Anyone Remember the Old Gamespot Review Scoring...

System? I'm talking about the one they used when scores to the decimal where awarded (ie 7.7, 8.8. 9.6 etc).

I was very fond of it even if it was ridiculous (what is the real difference between a 4.3 game an a 5.2 game?); still, I digress, I haven't reviewed a game since the scoring changed and would like to use the old formula even if I have to do the calculus myself.

Did GS ever made the formula known? Was it just just 5 categories at two point max per each?

Thanks!

there was no formula bro, the scores were completely arbitrary. lol

I want the 0.5 decimal scale back. There are those games who are "close but not quite there yet" so an 8.5 instead of an 8 for ex seems like an apropriate score to give actually

I'm with you @Master_Live, I miss the excitement of seeing those .1 differences. Now, every decent game gets an 8, every good one gets a 9. No excitement anymore.

I remember a formula for the user reviews. You didn't give an overall score. You chose a score for 5 categories I believe (I think they were gameplay, graphics, sound, value, and score of your opinion of how to bias it). The values affected the score differently. I imagine GS reviewed the same way but who knows?

I definitely like the original system. Mostly because it was just cool. Your game got a 9.6? sweet.

I forgot the actually formula, but it did exist and it was known. Some old video reviews showed it sometimes.

I think there was originally five values: Game play, graphics, sound, value, and reviewer tilt.

I miss that system. I don't really like the new one.

it turns out there was a formula. It seems I was confusing it with IGN's and Gamepro's that weren't based on an average.

All games were judged on five different categories: Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value, and Reviewer's Tilt. Each category is assigned an integer score from one to ten, and these five integers are combined using a weighted average to arrive at an overall score. Should a game score at least 9.0, it is designated as "superb," and given "Editor's Choice" recognition.

http://wii.wikia.com/wiki/GameSpot

Each category is still arbitrary, the formula comes from the weighted average (how much each category weights?) and the stupid tilt that never made any sense. Because let's say a game's sound scored very poorly the reviewer could still use the "tilt" to make the score end up where he wanted thus rendering the average of all the categories combined irrelevant.

Seriously, that system was stupid as hell. I don't know how Gamespot went with it for so many years.

Reviewer's tilt! :D

I personally like the old reviewing system and the new one. Both are good.

It's a completely ridiculous system that would pander to people who take scores as gospel to the point they truly would act like there is some grand difference between a 9.5 and a 9.3.

I'm okay with .5 personally. I myself use labels assigned to whole numbers from 1-10.

10 being an exemplary, near flawless masterpiece that will age well

9 being a superb game that is worth its salt in its genre

8 being a great game, pretty much a higher quality 7 or a 9 with more noticeable flaws

7 being a good game, may exceed in some areas but overall presents its package with more peaks and valleys

6 being a shallower experience that saves itself based on more fleeting peaks or good to great moments

5 being a game that is boring but not straight bad. Occasionally good or great.

4 being boring and not fun

Don't play below 4 tbh

Was it that long ago?

Ha "It only scored a 7.5??" Dat reviewers tilt yo!

I would like that system again. The current one is boring in comparison.

True, but there was nothing more glorious than a game receiving a score of 0.1 over or under another game. NOTHING. For some seconds SW touched heaven.

It was ecstasy.

The formula was pretty simple. There were five categories the reviewer would score 1-10 for each. Take the total number, divide by 5. There's your score. That said, I *do* think Gamespot had the power to adjust the final number as they saw fit. Ocarina of Time got 10 in all categories but sound, in which it scored a 9. Yet, the game still got a perfect score.

Wouldn't "a weighted average" entail different significance when calculating the final score? For example:

• Gameplay= worth 20%
• Graphics= 20%
• Sound= 20%
• Value= 25%
• Reviewer's Tilt=15%

That specifically is my doubt.

I vaguely remember a portion of it.

Tilt and gameplay were weighted the same, .3 points were deducted for every subtraction from those two.

Edit: I'm apparently bad at math. One of the categories alternated between .1 and then .2. It may have been more than one. I know for sure that gameplay and tilt were consistently .3 for every one away from 10.

I like the new scoring system. I think numbers are stupid and it should actually be about the words in the review. But if you want a "rough estimate", then go look at the score, but there is no need to be so specific about a number. It's just a very rough guide, if you want a more specific answer, instead of a decimal place, go read the damn review.

In terms of "user score", as TC is talking about, then that's another issue and I'm not blaming you for being disappointed in the lack of it.

While I agree with this sentiment, I would argue that reaction wouldn't necessarily comeback if the scoring system changed. SW is dead as ****, it's like a shell of its former self, and the genuine lack of giving a shit for hype/flops these days. Twilight Princess was the last great flop.

Anyone complaining about the old system only views it in the eyes of SW. It's not necessarily about comparing two games. What the system did was justify a reason as to why a game got the score it did. It's a better reflection of the words that were written. IDK about anyone else, but there have been more than a number of times that I have read a review that did not match up with the score. The old system was more factual. The new one is more arbitrary.

A 10-point system is the most reasonable. Reviewers need to start using the entire scale instead of just the upper half. A 5 shouldn't be bad it should be average quality.

The days of decimal point trolling were glorious. Twilight Princess was an absolute shit storm with it's 8.8

I prefer Kotaku's rating system (LOL he said KOTAKU! GET HIM!).

Should you play this game?

YES/NO

Simple and to the point. No 8.243242 shit. Would prefer if they had a "WAIT FOR A PRICE DROP" option as well, but YES/NO will do. It actually forces me to read the whole review to reach a conclusion.

Twilight Princess 8.8 was the most hilarious thing in the history of SWs.

@Seabas989: @ReadingRainbow4: Not justr SW, but everywhere. Gamefaq went fucking insane.

One of the greatest meltdowns in gaming history

The 100 point scale gamespot used to subscribe to was great for system wars hilarity, but complete garbage in terms of factually assessing games...

I do like the scale done by .5's as it made for something to look at other than 7's and 8's..

But i mean, really the numerical stuff only matters when the reviewers actually use the entirety of the scale... Sooooo... The written word still wins.

I always found the old 0.1 score system to be silly. I mean I use to hate seeing games getting a score of 8.9 for example which is why IGN feels outdated to me when they are the only ones who still uses it. I liked it when Gamespot used the 0.5 score before the current scoring system today.

it seems like they got rid of the old system because it became system wars fuel. People would claim ownage if their favorite game got 0.1 higher in score, and this occurred with multiplats most of all especially with the huge difference between xbox and ps2. GS wanted to get away from the pettiness of it all, to add some sanity and professionalism to their site I suppose, but personally I think that was a mistake.

Yes. Those were the good ol days when the scoring system wasn't dumbed down.

It was also fun seeing games get hyped AAA, only to get the infamous 8.9 score.

The old system was better. What if the game is almost masterful but with few issues and I want to give it 9.8? Now all I can do is either give it 9 or 10. Even .5 system was better than the current one. At least I could give such games 9.5 etc.

GS should implement a fractional based review system. 8.0 1/4 is a much better score than 7.9 3/4. =P

Scores are the stupidest thing in gaming journalism. Less it's specific, the better.

It exists solely because fanboys can't read.

Ah I remember the mental break down of SW/Sheep when Twlp got a 8.8, think that was like a 40+ something page thread.

@Master_Live: i liked them better back then because then you could break down the game very easily. Gameplay, sound, graphics tilt & value

And praise Lara they got rid of that :P

I remember that each "category" had no influence over the final score.

If everything was shit (i.e. 4/10) but the reviewer liked it, it could still score 9/10.

Agreed, bring back the decimals!

Holy shit the BBC posts are still there after 13 days? lol. There's no way that's correct.

Either that or you mods need to do your damn job properly.

Some moron's posting twinkies again.

Eroica looks like one of those classic bullies we see on movies. lol

Who are the other 2?

We are literally the only ones that care about Gamespot's scores. Not even Gamespot cares about scores.

This is my kinda thread!

You like the big dicks?

They have to be black, though.

Of course, blacker the better.

How in the bloody hell are the BBCs still here? :/