Why do most games never get below a 7? EDIT: And how to we fix it?
- Thread starter Elamdri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Games come out all the time that get piss poor scores. 3s, 5s, 6s. But you don't know about them because they are crap games. G.I.Joe Rise of Cobra. Type that into metacritic. There are plenty more where that game came from. You know what made that game "unplayable"? Bad camera controls. If they fixed that "downright unplayable" feature it would add up to just a random shitty game.
Seriously, this isn't a problem. If all you pay attention to is the AAA titles, then "DUH", of course everything scores a 7. There are LOADS of games out there getting shit scores. Pick up any gaming magazine and you will find them. But if you are saying F:NV (I would give that a 7-7.5) or some other triple A title should be a 4 or something, then I think personal bias is probably coming in. It would be like me reviewing a FIFA game. I don't even like soccer so I would give it a 2-4 while a soccer fan might give it a 10. I don't care much for F:NV as a RPG fan but I certainly see it has appeal. (If it wasn't pickled with bugs, I would take it up to an 8.5-9) But as far as my preference goes it would sit around a 5-6. You have to look outside of your preference and look at what the game was trying for and how well it achieved it. THIS is not broken in the current reviewing system IMHO.
Seriously, this isn't a problem. If all you pay attention to is the AAA titles, then "DUH", of course everything scores a 7. There are LOADS of games out there getting shit scores. Pick up any gaming magazine and you will find them. But if you are saying F:NV (I would give that a 7-7.5) or some other triple A title should be a 4 or something, then I think personal bias is probably coming in. It would be like me reviewing a FIFA game. I don't even like soccer so I would give it a 2-4 while a soccer fan might give it a 10. I don't care much for F:NV as a RPG fan but I certainly see it has appeal. (If it wasn't pickled with bugs, I would take it up to an 8.5-9) But as far as my preference goes it would sit around a 5-6. You have to look outside of your preference and look at what the game was trying for and how well it achieved it. THIS is not broken in the current reviewing system IMHO.
The whole 1-10 grading system is a lost cause for the reasons already stated in the thread (we compare it to schools).
It'd be a lot easier if we just changed to the whole 1-5 stars are mentioned earlier, where a certain amount of stars means a certain thing. For example, 1 star means "Don't buy this game, it's genuinely horrible" and 5 stars means "This game is credit to industry".
The star system keeps people from easily associating the 1-10 (and by extension, A-F) scale with a game, and we don't have a scale with average in the 70th percentile.
It'd be a lot easier if we just changed to the whole 1-5 stars are mentioned earlier, where a certain amount of stars means a certain thing. For example, 1 star means "Don't buy this game, it's genuinely horrible" and 5 stars means "This game is credit to industry".
The star system keeps people from easily associating the 1-10 (and by extension, A-F) scale with a game, and we don't have a scale with average in the 70th percentile.
I guess I just don't really see how this is a problem if you already know about the skew. It reminds me of how people complain about grading systems where below a 70% is failing (which, as far as grading systems go, seems to be a pretty good system).
There's nothing intrinsic to a 1-10 scale that says the distribution should be even and there's definitely nothing about video games suggesting that their quality should be evenly distributed.
In fact, I think the current use of the scale tends to make a lot of sense. A truly, truly terrible game can be MILES away from even a mediocre game. The only difference is that we're just not used to even seeing truly terrible games anymore due to lack of press, bad reviews of such games that prevent people buying them, and the general rise in quality of AAA titles (say what you will about the quality, but recognise that there are very, very few E.T.s anymore). Since we only play relatively good games for the most part, a "bad" game from the relatively good camp often seems much worse than it would if we were to consider truly bad games. In that light, I think the scale fits pretty well.
There's nothing intrinsic to a 1-10 scale that says the distribution should be even and there's definitely nothing about video games suggesting that their quality should be evenly distributed.
In fact, I think the current use of the scale tends to make a lot of sense. A truly, truly terrible game can be MILES away from even a mediocre game. The only difference is that we're just not used to even seeing truly terrible games anymore due to lack of press, bad reviews of such games that prevent people buying them, and the general rise in quality of AAA titles (say what you will about the quality, but recognise that there are very, very few E.T.s anymore). Since we only play relatively good games for the most part, a "bad" game from the relatively good camp often seems much worse than it would if we were to consider truly bad games. In that light, I think the scale fits pretty well.
We fix it by having a four star rating system which also include half stars (eg. 3 and a half stars)
P.S. I haven't thought this through, I just wrote the first thing that came to my mind.
P.S. I haven't thought this through, I just wrote the first thing that came to my mind.
For any major release reviewed on the big gaming sites and for the aggregate score metacrit, convert the range 7 to 10 range to a 5 to 9 range.Elamdri said:
Triple A titles rarely get less than an 8, maybe a 7.5, but such titles are also rarely worse than mediocre.
Now if mediocre is a 5 and games can only come close to perfection (9), you have a reasonable score system again. So you can do this stuff yourself.
That or read the reviews themselves. Often the descriptions within are less positive than the score.
With publishers paying for having their adds on review pages and with mags requiring early review copies, the only place where a game journalist can maintain some integrity, is deep within the review and not at the bottom line.
It depends on the reviewer; find people you can agree with based on their reviews of games you already played yourself.
It also depends on the mag. Destructoid is still critical on occasion (but not always), even with the scoring.
That's why I like this site: http://www.split-screen.net/
They actually use the /10 rating system properly, with 5/10 meaning 'average'. I'm sure there's other sites out there that do the same.
They actually use the /10 rating system properly, with 5/10 meaning 'average'. I'm sure there's other sites out there that do the same.
Because people throw 10's around like they're expected, rather than enjoyed.
Bulletstorm got a 10 from GR
Undead Nightmare got a 10 from IGN
GTA4 got a 10 from Xplay.
Standards are too low, really, and we let hype skew too much of what we experience.
Bulletstorm got a 10 from GR
Undead Nightmare got a 10 from IGN
GTA4 got a 10 from Xplay.
Standards are too low, really, and we let hype skew too much of what we experience.
There is one very big problem with this scoring system and that is that there is no detailed system which explains the points given. If you get a 3.0 on a test your teacher will most likely show you a sheet of paper as to how you got to that score. 5/5 for spelling, 10/10 for proper answer and so on.
With games this is obviously a bit harder, because you would have to argue which aspects of the game are more important and if in example a great story makes up for mediocre visuals. So just saying you can earn 1/10 if you have perfect visuals and 2/10 if you have perfect visuals and a great story is quite hard to defend.
This is why I prefer sites which have a simple list which rates a game on several points. Scoring the visuals, sound, gameplay, story and other gameaspects seperately and then giving a total score based on the sums of those. If the total sum seems low at least I can see which aspect of the game caused it to be low.
With games this is obviously a bit harder, because you would have to argue which aspects of the game are more important and if in example a great story makes up for mediocre visuals. So just saying you can earn 1/10 if you have perfect visuals and 2/10 if you have perfect visuals and a great story is quite hard to defend.
This is why I prefer sites which have a simple list which rates a game on several points. Scoring the visuals, sound, gameplay, story and other gameaspects seperately and then giving a total score based on the sums of those. If the total sum seems low at least I can see which aspect of the game caused it to be low.
Of course qualitative assessments are the best if you're deciding whether you'd like a game you haven't played yet, but in terms of an at-a-glance number I find the rotten tomatoes system to be best. Simply take a pool of reviews (to smooth out personal preference and bribery) and assign each a pass/fail based on that review sites average score (based on past scores, not the average of the scale). If the game gets over 60% you can generally assume it does what it attempts to do well.
"Why do most games never get below a 7?"
1) Stagnation and lowered standards, really. Games haven't been improving, but rather, they have become less distinct as time goes on. Besides, these scores aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Think about how ludicrous it is where the difference between a smash hit title and a generic knockoff is only 2 bloody points.
"How do we fix it?"
2) We don't. Instead, the best course of action is to ignore a scoring system entirely.
Explaining qualitative statuses with quantitative methods is meaningless marketing tripe. Scores are generally only used as marketing points stamped on the ass of the box, usually if it reaches "best seller" status. Addressing the specific strengths, weaknesses, or other features of a game is a much better way to gauge whether one should purchase it or not than an arbitrary numeric score.
No matter how you argue it, plain numbers cannot account for personal taste or the specific nuances of a particular title within its genre; details can.
1) Stagnation and lowered standards, really. Games haven't been improving, but rather, they have become less distinct as time goes on. Besides, these scores aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Think about how ludicrous it is where the difference between a smash hit title and a generic knockoff is only 2 bloody points.
"How do we fix it?"
2) We don't. Instead, the best course of action is to ignore a scoring system entirely.
Explaining qualitative statuses with quantitative methods is meaningless marketing tripe. Scores are generally only used as marketing points stamped on the ass of the box, usually if it reaches "best seller" status. Addressing the specific strengths, weaknesses, or other features of a game is a much better way to gauge whether one should purchase it or not than an arbitrary numeric score.
No matter how you argue it, plain numbers cannot account for personal taste or the specific nuances of a particular title within its genre; details can.
This is honestly the best answer I've read here so far, though I do still agree that many games these days are being rated higher than they should get credit for.TehCookie said: