your thoughts on the new rating system?

so far I would consider it to be inferior to the old system

if a game didnt get any medels then dont I only know less then I used to without reading the entire review?

and just getting a medal in that spot doesnt realy inform me of the game much at all, I think the reviewer should write about why it got the particular medal/demerit in the text box that shows when hovering over it

I like it FAR better. It's simple and straightforward.

Frankly I always thought the .1 incrimental system is a rating system only fanboys clung to, so they could bicker over how much better a 9.3 was over a 9.2.

Second, there is a quick "Pro" and "Con" section people for those who don't bother to read the full review. We don't need to for a meter to tell us whether the graphics are a "9" or an "8", when it simply can be stated quickly in the Pro or Con section....especially since that way it can look at how a game looks both artistically and technically.....like "Amazing graphics on a technical scale" or "Visuals are artistically the best this year".

It will be interesting to see how these medals turn out, but already I can see a couple of medals being, well, useless....like the one about Editor's having "Wow" moments.

There's already an established thread about this. :wink: