Review Suggestion

Before you read this, please note that this is not a demand or a request but a suggestion. I remember when GameSpot used to rate games with more scores (using the 0.1 increment method) andusers had the same options. But ever since the increment changed to 0.5, the ratings have been simplified. Of course it is completely up to the GameSpot staff, edtors and reviewers to decide how they rate games. On the other hand, why did users lose the feature? I would love to be able to review games and give them scores like 7.7 or 9.3. But at this moment I can't. :( I made this topic a poll to convince the GS staff that maybe something could be done. :)

Thanks in advance for any replies, support from otherusers in this matterand actions taken due to this topic. :D

I kind of prefer the 0.5 increments, it encourages the person to read a review when comparing two games with the same score to see which is better or not and make a judgement for themselves rather than just look at the score and decide game x is better than game y.fabz_95

This. I prefer the 0.5 incrementation. The current rating system is much more meaningful than the old one, not to mention you don't have to do the sub-ratings anymore.

This has been brought up periodically in the past; however, you'll find that the vast majority of those who write user reviews prefer the 0.5 rating system.

I really don't think there's much of a practical difference between 7.6 and 7.7. People should be reading the review body, anyway, not the score. The score is just a rough gut estimation of the total value the reviewer found in the game. I like the 0.5 increment system.

@GabuEx Of course some people would prefer the 0.5 system... but would it hurt having the old one as an option? I mean, I don't want the sub-ratings either, I just want the 0.1 increment. Even if people prefer the 0.5 increment reviewing system, the other one could be an option - that way everyone stays happy and gets what they want. :)

@GabuEx Of course some people would prefer the 0.5 system... but would it hurt having the old one as an option? I mean, I don't want the sub-ratings either, I just want the 0.1 increment. Even if people prefer the 0.5 increment reviewing system, the other one could be an option - that way everyone stays happy and gets what they want. :)

Bamul

No, but does it hurt to not have it, either? They're just numbers. Besides, if changes were to be made, the rating system should be made simpler (that is, remove the decimal points altogther), not more complex.

@c_rake It would hurt not to have it. I know a lot of people who share my opinion, and they wouldn't be happy with it. However, if we had more scores then people who don't want the decimals at all could still rate their games that way - while everyone else could use other scores. ;)

I agree with Bamul.

In fact I wrote a blog about this not too long ago, my reasons are there.

[QUOTE="Bamul"]

@GabuEx Of course some people would prefer the 0.5 system... but would it hurt having the old one as an option? I mean, I don't want the sub-ratings either, I just want the 0.1 increment. Even if people prefer the 0.5 increment reviewing system, the other one could be an option - that way everyone stays happy and gets what they want. :)

c_rake

No, but does it hurt to not have it, either? They're just numbers. Besides, if changes were to be made, the rating system should be made simpler (that is, remove the decimal points altogther), not more complex.

@c_rake It would hurt not to have it.Bamul

Why's that? Could you elaborate?

Why would they want to make it even less precise?dahui58

To make it easier to assign a score, of course. When you start getting into the 1. decimal area, matching the score with the review text -- an important step of the reviews process -- becomes nigh impossible. There's no way to illustrate what separates a 7.3 game, for instance, from a 7.4 game in the review text at all. That's fact. Simplifying the system, however, places more emphasis on the text, thereby encouraging people to actually read the review to see what sets it apart from others, which would then result in readers being more educated about why game A is better than game B. Numbers can't tell you that, nor should be tasked with doing so. All they should do is give a very basic shorthand for what the reviewer thought of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

[QUOTE="Bamul"]@c_rake It would hurt not to have it.c_rake

Why's that? Could you elaborate?

Why would they want to make it even less precise?dahui58

To make it easier to assign a score, of course. When you start getting into the 1. decimal area, matching the score with the review text -- an important step of the reviews process -- becomes nigh impossible. There's no way to illustrate what separates a 7.3 game, for instance, from a 7.4 game in the review text at all. That's fact. Simplifying the system, however, places more emphasis on the text, thereby encouraging people to actually read the review to see what sets it apart from others, which would then result in readers being more educated about why game A is better than game B. Numbers can't tell you that, nor should be tasked with doing so. All they should do is give a very basic shorthand for what the reviewer thought of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Does it encourage people though? If I came onto a site and saw 10 games on the front page, all of them with 9.5 I probably would laugh at the lack of variation and go elsewhere. And yes it's just a number, but if the number is representing the quality of a game it's not fair to give a game a 9.5 when it is better than another 9.5 game, or give it a 10/10 (a flawless score) because it is slightly better than 9.5 So does GS seriously think it encourages people to read the review? Because the kind of person who is frightened of reading a review because the score given is so accurate isn't really that likely to bother reading the review when the score is slightly more ambiguous. They will still probably be too lazy to read and will skip straight to the score, meaning the reduction of accuracy didn't help much. I think your arguement for the 0.5 score is a good one, but it's quite in depth and complex considering it's aimed primarily at people who can't read a review because there is a nice big number for them to look at instead!dahui58

If I saw ten games all scoring 9.5, I would come to the conclusion that they're all of equal, excellent quality, and I would then proceed to read the review bodies, find out what's in the games, compare that against what I'm looking for in a game, and make up my own mind. Having a lack of granularity encourages people to actually read the reviews rather than just letting what is ultimately a completely subjective and arbitrary decision drive their spending habits. If a 9.6 would make all the difference for you over a 9.5, then frankly I have to say you are giving review scores far too much credit anyway. It's much better, in my view, to have a set of buckets, each of which signify games that are basically as good as any other in the same bucket, and then force the prospective buyer to make his or her own decision.

If someone is so lazy that they can't be bothered to find out what the games are about and to read the review bodies to determine whether they want the game, and instead just stare at review scores saying "BUT WHICH GAME IS BETTER", then frankly they can't be that interested in buying a game in the first place.

[QUOTE="Bamul"]@c_rake It would hurt not to have it.c_rake

Why's that? Could you elaborate?

If there is less scores, then those who want to give out ratings like 9.6 won't be able to - therefore they won't be happy and satisfied with the system. However, if you do bring back the 0.1 increment, people who want to review games with ratings that have no decimal points in them at all can still do so, and so can those who want their scores going up in halves only and everyone is happy. But if the feature is absent, people like me and dahui won't be happy while others get what they want. If you DO have the option of giving more varied scores, then everyone is treated equally and everyone stays happy; they can rate games with whatever scores they want. :)

Oh come on, people! Can't you see? If you bring back the 0.1 scores then everyone will be happy, but if you keep them away from us then there will always be a fraction of unhappy users. What I have stated in my previous post should be enough to negate any argument against the 0.1 increment - if you read it clearly enough and understand it. :P Once again, I don't care what scores the GameSpot staff use to review games, it is completely their choice and their opinion, I appreciate that. But why take that option away from the users? :)

I partially agree with adams95, however I am all for writing walls of text (because I simply enjoy doing so). :P Anyway, he is right as some people may not be able to write a clear explanation as to why game A is better than game B. Also a review should mostly concentrate on the game that is being reviewed and avoid mention of other games, unless the need for comparisons is inevitable. Besides, sometimes the reviewers themselves may want to compile a list of their reccomended or favourite games and he or she would have to be able to give more accurate ratings to do so.

Another reason why I think the .1 increment ratings should be brought back is because the users who want to rate games with these scores, at this moment, have to mention the real score in the text of the review itself. But those who see the review and have no intention of reading it (just stare at the rating) will only be able to see the false score. This frustrates the reviewer greatly - I think I know about two or three people who think this.

[QUOTE="dahui58"]Does it encourage people though? If I came onto a site and saw 10 games on the front page, all of them with 9.5 I probably would laugh at the lack of variation and go elsewhere. And yes it's just a number, but if the number is representing the quality of a game it's not fair to give a game a 9.5 when it is better than another 9.5 game, or give it a 10/10 (a flawless score) because it is slightly better than 9.5 So does GS seriously think it encourages people to read the review? Because the kind of person who is frightened of reading a review because the score given is so accurate isn't really that likely to bother reading the review when the score is slightly more ambiguous. They will still probably be too lazy to read and will skip straight to the score, meaning the reduction of accuracy didn't help much. I think your arguement for the 0.5 score is a good one, but it's quite in depth and complex considering it's aimed primarily at people who can't read a review because there is a nice big number for them to look at instead!GabuEx

If I saw ten games all scoring 9.5, I would come to the conclusion that they're all of equal, excellent quality, and I would then proceed to read the review bodies, find out what's in the games, compare that against what I'm looking for in a game, and make up my own mind. Having a lack of granularity encourages people to actually read the reviews rather than just letting what is ultimately a completely subjective and arbitrary decision drive their spending habits. If a 9.6 would make all the difference for you over a 9.5, then frankly I have to say you are giving review scores far too much credit anyway. It's much better, in my view, to have a set of buckets, each of which signify games that are basically as good as any other in the same bucket, and then force the prospective buyer to make his or her own decision.

If someone is so lazy that they can't be bothered to find out what the games are about and to read the review bodies to determine whether they want the game, and instead just stare at review scores saying "BUT WHICH GAME IS BETTER", then frankly they can't be that interested in buying a game in the first place.

Another reason why I think the .1 increment ratings should be brought back is because the users who want to rate games with these scores, at this moment, have to mention the real score in the text of the review itself. But those who see the review and have no intention of reading it (just stare at the rating) will only be able to see the false score. This frustrates the reviewer greatly - I think I know about two or three people who think this.Bamul

I don't see how that's a problem. You still get to use your preferred scoring method that way. If you want it more apparent, just toss it into the review deck. Simple.

In the end, people who go and read the reviews anyway are not getting hindered at all by the old scoring system, if it is as you say it is then the people this system is for aren't anymore likely to read it anyway to be honest. If they were not going to read it in the first place why would they now? Besides, who comes on looking at multiple games at a time? Most people will want to buy one game, so they want to look at a score for one game, I highly doubt they will see it has 9.5, read the review, and then go and read some other 9.5 games just to see which is better.dahui58

Actually, that doesn't sound too far-fetched. Given that most user reviews aren't some long dissertation exploring each and every facet of a game's design, reading multiple reviews can help the reader gain a better understanding of what the game is. Heck, even for longer works that can be immensely helpful. Not every review delves into the same exact subjects in the same exact manner, after all. Reading multiple reviews is, I find, the best way to educate oneself about a game. Scores are just part of the equation, albeit an uninformative and arbitrary one. As Gabu said, I think you're giving them too much credit.

This really bugs me too that you can't score games in .1 increments anymore. I don't even bother rating any new games anymore they just don't match up with previous scores. And about writing a review to explain the score, what if I dont want to write a full text review for every single game just to show which one is better. Like for example to games in the same series one I would score 8.6 and one 8.8, now on the current .5 increments they would be both 8.5. So do you expected people to write a review for every single rating to explain which is better?adams95

Then don't. Scores are akin to saying "I thought that game was good"; just enough to tell what someone thought but not enough to explain why. No scoring system can ever do that, either. So what's the big deal if multiple games end up being scored similarly? I doubt anyone would think poorly of someone just for that, if that's what everyone's worried about.

I go back to my original argument, as it has remained unanswered, I take it no one can thinkof anything that would negate it. :P

"If there is less scores, then those who want to give out ratings like 9.6 won't be able to - therefore they won't be happy and satisfied with the system. However, if you do bring back the 0.1 increment, people who want to review games with ratings that have no decimal points in them at all can still do so, and so can those who want their scores going up in halves only and everyone is happy. But if the feature is absent, people like me and dahui won't be happy while others get what they want. If you DO have the option of giving more varied scores, then everyone is treated equally and everyone stays happy; they can rate games with whatever scores they want."

This should be enough! :P

Seems a bit pointless to me, to be honest. I generally read the reviews and take the numeric scores with a grain of salt, as it is.

I go back to my original argument, as it has remained unanswered, I take it no one can thinkof anything that would negate it. :P

"If there is less scores, then those who want to give out ratings like 9.6 won't be able to - therefore they won't be happy and satisfied with the system. However, if you do bring back the 0.1 increment, people who want to review games with ratings that have no decimal points in them at all can still do so, and so can those who want their scores going up in halves only and everyone is happy. But if the feature is absent, people like me and dahui won't be happy while others get what they want. If you DO have the option of giving more varied scores, then everyone is treated equally and everyone stays happy; they can rate games with whatever scores they want."

This should be enough! :P

Bamul

Here's my problem with that argument: since your basically asking that an old system be revived, your essentially asking that two completely different systems be employed simultaneously. The .1 system's scores were determined by the scores given in the sub-categories, as the point of that system was too aggregate the scores of those sections into a finalized score. Our current system doesn't do this since it removed the sub-categories. Therefore, re-adding the older system would mean reintroducing sub-categories in order for it to remain easy to use. That means we'd have reviews carry the categories while having those that don't, which only serves to make the system as a whole appear to lack consistency. Not exactly something GameSpot would want, I'd think.

Here's my problem with that argument: since your basically asking that an old system be revived, your essentially asking that two completely different systems be employed simultaneously. The .1 system's scores were determined by the scores given in the sub-categories, as the point of that system was too aggregate the scores of those sections into a finalized score. Our current system doesn't do this since it removed the sub-categories. Therefore, re-adding the older system would mean reintroducing sub-categories in order for it to remain easy to use. That means we'd have reviews carry the categories while having those that don't, which only serves to make the system as a whole appear to lack consistency. Not exactly something GameSpot would want, I'd think.c_rake

I'll assume you either didn't read my comments properly, ignored or misunderstood them. :roll: I have clearly stated in one of my previous comments that I DON'T WANT the sub-categories back. I just want the .1 increment scores. And what you have said doesn't really answer my "why don't you want to keep both groups happy, when you can" argument at all. :P

I'll assume you either didn't read my comments properly, ignored or misunderstood them. :roll: I have clearly stated in one of my previous comments that I DON'T WANT the sub-categories back. I just want the .1 increment scores. And what you have said doesn't really answer my "why don't you want to keep both groups happy, when you can" argument at all. :PBamul

That's the problem, though: the old system needs the sub-categories to function properly. Systems using .1 increments are supposed to act as aggregater because of sheer number of options it presents. Choosing which score is right off the top of one's head prevents the system from obtaining any sort of meaning behind it other than satisfying some, and I mean no harm with this, insane need to be dead-on with scores. It's crazy! They're just numbers! It's the text that matters, people! Geez!

I'll admit I haven't been making the strongest arguments in regards to that point you keep bringing up. But that's just what happens when you try debating against an argument that's rather anti-debate. Anyway, I don't think it should come back to reviews because it makes an already lengthy process needlessly longer because you then have to suddenly bring a lot more numerical factors into the equation. Matching up the score with the text is something I find difficult already with the current system. I don't want things to get extra complicated on account of a few people decrying the lack of extra options. I'm sure people in my situation would agree.

So, how about this: keep it out the reviews area but enable it back into the user ratings. Most of the people who've posted here seem to talk only about rating games instead of reviewing them, after all. Bringing it back there would satisfy most people's needs, I'd think. Besides that, there is that user score aggregate on the gamespace pages that uses that .1 system (further proof that it works best for aggregating), so it would probably best work in conjuction with that. Reviewers could just continue throwing into the review deck or text.

I don't want things to get extra complicated on account of a few people decrying the lack of extra options.c_rake

The point is, things wouldn't get complicated! :P Look, as I've said, just because there'd bemore ratings available doesn't mean you'dhave to adjust. You could continue to rate games with scores ending in either 0 or .5, and anyone else who would want otherwise would do so. Just because you add in scores like 9.6 means you have to remove 9.5?But right now, people like me have to adjust. :P

The point is, things wouldn't get complicated! :P Look, as I've said, just because there'd bemore ratings available doesn't mean you'dhave to adjust. You could continue to rate games with scores ending in either 0 or .5, and anyone else who would want otherwise would do so. Just because you add in scores like 9.6 means you have to remove 9.5?But right now, people like me have to adjust. :PBamul

Of course not -- that would be crazy! It's just... I don't know. I just feel like I'd have to use the old system to its fullest if it were employed again. I mean, sure, I could just ignore it, but... it wouldn't feel right, you know? It'd be like if one of the GameSpot editors were to avoid using .5 increments despite it being a part of the system. Harmless on the surface, sure, but not exactly the best way to show that you're competent at your job. Not the strongest example, I know (I suppose a better one would be if said editor also began treating 7's as 5's, since that would be a more egregious use of the system), but you understand, right?

Yeah, I get what you mean, sort of. :P Anyway, thanks for the discussion and answers from everyone here (especially c_rake's input). I suppose this topic was worth a try. :P

I have no idea, I hope it is. Even if I can't have it for reviews (which is what I was fighting for in the first place) - I'd rather have something for my efforts. :P

So is .1 increments going to be put back for ratings?

adams95

Well, when you scroll down on a user's page, down to his/her reviews, the images of the games don't show up. I have a fool's hope that this is a result of editing something in the reviewing system, but it's probably just a bug. :(

Why was my last comment here deleted? I didn't get a message about moderation or anything so it couldn't have been offensive. :? Also, is this topic going to be ignored andforgotten like so many other people who tried to bring the .1 increments back? Or will a member of GS staff finally acknowledge the unhappines of a large fraction of users who share my views on this matter and finally do something about it, so everyone is treated equally?

Good information for you. For the record, the change from 0.1 to 0.5 increments was more of a time saver than anything. Either way, read Jeff's blog and it explains why they scrapped the 0.1 game score increments.chicknfeet

I kind of prefer the 0.5 increments, it encourages the person to read a review when comparing two games with the same score to see which is better or not and make a judgement for themselves rather than just look at the score and decide game x is better than game y.fabz_95

Yes, that's right. It encourages the person to read both reviews - but how many people actually do that... 2 out of every 10 users on the whole website? Let's face it, many people are not looking for long, descriptive walls of text about one game. So they'll want to look at the conclusion, or something at the end that sums up the good and the bad. After that, to get a final idea of the game's quality (or if there was nothing summing up the bad and good points of a game), they will look for a score. :roll: This is obvious.

So, will this suggestion EVER get any attention from GameSpot staff? Or will it be just mods who come here and don't really have any argument that could counter the one I've mentioned, therefore making me and most other people believe that it's just laziness? :P

So, will this suggestion EVER get any attention from GameSpot staff? Or will it be just mods who come here and don't really have any argument that could counter the one I've mentioned, therefore making me and most other people believe that it's just laziness? :PBamul

Since I'm tired of trying to come up with counter arguments to an argument that's not debate-friendly, I'll just leave this except from Gerstmann's last piece he wrote on the current system:

"How was 8.2 vs. 8.4 difficult to understand?"
The old rating system was never really designed for the type of comparisons that many people used it for. [Emphasis added.] In some ways, it still isn't. Our rating has always been designed to be an overall rating of that game's quality compared to the standards of the system it appears on at the time of its review. Once you start factoring time into this, comparing two similar scores and saying "well, obviously the 8.4 is better than the 8.2" actually might not be accurate. This becomes even more of an issue once you start comparing games from different genres. All we wanted to say with either of those scores is that the game is great, overall. This new scoring system better reflects our position on games.

To some extent, though, changing the review scale to 19 points lets it be a bit more meaningful for cross-platform comparisons, too. We've been deliberately avoiding any discussion about the re-rating of old games, primarily because we're not going to go back into the database and change any scores. But let's play out one "what if?" scenario, just for the heck of it. Take, for example, last year's Nintendo release, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. It received an 8.8 on the Wii. It received an 8.9 on the GameCube. But when it came time to assign the "best" tag, that tag went to the Wii. On the surface, that seems like utter madness, doesn't it? Now, of course, if you dig into the pages about our rating system, you'd get that we're comparing games to other games on the same console and so on and so forth. Under the new system, both of those games would have received the same score, leaving the "best" tag as your indicator for which version you should choose while simultaneously saying that both are great games. This more accurately reflects our position while also being easier for everyone to understand.

If that doesn't explain why the old system shouldn't come back, nothing will.

I've already read Jeff's opinions on this, and really, there's nothing there to show that GameSpot thought about the users who liked the system at all when making the change. Is it so hard to grasp that if you had the .1 increment, then everyone would be happy and if you don't, then there will always be someone who isn't happy. I'm pretty sure that the GameSpot staff decides what happens to the website, so why do they not share their opinions on this? Are they ignoring it? I am grateful for the mods coming here to this topic and replying, but if the change is not up to them - then how will that help at all?

Also, Jeff Gerstmann is mostly referring to the system that GameSpot uses, but how has that got anything to do with what I'm trying to change? Like I said, it is not my place to decide what GameSpot chooses for their reviews; I'm sure they vote on what is best. So why not let all the users be happy? Change the system for user reviews, and they will be.

Will the GameSpot staff please do something about this? I do not intend to give up anytime soon. :(

I know bringing up IGN for the purpose of this argument is stupid, but effective nonetheless, so how come IGN has separate systems for user and staff ratings? Is it really that hard, or is what you're saying an excuse and not a reason. Also, I know that people read but not all write. However I wanted the staff to write their opinions on this topic not because I want proof that they check it, but because I wanted to know what their opinions are. I'm pretty sure that GameSpot isn't run by one person, so there have to be some that want the .1 increment back.

I know bringing up IGN for the purpose of this argument is stupid, but effective nonetheless, so how come IGN has separate systems for user and staff ratings? Is it really that hard, or is what you're saying an excuse and not a reason. Also, I know that people read but not all write. However I wanted the staff to write their opinions on this topic not because I want proof that they check it, but because I wanted to know what their opinions are. I'm pretty sure that GameSpot isn't run by one person, so there have to be some that want the .1 increment back.

Bamul

I never demanded anything. Sure, I want something badly... but I never demanded it. However, you do seem like the type who likes to make ignorant assumptions. See what I did there; assumed. :PNo, of course not, I don't have any idea what the two companies are going through. Do you? Besides, this is a forum for "Site Enhancements" and I'm using it for the purpose it was made for. Are you planning to take the ability to do that away from me? I hope not, this site isn't perfect - however I love it and it is run by great people (as far as I'm aware) but that would be going too far.

I want both groups of user reviewers to be happy, that's why I suggested bringing back the .1 increment and brought up various reasons for it and tackled any of those that were against it as best as I could. Sure, I was thinking mostly abut myself and people in the same situation as me, but like I've said in this topic many times... would it hurt to have it? If it would hurt to make it happen, then that's a completely different thing.

Also, I didn't assume that the sites were working at the same level. Besides, that statement can mean a lot of things. Nevermind that, like I said, it's a fairly stupid point but many people bring up the "if IGN has it, then why can't we?!" argument and I thought using that technique would have worked here. Obviously hasn't. :lol:

Nevermind that, like I said, it's a fairly stupid point but many people bring up the "if IGN has it, then why can't we?!" argument and I thought using that technique would have worked here. Obviously hasn't. :lol:Bamul

It's 'cause IGN is trash. There, I said it.

My personal feelings on them aside, though (I'm sure they're an all right site -- I just don't like 'em for varying reasons), the argument simply doesn't work because IGN is massive. GameSpot isn't blessed with having a large staff devoted to any one part of the site. Asking them to devote resources toward something like this (not saying you are, of course) when they could be working on more important projects is just plain unreasonable.

If they were going to work on player reviews anyway, they would probably work on finally getting us accommodated with the full suite of features that the staff have for their works so that we could finally have some more sophisticated tools to work with. God knows we and the community staff (I think -- can't remember where I heard that) have been asking for it for years. Plus that would at least be well worth diverting resources for since they would be making a massive upgrade that would allows us more options then.

Yeah, having the review emblem things and maybe being able to include images with captions would be really good (as well as many other suggestions that were made in the User Review Requests Archive Discussion!thread). I don't think too highly of IGN either, I prefer GameSpot. But I am not happy with people constantly bashing and bashing IGN. When they talk about CoD people get angry at them, when they don't, then people get angry at them for not talking about it. :? Besides some of their scores are surprisingly "independent", meaning that they are one of the sites whose critics tend to not follow scoring trends... which isn't good if they are doing it JUST for the sake of standing out, but since they don't do it that often, I don't think that's the case.

I really don't think there's much of a practical difference between 7.6 and 7.7. People should be reading the review body, anyway, not the score. The score is just a rough gut estimation of the total value the reviewer found in the game. I like the 0.5 increment system.

GabuEx

Is it so hard to grasp that if you had the .1 increment, then everyone would be happy and if you don't, then there will always be someone who isn't happy.Bamul

How many times do I need to repeat myself? :roll:

How many times do I need to repeat myself? :roll:

Bamul