered scores as well.

What the hell's the difference between a 9.8 and a 9.7?

And I like the latter option. I've always liked those kind of graphs for some reason

 

[maninahat]

The whole 10 point system doesn't work because people can't use it properly. You'd think that a game of average quality would get a 5/10, a good game, 7/10, and a poor game, 3/10. But no. All mainstream, popular games get scores between 6-10 (6 meaning rubbish, 7 meaning average, and 10 excellent). They are not using half of the scale, and people have gotten used to that. The problem is that "10" suggests a perfect game to which I say, there has not been one yet.

If you are going to use a numerical scale, do it out of 4. 4 being great, 3 being good, 2 being average/mediocre, 1 being poor. Or simpler yet, a three point scale (avoid it/rent it/ buy it). Or best of all, don't give any scale and expect people to actually read your review.

Actually, I would imagine the scale they work on is quite accurate, it's just they don't have to dwell in the sub-5's very often. A 6 would say "Why the hell would you play this when youcould be playing an 8 or 9 game? Oh, you have a thing for Ninjas? Well by all means, play Ninja Blade, you'll have some fun". Whereas when they do go below 5, there is a distinct reason, a 4 being "Even if you like Ninjas, don't get Ninja Captains, it is not even fun" and a 2 being "it looks like shit and it jams all the time... and why is everyone speaking Portugeuse with no translation?", and a 1 being "the 360 I played this on got up and hung itself with its own HDMI cable, I wouldn't recommend this". Perhaps this says more about quality control by publishers than it does about review scores.

If the quality of most games is increasing, then surely that means the reviewers standards should increase too? If 7 has become the average, what do we do if games continue to improve? We'd have to start giving games 11 or 12 out of 10. It reminds me of an anime magasine I once read, in which every anime featured got rave reviews. Clearly the unprofessional reviewers were only writing about anime shows they liked and from what I could tell, had low standards. That presents a problem for someone who can't spend all day watching anime; what if I have only time to watch one? I can't decide because these guys have heaped praise on all of them. They failed to do their job in helping me make a decision. Game reviewers have become increasingly similar.

 

[maninahat]

The problem with the graph system is that the reader cannot make an over-all judgement. If I saw the game had something really high for involvement, but really low for challenge, what would that mean to me? Would the lack of challenge really matter? Does the quality of involvement outweigh the challenge aspect? A text conclusion would have to be provided to explain the results, which would defeat the point of having the graph at all. If you are going to rate individual aspects, save some space and just use numbers to rate them, rather than graphics. Then give an over-all opinion in which you weigh up the scores individually.

 

[Jenova65]

I prefer the "if you liked ________ about _______ game, you'll like ________" system.

Yeah, I think that works tbh, it sure beats seeing only GTA games getting the holy grail 10 score! Nothing against GTA, but it seems that they get a 10 by default, where quite a lot of RPGs are reviewed by the same people who think GTA is a 10 and then don't fare so well....
I think it should be taken a little further, generally but not strictly, in that someone who loves RPGs and doesn't play racing games shouldn't be reviewing NFS, and that flips round to mostly only RPG'ers should review them as they are a very specific niche in gaming.

 

[Deleted]

I think is so so damn stupid, why is it still being done?

It's no more or less stupid than the alternatives you have come up with, which are numbers based just with different symbols.

Ultimately any arbitrary score system is dumb, enjoyment of games is entirely subjective, so putting a value score on it is utterly pointless, just read the review.

The number's purpose is to give a quick summary of what the game is like, which it doesn't do. I think my letter system gives more information if you know what the letters stand for.

You could look at the letters and if it looks good, you can find more about the game. Because a game that lacks in substance or replayability is usually a widely held opinion, a number 5 is the opinion of the reivew.

Perhaps if a few games are review using these two systems, we can see if they're more 'accurate' or 'effective' than a simple number. It would be cool if anyone reviewing games in the Review Thread used the 3 letter system

 

[veloper]

I've never liked the points out of 10 system, I always prefer a percentage out of 100, it's much better.

100 is just unnecessary, there's no need for that kind of accuracy. Heck, a 5 point scale will suffice: Avoid. Bad but kinda neat at times. Good. Great. Compulsory buy.

The problem with a 10 point scale is that the lower numbers are never used. Take Advent Rising's review from Gamespot: http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox/action/adventrising/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review&page=2

5.7, mediocore, review discusses how the combats okay and the music is great, but that it's glitchy and just generally stupid. So far, I agree.

He then concludes: Advent Rising is a severely disappointing effort on all fronts, and it just isn't worth playing.

Now, ignoring how much I disagree with that (you can backflip whilst duel wielding rocket launchers and psychic powers, thats worth playing) how the HECK is that 5.7. Severely dissappoint and not worth playing is 1. Surely? Why are there 5 whole points entirely to categorise "not worth playing"?

Maybe that's the point of the 10 and 100 point scales.

Anything below 7 or 70 isn't worth playing most of the time, because there are so many better games out there, but not because the reviewer couldn't discern mediocre from utter crap.

So just subtract 6 points in your head and you get effectively a 5 point scale (0,1,2,3,4).
That's not enough room to compare worthwhile games, considering it isn't hard for a reviewer to put games in order of preference, for example: 10 > bloodlines > deus ex > gothic 2 > fallout 3.

Actually, that's not the whole point in the case of the 100 point scale. There's also the matter of game advertisement, angry publishers and gamemags not wanting to give every big title either 8 or 9 points, because then no reader would take the scores seriously anymore. When you really get to know the reviewer, you can make out the difference between 86 and 87.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

There's also the fact that, in my opinion at least, if a reviewer is giving a game a perfect score say 10/10 or 40/40 or whatever the fuck it's rated out of, the game better have descended from heaven in a golden chariot complete with a chorus of angels otherwise you're setting up false expectations and furthering hype which the game will no doubt fail to live up to. There is no such thing as the perfect game and thus there should be no perfect scores, or at least extremely few; but reviewers it seems like to throw them out like candy.

 

[TheMarauding]

This is why a rating out of 5 is such a good system.

1 Star = It's bad. Really bad. Even fans of the genre/series will probably hate it.
2 Stars = It's not great, there's plenty of better games in the genre, but SOMEONE out there will probably enjoy it.
3 Stars = It's alright..., no major flaws, it's a solid game, but it's just not exciting.
4 Stars = It's recommended, it's good, There's just something a little off about it, but certainly not enough to get in the way of enjoying the game.
5 Stars = It's damn good, it's a shining example of the genre.

That way, you've got less categories to put the games into, and as such, less choice for the categories, so the difference between a 3 and a 4 should be more noticable. And even then, you're setting up for people bitching "My game didn't get 5/5! WAAAAAH!!!".

 

[Altorin]

- No matter the score, if its not a 10, people will complain.
- There are people who use the score to decide if they should get the game, these people are missing out on good games.

If people ignore games due to gamescores, they're missing out, and it's their loss. If they're not (and I doubt "review scores" really ranks high on the "why I didn't play that game" scale compared to personal taste, established IP, or bad timing on releases), then this is a non-issue.

- What sense does it make that one game is .4 points better than another?
- Having certain scores 'official' doesn't mean anything, its just someones opinion.

I agree with both of these points. If you're going to go with a rating system, don't use decimals, up it to 100 or 20 if you want more clarity.

- When someone is obviously not in the age range of a game, and gives it a low score, it prevents others from buying (see point 2).

I'm not sure about this one. Kids are reviewing M rated games, or adults are reviewing kids games? Most adult game critics, particularly professional ones, tend to be longtime gamers, and as such have a soft spot even for games designed for youngsters, see Ratchet and Clank's tremendous reviews despite your percieved bias.

- One of the deciding factors of how 'good' a game is should be its presentation. Does it have any bad glitches? Are any plot holes filled? Does it look rushed?

I expect most review scores to take this sort of thing into account, and if they don't, then I don't return to that reviewer. For instance, even without playing it, I know that Saints Row 2 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 were super buggy.

- Too much importance is put on how it lives up to hype. Not everyone reads about games while they're in development so they won't understand why the reviewer is angry because of high expectations.

Again, I see this as largely a non-issue. People who care enough to read reviews, are exactly the same people who follow development tales of their games of choice. And most reviewers that I watch, when addressing hype, won't hide it in the background, they'll come out and say "There was a lot of hype about this game, but let me tell you this..."

Of course, it's not a perfect system, and if you look at the scores too closely, they fall apart, but there isn't really a better system.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Solution: Actually read the bastard review.

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

Personally, I prefer the "Buy, Rent, or Skip" rating system. It's straight forward and to the point and doesn't require any silly interpretation about what a 7.0 means compared to a 9.0 (especially since 7 out of 10 might be a decent game for one reviewer, yet for another it might designate an excellent game).