Anyone miss the old scoring system?

Before they started the full and half numbers

No I thought it was unnecessarily precise.

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

foxhound_fox

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

PlaystationGrad

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

0.1 - 0.4 difference in scores was unncessary and it compromises the integrity of a review score.

Is there really a difference between an 8.9 and a 9.0? Who's to say what worths a 0.1 and whats not? Opinions vary too much for a score that precise.

I mean really, could you honestly say you could tell the difference between a 9.4 and a 9.5. It's so insignificant it really doesn't matter.vashkey

Before they started the full and half numbers

Immortalzxx

[QUOTE="PlaystationGrad"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

Lethalhazard

A scoring system with 100 different steps is kinda dumb imo. Its not rocket science, its simple opinion, having so many grades makes no sence.

Who seriously cares about some stupid reviews every now and then, they have nothing to do with the system?

The worst review ever on gamespot has already been made, look at this:

http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/mrbones/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

The review text makes it a 10.0 game, thats far from the score though.

No scoring system will ever make up for dumb reviews, no matter what it is.

Increments of 0.5 makes sense to me. Anything smaller seems pointless.

eh, Eurogamer's is the best, 5 = average, everywhere else 7 = average .. it actually uses the scale properly.

I know this is an old example but anyway.

Madden 08 on the PS3 and 360. The 360 version ran at 60fps which is a big deal for me and the PS3 at 30. They both scored 8.5. They did not thing it was worth a .5 difference (i do) however if they were on the old system they could have easily scored it 8.3 or 8.4.

I think the new system is good in that it will actually make you read the review to see the differences like that. However the truth is most people dont look at the main text and just the score giving the perception that they are equal. When clearly they were not.

I kinda do. To me it seems alot of games are being overrated because of this new system.jakarai

eh, Eurogamer's is the best, 5 = average, everywhere else 7 = average .. it actually uses the scale properly.

rpg9000owner

The new scoring system is better. It's still not there yet, but it's getting there. After all, a review is just a recommendation. How many different ways do you need to say, "Buy it now", "buy it", "rent it", "don't bother", "burn it with fire"?

No I thought it was unnecessarily precise.

tubbyc

dont care anymore. i dont even agree with most of their reviews nowadays.

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Lethalhazard"][QUOTE="PlaystationGrad"] its all about the video review and the big 3 who do them....gamespot, ign, and gametrailers (even tho the guy from gametrailers annoys the hell out of me and his voice is for EVERY damn review)Midnightshade29

Not really. The old scoring system was too precise. What's the real difference between an 8.6 and an 8.5? Or an 8.9 and a 9.0?Keltoid

well i really miss the old system. there is a huge difference between 6.9 and 7.4 for exampleonuruca

Because it's now in 0.5 increments, the rounding would be to the nearest 0.5 out of 10, so that would become 7.0 and 7.5

Yeah, I do actually. I thought the change to this .5 system makes the rating of the games too broad, while the old-system allowed people to see how games matched up (same genre-wise, and overall value-wise) when you need to make decisions as to what purchase would best suit you. Nowadays you see two games rated 9.0 and have to resort to the opinions of the people that copped to make choices. The forums are becoming more useful to consumers than actual reviews.Phantom_J

no, because if Killzone got a 9.1 and gears 2 got a 9.0 cows would bash Gears of war as being inferior. Stupid system. Its better how it is now.

Not at all. What is the quantifiable difference between an 8.4 and an 8.5? None that I can see. Do you really need 100 different ways of telling someone how good a game is? No. You need maybe 5, at the most.

0.1 - 0.4 difference in scores was unncessary and it compromises the integrity of a review score.

Is there really a difference between an 8.9 and a 9.0? Who's to say what worths a 0.1 and whats not? Opinions vary too much for a score that precise.

No. Now they round it off and too many games are getting 10s and 9.5s. Plus the new reviewers suck.

EDIT: GameInformer has the best scoring system IMO.

I just wish they would drop the scores altogether. People look at the numbers without even reading the text.

foxhound_fox