The Art of Using the Coldness of Math as a Measurement of Enjoyment

A few days ago, a certain thread had me question the logic of how I assign scores to games I've played and thus loved, enjoyed, had a pretty good time with or hated. I had a significantly large post all finished that had me talking about how I don't think a game has to be broken to receive a 4/10, how something polished can still be viewed as uninspired, souless and derivative, how a 4/10 still denotes a value of slightly below average, not terrible or broken...but then it dawned on me - how the hell can I say this when the bulk of my ratings are all crammed within a 8-10 radius?

So I've mulled it over, remembering how I was a bit disappointed that GameSpot didn't change their ratings to a simple 10 point scale - and then I just did it. I went ahead and re-rated almost all the games I ever rated on this website using a nice, sensible 10 point scale. To be perfectly honest, my ratings have never made more sense to me. I realized that I kinda hid behind the "competently-made" argument and gave inflated ratings to games I simply didn't enjoy as much to actually justify that rating. I gave BioShock an 8.5. I enjoyed it, but I was also immensely disappointed with it. I replay almost every game I own. I never had the smallest urge to replay BioShock. I never even considered getting BioShock 2. I actually sold BioShock, something I almost never do and I had the very nice metal boxed Limited Edition at that. 8.5? No, that sucker's a 6 - good, enjoyable, but disappointing and shallow. Alright for a one-time romp and nothing more. Don't even look at my Halo: Combat Evolved rating.

I kind of changed my whole perspective of looking at game ratings and brought it closer to how I used to review/rate music and movies when I wrote about them.

I suppose the biggest thing is to actually realize that it's a 1-10 scale. I mean, of course we all know it's a 1-10, but do we really grasp what it means? I had to remember how I used to rate music and movies and drive the point home so that my brain truly comprehends - out of ten. Out. Of. Ten. OUT OF ****ING TEN. A 5 or a 6 doesn't mean the game is devoid of any kind of enjoyment.

This is kind of what I have in my head:

• 10 - Instant CIassic
• 9 - Superb
• 8 - Great
• 7 - Very Good
• 6 - Good
• 5 - Ok
• 4 - Meh
• 3 - Kinda crappy
• 2 - Pretty bad
• 1 - Awful

That makes sense to me. I mean, if you go and find some of the things I said about BioShock, Gears of War or Halo: Combat Evolved and it's far from a wholly positive opinion - yet they all had very positive scores. And I mean, a 6 is still a positive(ish) score since it's in the UPPER half of the scale. It's just not overly positive for that game. I once totally trashed Yakuza in my blog. So why the hell did I give it a 5? I don't think it's ok, I don't think it's mediocre, if you will. I think it's pretty BAD.

To further illustrate my position, have a look at it in this way.

• POSITIVE
• MIXED
• NEGATIVE

1 2 34 56 7 8 9 10

Tell me that doesn't make sense, tell me that I'm crazy.

So what about you? Do you look at ratings this way already? Did you change your view on this at some point? Do your run with the crowd? Have you ever even given this a thought at all? Do you care?

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Did you change any scores that used to be a 9. something to a 10?UpInFlames

My 10's remained the same. Some of the 9.5's became 9's, some 8's and so on. I mostly just dropped down, some games went down 3-4 points.

I also wanted to address this because in retrospect this wasn't fair at all. This thing goes both ways and I can't be stingy with any of the scores - that includes a 10. So because I consider this an ongoing process, I went in and made some revisions. I expanded my 10's from 7 games to 12. I honestly consider those instant cIassics (NOT perfect) and my most beloved, treasured games.

I hate to trivialize your huge post here, but I find it to be a moot point. Why?

Why would I rate/own/rent a game that I've never played because I KNOW it would suck? I "tend" to agree with the majority of reviews out there, that if a game is something on the order of an 8, I will most likely give it a 6 to 10 ranking (Like what you said for the "positive") and be done with it. Very few games do I give such low scores to, mostly because I don't own them, nor do I have a basis to make a good judgement on.

And by the grading of school, a C = 75% which is average. Below average = 60s but still passing (D). Anything in the 50s or lower fails, it's just how bad. I still agree with the whole previous ranking system too.

I guess its all a definition of semantics and the sliding scale people use to rate things. How does your theory apply to a 5 star rating scheme?

I hate to trivialize your huge post here, but I find it to be a moot point. Why?

Why would I rate/own/rent a game that I've never played because I KNOW it would suck? I "tend" to agree with the majority of reviews out there, that if a game is something on the order of an 8, I will most likely give it a 6 to 10 ranking (Like what you said for the "positive") and be done with it. Very few games do I give such low scores to, mostly because I don't own them, nor do I have a basis to make a good judgement on.

And by the grading of school, a C = 75% which is average. Below average = 60s but still passing (D). Anything in the 50s or lower fails, it's just how bad. I still agree with the whole previous ranking system too.

I guess its all a definition of semantics and the sliding scale people use to rate things. How does your theory apply to a 5 star rating scheme?SemiMaster

Actually, I agree that it's largely trivial, but I also find it interesting especially considering all the rage and backlash over a "low" score (low sometimes meaning an 8 or a 9).

I think you're kind of missing the point or perhaps I'm not understanding you. My point is that the only games that do receive even slightly negative scores are complete and utter trash devoid of any merit whatsoever. If the ratings were more spread out (Mafia II and Manhunt are great examples as their ratings are all over the place) - how would you know if it sucks or not? Did you like Mafia II? Well, you liked a supposedly crappy 4/10 game.

I don't think school grading applies in any way since it's a completely different context. I'm not a fan of the 5 star rating, but I suppose it would work the same, just condensed.

i tend to think of the rating scale more like a grading scale, where 6 is "just passable" (i can bring myself to finish it in its own right rather than finishing it to write a review or whatever), 7 is okay but nothing special, 8 is a solid game, 9 is usually one of the years best, and a 10 is something really special. there would be plenty of games that id rate at 5 or below, but im generally more judicious at picking a game to buy than that.LoG-Sacrament

Yeah, I used to view it like that as well, but it never truly sat well with me. And your last sentence is really the crux of the problem - more than half of the scale is used to describe complete trash whereas only 40% of the scale is crammed with meh, ok, solid, great and mindblowing. It's such an incredibly flawed and pointless system.

I honestly don't care particularly much for numeric scores but yours are definitely much more fun to use than the standard 7-10 and give more room for subjective taste. The problem is IMO that gamers for some reason believe that scores should reflect some elusive objective quality of a game instead of how much the reviewer actually likes the game. It's like the reviewer is a teacher grading a math test that students got to do at home - no one except the stupid kid in the corner (Big Rigs) will fail since the kids had unlimited time and could ask for help from their parents and the kids who didn't take any chances at all get the best scores.inoperativeRS

Best. Analogy. Ever.

I have 950 hours on White Knight Chronicles and it got a what? 5.5 or 6.0 here?

So, yea, the game isn't amazing, but it has enough substance to make a group of us friends online want to come back and play... Maybe it's just each other's company and not the game itself. The point is, I guess that even games that score in the 6 or 7 region DO have some merit and can appeal to some people like you said. Just because of the hyperbole used in System Wars tends to leak into other forums, I don't buy into that sensationalist OMG AAA or flop nonsense.

Heck, if it had one of those "Hype threads", then chances are it's probably going to be a great game no matter how you slice it, or it stinks so bad no one wants to come within 50 feet of it. Either way it is a good litmus test.

Yeah, I used to view it like that as well, but it never truly sat well with me. And your last sentence is really the crux of the problem - more than half of the scale is used to describe complete trash whereas only 40% of the scale is crammed with meh, ok, solid, great and mindblowing. It's such an incredibly flawed and pointless system.UpInFlames

I use the ratings system as a way to gauge between a buy or rent. If a game is in the 5-7 range I may like it, I may not. If a game scores higher than that (on official revies and player reviews) and it is a genre that I like I will take the chance on the full blown purchase.

I pay very close attention to the unofficial reviews since there are more of them than the official reviews and gauge the opinions of people to see if a game is worth the money.

I think it's great that you have developed a rubric that reflects your own personal ideologies and tastes accurately because ultimately, we are beholden entirely to ourselves when it comes to what we play and enjoy.

Personally, I've always strived for a more academic approach to game analysis largely bereft of subjectivity but at the same time I rather love your own incredibly nuanced and subjective personal breakdown of quality delineated by utilizing the full spectrum of the numerical scale. What you've created is something that gives your own postulations a bit more gravitas while still maintaining a credible standard of deconstruction and analysis. The truth is that you are doing what most "professional" reviewers do already but you are being more transparent and honest about your approach, which will imbue your critiques with a sincerity that so many contemporary editorials lack.

most games arent good. most games arent complete trash (a 5 isnt complete trash, but its not giving enough fulfillment to drive me to finish it), but they arent good. its fitting to have the majority of the scale to describe those games.LoG-Sacrament

Hmm, I don't see how the actual amount of games has anything to do with it. It's not like the trash pile is literally so big that it simply needs more space. You yourself compared it to a school grading system. Well, the vast majority of people don't fail at school.

I use the ratings system as a way to gauge between a buy or rent. If a game is in the 5-7 range I may like it, I may not. If a game scores higher than that (on official revies and player reviews) and it is a genre that I like I will take the chance on the full blown purchase.Sacif

Yeah, once again, this is why I dislike the system. I mean, I'm sure there's music and movies you enjoy that got totally trashed somewhere. Why do you think this mentality doesn't transfer to games? Why are we conditioned to consider only games that receieved widely positive reception (and everything above a 5 is positive) when we are perfectly capable of enjoying music, movies, TV shows, whatever that are slammed by the critics?

I think it's great that you have developed a rubric that reflects your own personal ideologies and tastes accurately because ultimately, we are beholden entirely to ourselves when it comes to what we play and enjoy.

Personally, I've always strived for a more academic approach to game analysis largely bereft of subjectivity but at the same time I rather love your own incredibly nuanced and subjective personal breakdown of quality delineated by utilizing the full spectrum of the numerical scale. What you've created is something that gives your own postulations a bit more gravitas while still maintaining a credible standard of deconstruction and analysis. The truth is that you are doing what most "professional" reviewers do already but you are being more transparent and honest about your approach, which will imbue your critiques with a sincerity that so many contemporary editorials lack.Grammaton-Cleric

Thanks. I think there's merit in striving for a more academic approach, absolutely. It's just that for me personally, it has become such a exhausting balancing act of trying to be both objective and subjective at the same time yet failing at both that I simply lost interest in it. Kudos to whomever can truly pull it off (although certainly not infallible, I would say GregK was a rare breed in that regard and KevinV could be there as well), although as you noted in the Mafia II thread, we are swimming in a sea of those who cannot.

Hmm, I don't see how the actual amount of games has anything to do with it. It's not like the trash pile is literally so big that it simply needs more space. You yourself compared it to a school grading system. Well, the vast majority of people don't fail at school.UpInFlames

I think that most games that are worth playing should get at least a 6. Everything else should be reserved for bad games like all those showelware titles for Wii and DS that dont even get rated. Thats one of the problems, most of the bad games dont even get rated so it looks like all the games are getting 7+.

Everyone has their own idea of the ratings system. Different sites, for instance, have different meanings for their scores. Some sites give a game a 6, and that means "above average", whereas others a 6 pretty much means the game is terrible. Then you have a site like Game Informer where a 7 means "average". It can be confusing, admittedly.

Here's how I see it:

10 - Not nessecarily perfect, but a game that is a prime example of it's genre, and has no obvious flaws (Mario Galaxy for instance, IMO)

9 - Superb. Far beyond "good" and even "great", this is a rating given to games that shouldn't be missed by fans of the genre. An experience you'll remember a year or two from now.

8 - Great. This is a game that is well worth playing, but has some noticeable flaws that hold it back from superb status.

7 - Good. A game that has several, noticeable flaws but it still entertaining overall.

6 - Fair. A game that isn't broke, but is fairly flawed, and would probably not entertain anyone but the most hardcore fans of the genre.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 -- Stay away from this game, there's alot of **** wrong with it. :P

[QUOTE="Sacif"]I use the ratings system as a way to gauge between a buy or rent. If a game is in the 5-7 range I may like it, I may not. If a game scores higher than that (on official revies and player reviews) and it is a genre that I like I will take the chance on the full blown purchase.UpInFlames

Yeah, once again, this is why I dislike the system. I mean, I'm sure there's music and movies you enjoy that got totally trashed somewhere. Why do you think this mentality doesn't transfer to games? Why are we conditioned to consider only games that receieved widely positive reception (and everything above a 5 is positive) when we are perfectly capable of enjoying music, movies, TV shows, whatever that are slammed by the critics?

I have not lived by any set standards of what entertains me for 3 generations of gaming. Once I finally hit puberty I was able to comprehend that I don't need anyone else's opinion other than my in regards to what I like. I am also open for ideas and if there is a game I am not sure would be good then I check the opinions.

People have lost their originality and their independance. This is why this forum as well as others are filled with threads that start off with "Should I get ____ or ____. How can anyone be so confused to not even know what they like and have to rely on others to help them choose their own entertainment. It's like walking up to a random person that you have never met before, handing them $60 and saying go find me something I like. /rant

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Sacif"]I use the ratings system as a way to gauge between a buy or rent. If a game is in the 5-7 range I may like it, I may not. If a game scores higher than that (on official revies and player reviews) and it is a genre that I like I will take the chance on the full blown purchase.Sacif

Yeah, once again, this is why I dislike the system. I mean, I'm sure there's music and movies you enjoy that got totally trashed somewhere. Why do you think this mentality doesn't transfer to games? Why are we conditioned to consider only games that receieved widely positive reception (and everything above a 5 is positive) when we are perfectly capable of enjoying music, movies, TV shows, whatever that are slammed by the critics?

I have not lived by any set standards of what entertains me for 3 generations of gaming. Once I finally hit puberty I was able to comprehend that I don't need anyone else's opinion other than my in regards to what I like. I am also open for ideas and if there is a game I am not sure would be good then I check the opinions.

People have lost their originality and their independance. This is why this forum as well as others are filled with threads that start off with "Should I get ____ or ____. How can anyone be so confused to not even know what they like and have to rely on others to help them choose their own entertainment. It's like walking up to a random person that you have never met before, handing them $60 and saying go find me something I like. /rant

Except that you stated otherwise in your previous post. :)

But that's not what I was asking you anyway. What I meant was - if there was a movie that interested you, you saw some trailers and whatnot and you found it very appealing...would you go see it if it got buried by the critics? More importantly, would you think there was a good chance you could enjoy that movie very much despite the critical reception? Would you even be aware of its critical reception?

Now how about the same scenario, only with a game - would you really think you could enjoy a game that got SLAMMED by the critics (and I don't mean 5-7)?

Don't be afraid to say no because that's what I would say too. The point being that such ratings are only reserved for the absolute, broken trash. Why can't a reviewer totally trash a game that is polished and competently made if he totally hated it? After all, competently directed and decently acted movies get trashed all the time. Why are we so hung up on the mechanics? Is that really all a developer has to do to avoid being trashed? Why is the mere notion of someone (anyone, not limiting this to professional reviewers) rating Resident Evil 4 or Grand Theft Auto IV a 3/10 so appaling?

Don't feel obligated to actually answer these if you don't want to or don't care to, I'm just writing this down and asking myself as much as anyone else. :P

Why is the mere notion of someone (anyone, not limiting this to professional reviewers) rating Resident Evil 4 or Grand Theft Auto IV a 3/10 so appaling?UpInFlames

That is kind of how I generally interpret the 7-10 scale at least. :P

About your 10 point scale: I don't like strict point scales. I prefer a looser grading system because I'm more interested in the contents of a review then in the final score. I don't care if you break the score down to a thousand or a million point scale, a score will always just be a guideline. You will never get all the nuances from a number that you will from the written review. There are just too many different genres of games out there and too many subjective factors involved in determining what makes a good game to fit it all on one all-purpose scale anyway. That's why I prefer the four or five point scales that break it down like the school grading system. They give me a fast and easy guideline to let me know what the reviewer thought about the game in general. If I want to know specifics, the written review is really the only way to go. There's really no point in making the numbers any more specific.

About this:

Why can't a reviewer totally trash a game that is polished and competently made if he totally hated it? After all, competently directed and decently acted movies get trashed all the time. Why are we so hung up on the mechanics? Is that really all a developer has to do to avoid being trashed? Why is the mere notion of someone (anyone, not limiting this to professional reviewers) rating Resident Evil 4 or Grand Theft Auto IV a 3/10 so appaling? >UpInFlames

Yep, if you want to alert readers that you are trashing RE4 or GTA4, giving them a score of 3 out of 10 under the UpInFlames scale of gaming goodness will do that quite nicely. Then again, giving them a score of 6 out of 10 under the current system will accomplish the same thing. As I said above, I don't think adding more points to a number scale is all that helpful so I don't think it makes a real difference whether totally trashing a game is defined as giving it 6 or less versus giving it 3 or less. Either a 3 or a 6 will alert me that the reviewer thinks something is wrong with a game. If I saw a 3 or a 6 for a game I was interested in I would be reading that person's review to see how he justified that score to see if I agreed with his reasoning.

Anyway, I don't see the crime in giving a game that is polished and competently made a passing grade. The fact that a game has to actually be really bad to get a really bad score seems like a good thing to me. Maybe I'm not seeing your full point here?

It seems to me that the big difference between gaming and movies/music is that gaming is not a passive past time like movie watching or music listening. In a way the gamer is more like the musician or the movie maker than he is a member of an audience for movies/music. Just like a musician needs a playable instrument and a film maker needs a working camera, a gamer needs a playable game. Playable game versus unplayable game is a big deal. The way I see it, it makes a lot of sense to group the unplayable games together at the unacceptable score level and to have the playable games grouped together at the acceptable score levels.

About going back and re-rating your old games: I wonder how much of your re-valuation was based on your new appreciation for a strict 10 point scale versus how much was due to you comparing what you expect from a game in August 2010 versus what you expected from a game in August 2007? Ithink I would have a very hard time going back and re-rating old games fairly because it would be hard to use the standards of the past rather than the standards of today (I think the only fair way to rate old games is to do it based on the tech, etc of the time they were released) Technology changes so fast in the gaming world that I think it would be difficult just to re-rate games that are only a few years old, and to re-rate a whole collection that was more than a few years old...that would be really, really hard.

Yep, if you want to alert readers that you are trashing RE4 or GTA4, giving them a score of 3 out of 10 under the UpInFlames scale of gaming goodness will do that quite nicely. Then again, giving them a score of 6 out of 10 under the current system will accomplish the same thing. As I said above, I don't think adding more points to a number scale is all that helpful so I don't think it makes a real difference whether totally trashing a game is defined as giving it 6 or less versus giving it 3 or less. Either a 3 or a 6 will alert me that the reviewer thinks something is wrong with a game. If I saw a 3 or a 6 for a game I was interested in I would be reading that person's review to see how he justified that score to see if I agreed with his reasoning.Solori

It will probably accomplish the same thing, it's just that I believe the former is simply more honest than the latter. Isn't trust a big part of it? I know that I certainly don't give a **** what a person I don't trust has to say about anything.

Anyway, I don't see the crime in giving a game that is polished and competently made a passing grade. The fact that a game has to actually be really bad to get a really bad score seems like a good thing to me. Maybe I'm not seeing your full point here?

It seems to me that the big difference between gaming and movies/music is that gaming is not a passive past time like movie watching or music listening. In a way the gamer is more like the musician or the movie maker than he is a member of an audience for movies/music. Just like a musician needs a playable instrument and a film maker needs a working camera, a gamer needs a playable game. Playable game versus unplayable game is a big deal. The way I see it, it makes a lot of sense to group the unplayable games together at the unacceptable score level and to have the playable games grouped together at the acceptable score levels.Solori

I suppose my point is that people hide behind the broken mechanics or the high production values in order to define what "bad" or "good" means. In my opinion, a game doesn't have to be broken to be considered bad. Even if it's competently made, it can still very much be a bad game.

The point about interactivity is a fair one, but I don't think it changes the situation that much. Interaction doesn't mean that the situation is incomparable, it's just that the action is different due to the nature of the medium. Just because you listen to music, read books, watch movies, or indeed, play games doesn't mean they are worlds apart in the context we are talking about here.

Speaking of broken so much, when was the last time anyone here played a truly BROKEN game? So where's the justification for reserving half a scale for games virtually nobody plays in the first place?

About going back and re-rating your old games: I wonder how much of your re-valuation was based on your new appreciation for a strict 10 point scale versus how much was due to you comparing what you expect from a game in August 2010 versus what you expected from a game in August 2007? Ithink I would have a very hard time going back and re-rating old games fairly because it would be hard to use the standards of the past rather than the standards of today (I think the only fair way to rate old games is to do it based on the tech, etc of the time they were released) Technology changes so fast in the gaming world that I think it would be difficult just to re-rate games that are only a few years old, and to re-rate a whole collection that was more than a few years old...that would be really, really hard.Solori

That's a very interesting question. I actually revised ratings of certain games even before this, although very slightly in comparison to this revision. In my opinion, time is the best judge. If a game can manage to stand the grueling test of time, then it is truly a great game. Over the years, I realized the best time to rate a game is a few days, or better yet weeks or months after you stopped playing it. You need time to consolidate your thoughts and only then can you reach a true and fair judgement. I initially rated BioShock a 9 (naturally, this is the old system). After several days, it was down to 8.5. A few weeks, maybe a month later it went down to an 8. It's like cooling off after a big fight with someone. In the heat of the moment, you said some things that you thought were right, but after a while you realize that you over-reacted so you go back with your tail between your legs and apologize. :P

As I already noted in my second post, I didn't just drop down all the ratings, I expanded my 10's from 7 games to 12. Among others, I upped Disciples II: Dark Prophecy to a 10 - a 2002 game.

I personally prefer the 5-point scale.

5/5 - most enjoyable, see myself playing it again 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now
4/5 - enjoyable, played it once and enjoyed most or all of it; don't really see myself playing it again
3/5 - mediocre/average/decent; may or may not have enjoyed, could still be a very well made game, just not my kind of thing
2/5 - did not enjoy that much, there might be something about it I did, but probably also didn't finish it
1/5 - hated, didn't even come close to finishing, and didn't enjoy anything about it

All these levels can include games both well made and not well made. I use scores merely as a reflection of enjoyment. When I want to talk about quality, or technical things, I talk about them with text. I've never understood how people can quantify quality.

That said, don't look at my ratings... because that system is entirely ****ed up and has no consistent basis.

About your 10 point scale: I don't like strict point scales. I prefer a looser grading system because I'm more interested in the contents of a review then in the final score. I don't care if you break the score down to a thousand or a million point scale, a score will always just be a guideline. You will never get all the nuances from a number that you will from the written review. There are just too many different genres of games out there and too many subjective factors involved in determining what makes a good game to fit it all on one all-purpose scale anyway. That's why I prefer the four or five point scales that break it down like the school grading system. They give me a fast and easy guideline to let me know what the reviewer thought about the game in general. If I want to know specifics, the written review is really the only way to go. There's really no point in making the numbers any more specific.Solori

Of course, the review itself is what's most important, that goes without saying. And that's another thing - lots of times the text doesn't really reflect the score. Even Eurogamer's 4/10 for Mafia II. I mean, the review itself is so acidic and volatile, filled with hatred. The score? Slightly below average.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]Why is the mere notion of someone (anyone, not limiting this to professional reviewers) rating Resident Evil 4 or Grand Theft Auto IV a 3/10 so appaling?inoperativeRS

That is kind of how I generally interpret the 7-10 scale at least. :P

I couldn't help but to notice that my friends activity feed just got cluttered with a whole lot of your ratings which seem to be following the template I layed out here.

It will probably accomplish the same thing, it's just that I believe the former is simply more honest than the latter. Isn't trust a big part of it? I know that I certainly don't give a **** what a person I don't trust has to say about anything. I suppose my point is that people hide behind the broken mechanics or the high production values in order to define what "bad" or "good" means. In my opinion, a game doesn't have to be broken to be considered bad. Even if it's competently made, it can still very much be a bad game. The point about interactivity is a fair one, but I don't think it changes the situation that much. Interaction doesn't mean that the situation is incomparable, it's just that the action is different due to the nature of the medium. Just because you listen to music, read books, watch movies, or indeed, play games doesn't mean they are worlds apart in the context we are talking about here. Speaking of broken so much, when was the last time anyone here played a truly BROKEN game? So where's the justification for reserving half a scale for games virtually nobody plays in the first place?

Of course, the review itself is what's most important, that goes without saying. And that's another thing - lots of times the text doesn't really reflect the score. Even Eurogamer's 4/10 for Mafia II. I mean, the review itself is so acidic and volatile, filled with hatred. The score? Slightly below average. UpInFlames

I guess the justification for reserving half the scale for the broken games is that the GS scale is simply mirroring the grading scale. (A,B,C, and D are 90,80,70 and 60%. While F is 50% and below.) The argument would be that that's a good thing because using a familiar and easy to understand scale will make game reviews more accessible and appealing to readers.

But yeah, I see your point. If people have the grading scale in mind then they are going to be buying into the whole "A is for effort" kinds of thinking which we use to encourage school children. If you look at it that way, it does seem sort of silly to give developers a cookie for simply putting in a competent effort.

Then again, a game is not just a work of art like movies/music. Games are also partly craftworks. Gamers need playable games. So it does make sense to treat technical competence as something that deserves positive consideration. Technical failure should weigh very heavily towards the bottom of a scale and technical competence should be a mitigating factor that keeps a game from the very bottom. But you're right, since broken games are only a small percentage of the games that are out there, it doesn't make a lot of sense to devote half a scale to the broken category.

Yes, spreading out the numbers for the good games and shrinking the percentage of the scale devoted to broken games is going to make the numbers more relevant. So it looks like it comes down to a balancing act between accessibility and precision. Which is more important? My gut reaction is that I can live with imprecise review numbers because I only see the numbers as general guidelines anyway.

But I suppose there could be a chicken/egg thing going on here. GS doesn't bother to make its scale more relevant because it sees that most gamers don't care about precise numbers. Most gamers don't really care about precise numbers because they see that the numbers that are out there aren't all that relevant. Who knows, maybe if a more precise scale starts getting used it will change the way people value review numbers. Maybe you're right and we shouldn't just settle for a system that gets the job done. Maybe we should strive for a system that gets the job done + adds the most value. Definitely food for thought.

I am with those who dont bother playing through bad games or games I dont find enjoyable. I am very picky about my games so if I see some vids or previews of a game i dont think i'll find interesting I simply wont play it. Then there are games that I play that I dont bother finishing, and I dont believe in reviewing games unless I've at least played through them. Which is why you wont see many 6s or below in my ratings.

Then there are games like Resistance 2 which I think are bad, but did enough things right to make me play through them.

I guess the justification for reserving half the scale for the broken games is that the GS scale is simply mirroring the grading scale. (A,B,C, and D are 90,80,70 and 60%. While F is 50% and below.) The argument would be that that's a good thing because using a familiar and easy to understand scale will make game reviews more accessible and appealing to readers.Solori

Assuming that is the grading system they grew up with... any gamer outside the US may be approaching that kind of scale from a different perspective.ChiliDragon

Yep. Ethnocentricity is bad. GS users are from all over the world. Still, when trying to determine the most appealing/accessible review methods, GS is gonna have a target audience in mind.

Plus, a lot of games use that kind of grading system. So even gamers from different educational systems will be familiar with the way it works. (Heck, I've played so many games with the "S" added to the top of the scale that I used to think that it must be because Japan has the same system as the US , just with an "S" added on top.:P I've read in other threads that I was wrong about that. But it definitely shows that the grading scale has made its way into many, many games).

Bottom line, it's a balancing act between what people think they want (totally accurate review numbers sounds great, in theory) versus what it is possible to give them (review numbers that are accessible to the majority of readers).

Bottom line, it's a balancing act between what people think they want (totally accurate review numbers sounds great, in theory) versus what it is possible to give them (review numbers that are accessible to the majority of readers).Solori

I'm not really sure how linking the rating system to a school grading system is any more accessible than following a system that is used to critique all other entertainment and art forms. Really, using the school grading system doesn't make any sense to me considering that the context is completely different. Maybe it made sense some 20 years ago when the medium was a lot more infantile and children oriented, but we've grown up - it's time for the system as well. Then again, maybe the medium itself, the journalism that covers it and even the audience simply aren't sophisticated enough. God knows that lots of gamers throw fits like a bunch of babies over review scores.

I'm not really sure how linking the rating system to a school grading system is any more accessible than following a system that is used to critique all other entertainment and art forms. Really, using the school grading system doesn't make any sense to me considering that the context is completely different. Maybe it made sense some 20 years ago when the medium was a lot more infantile and children oriented, but we've grown up - it's time for the system as well. Then again, maybe the medium itself, the journalism that covers it and even the audience simply aren't sophisticated enough. God knows that lots of gamers throw fits like a bunch of babies over review scores.UpInFlames

Yeah. There's a lot of factors out there. Definitely "what game developers want" is a factor in this. And that opens up a whole other can of worms.

And I actually agree with you more than is coming across in my posts. I think the system is perceived as being the most accessible because it is entrenched – it's been used for many years and reviewers and readers are used to seeing it. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kinds of arguments come in here.

I definitely think that accessibility is the main virtue of the school grading system. So that answers the question of how do you justify allocating 50% of the rating scale to fail games. But in balancing what gamers want (precision numbers) with what it's possible to give them (accessible numbers) I didn't mean to imply that the school grading system = the only system that is accessible.

I think the kind of system you propose is accessible. Maybe it's a little bit less accessible than the school system, but in its favor, it is a lot more precise than the school system. So when you balance what gamers want versus what it is possible to give them, your system should win. But then we have to deal with the other factors like "what developers want" and the entrenchment issues. And that's where the school grading system starts winning in ways that aren't justified as being in the gamers' interests.

And I actually agree with you more than is coming across in my posts.Solori

Oh, I get it. I'm not confronting you - just, you know, talking. :)

Oh, I get it. I'm not confronting you - just, you know, talking. :)UpInFlames

First you want to change the rating system. Now you just want to talk on an internet forum? Are you trying to change everything here or what?;)

But seriously, this might brighten your day. I just got the October issue of PTOM and on page 81 they have a review of Clash of the Titans: The Video Game. The review starts out "Well, it's not broken: That's about the only positive thing we can say" It continues on saying "beyond its technical adequacy, Titans is an embarrassing mess" and "The gameplay redeems nothing." They then go on to give it a 1 out of 5 stars. So there's an example of a review that didn't give the game a break just because it wasn't broken.

First you want to change the rating system. Now you just want to talk on an internet forum? Are you trying to change everything here or what?;)Solori

:lol:

But seriously, this might brighten your day. I just got the October issue of PTOM and on page 81 they have a review of Clash of the Titans: The Video Game. The review starts out "Well, it's not broken: That's about the only positive thing we can say" It continues on saying "beyond its technical adequacy, Titans is an embarrassing mess" and "The gameplay redeems nothing." They then go on to give it a 1 out of 5 stars. So there's an example of a review that didn't give the game a break just because it wasn't broken.Solori

Well, such examples certainly give hope that things might change on a wider scale as time goes by and that it won't be limited to low profile games that aren't a part of an established series.