Why do most games never get below a 7? EDIT: And how to we fix it?
- Thread starter Elamdri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not true. If a game is is a 6, then Mathematically it MUST be better than 60% of it's peers. Likewise, a 7 must be better than 70% of it's peers. You're still thinking with the idea that all games are going to be a 7 or higher. But if the system worked like it is supposed to, a 6 must be better than a majority of it's peers.icame said:
I'm sure there are a few reviews giving lower scores but you don't hear of them. Check out metacritic and look for the bad games.
As for all the game being rated high, that's because the mainstream reviewers get paid off by the game companies to give them good reviews
As for all the game being rated high, that's because the mainstream reviewers get paid off by the game companies to give them good reviews
That's because when most gaming sites were created around 1995, games were mostly for kids. So these sites created a ratings system that's similar to schools. In school, a 6 is weak, but passable. A 7 is average (in the sense of meh), an 8 is good and 9-10 is outstanding. Anything below 6 fails. Changing that system now would be weird, and newer magazines don't challenge this "rule" even if most gamers would understand.
And besides, too many gamers are idiot fanboys. You have no idea how much hate mail and death threats Jeff Gertsmann received after giving Twilight Princess an 8.8/10.
And besides, too many gamers are idiot fanboys. You have no idea how much hate mail and death threats Jeff Gertsmann received after giving Twilight Princess an 8.8/10.
This isn't a curve system. Gamers want to know from these scores if we are getting $50 or $60 worth of game if we buy it new, and for most games to be worth that, they should probably be scoring at least an 8, or if they made some forgivable blunders but are still fun, then a 7. One hopes all newly released games score in that range.
Scores of 1-6 can serve as a warning of just how poor value a game is. If, say, someone were a fan of a certain genre, but a newly release game is sub-standard, they might still get it if it is a 5 or a 6, but not if it scores a 2.
You may not like the current rating system, but it is functional.
Maybe the point of the OP is if there might be score inflation due to marketing pressures, but if so, that should be asked more directly.
Scores of 1-6 can serve as a warning of just how poor value a game is. If, say, someone were a fan of a certain genre, but a newly release game is sub-standard, they might still get it if it is a 5 or a 6, but not if it scores a 2.
You may not like the current rating system, but it is functional.
Maybe the point of the OP is if there might be score inflation due to marketing pressures, but if so, that should be asked more directly.
My theory? Old standards. I challenge anyone to give Goldeneye more than a 5/10 compared to MW2. Go on, I dare you. Sure, it may have been fun at the time, and God knows we keep it close to our hearts, but it wasn't amazing by todays standards.
Keep that in mind, and all modern releases are incredible. Which is why yahtzee and zp is so popular-people like shit to fail
Keep that in mind, and all modern releases are incredible. Which is why yahtzee and zp is so popular-people like shit to fail
But we don't care about games that never made it out the developer's door. What we want to know is how a game is compared to other titles alongside it on the shelf. "Average" doesn't mean compared to all games including vaporware, it means all games that actually make it to shelves.Deshara said:
Personally, I favor a system that spaces scores out evenly over a 1-10 range, so every time you give a number score, you ask yourself, "Is this game in the best 10% of games we've reviewed over the last year?" "Or is it in the 80-90% percentile?" And so on.
So 10% of games get a 1, 10% get a 2, 10% get a 3.
Alternatively - I know there are a lot of UK Escapists - we could go by the UK uni grading method. So most games get a 2.1 or a 2.2, and ever so often a game gets a First i.e. sorting between the barely passable, the boringly competent, and the brilliant.
That could easily be solved though by comparing games within a console cycle. Obviously, it's silly to compare Golden Eye and MW2, and you're stupid if you try. It's like Apples and Oranges.Verlander said:
But there is nothing wrong with Comparing MW2 and Medal of Honor.
People compare the 1-10 scale with the F-A (0-100) scale of grades in the American school system. 10 (100) is perfect, as it should be. 9.5 (95) is awesome. 9 (90) is pretty good. 8 (80) is meh. 7 (70) is walking a fine line. 6 (60) is bad. Anything below that is not worth it.
I still prefer the WiiViewer's rating system "Buy it, Rent it, Forget it" that way no pubs get their feelings hurt and you actually have to read a review rather than just say "That game got an 8.7, if it was a 9.0 I'd buy it but forget it now".
I would disagree. I think this is a more likely explanation...scnj said:
Remember, a 70 in public school grading systems is a D in high schools, and a C in colleges. That is Below Average and Average, respectfully. Maybe this isn't fully true, but I believe the reason why so many people rate with a 7/10 being the average is because of this fact, not because of quantity of released products.
I believe that a 5/10, the Blistered Thumbs method of rating things, should be the average on a gaming rating scale.