Petition for GS not to change rating system!!

Petition to not change the GS rating system to have the scores rounded to .5s

vote and then"sign" the petition if youdont want it to change

Here is a great example. XBOX 360 has 3 good racing games FORZA 2(9.2), PROJECT GOTHAM RACING(8.8}, BURNOUT REVENGE(8.8}. now under the old rating system we can clearly see what one is the best, but under the new system they are all rated 9s. See this system is flawed, please dont change it gamespot!!

Yeah I think it's really STUPID Gamespot will NO LONGER become the landmark of game ratings. I love the accruatization of the ratings unlike most game sites, and that is what made it so good.

It would be cool if they did like 9.23 an extra decimal to make it even more accurate. Are the workers just getting lazy or something? Or is Gamespot changing into Casualgamerspot.com

HELL NO!!mattyomo99

QFT!

See, I remember someone from Gamespot themselves saying that review sites are so the buyer knows what games to buy. Well what if one game was meant to score a 9.3, and the other a 9.7, so they rounded them both to 9.5. Well 9.7 is a little better than 9.3. People might buy the worst between the two.

I cannot stand this new system. I might have to rely on IGN now.

I'm not big on petitions. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for a couple of reviews, and if they still suck, I'm moving on to greener pastures. The reviews were the only good thing about this place. The news is late, third-hand, meant not to offend any of the corporate entities that sell advertising on the site, the reviews come out late, you have to pay for high quality trailers that other sites give you free of charge, and the forums are moderated to the point of fascism. The reviews are really the only edge that GS has, and when thats gone, so am I.

I know Jeff likes this new .5 system because he will never have to give a higher score to a review than the 9.6 Gears got. It seems funny that they made this change right after Greg left. And before you ask, yes I think Gerst is that much of a fanboy.

Yeah I think it's really STUPID Gamespot will NO LONGER become the landmark of game ratings. I love the accruatization of the ratings unlike most game sites, and that is what made it so good.

COBHC_reaper

No they should not change it.

.3 to .7 is a gap of .4... That is only .1 off the rounded score... If .5 is big then .4 gap is nothing to scoff about. No one will be-able to tell for the simple reason they will both score .5

Yeah, yeah, there is medals. So what? Makes it more complicated because you have to compare medals side by side... Instead of easy to remember scores.

if they do this Im done with GS

if they do this Im done with GS

mattyomo99

I'd prefer the current system. Granted the numbers don't mean anything without the context of the review, the current "automatic" weighted system works very well in my opinion.Vampyronight

A game that would have scored a 9.9 will be the same as a game that scored a 9.3. Gamespot no longer gives out tensTEH_rankie

for the people who said yes, why? why do you want a more vague system instead of a more accurate one?mattyomo99

I could care less about one sites numerical review. I look at many sites reviews, and I never use the numerical score. I read the text of the reviews, since that is the important part, and I use that to judge whether or not a game would be appealing to me.

[QUOTE="COBHC_reaper"]

Yeah I think it's really STUPID Gamespot will NO LONGER become the landmark of game ratings. I love the accruatization of the ratings unlike most game sites, and that is what made it so good.

rhaigun

It's anything but laughable. Gamerankings ends up tallying scores from suck-up sites that give any half-decent game a 9+ score. It totally skews the average. Example, PC Gamer gave Just Cause a 90%, I bought the game based on that review, it turned out it was a lot more like a 7.something, which was what GS gave it. GS until very recently was the place to get your reviews. This review system will change it.

This whole thing reminds me a little of the magazine The Source and their reviews. At one time they were the only rating to pay attention to, and "5 mics" was the most coveted accolade for a rap album. A few public missteps (scandals, if you will), 2 or 3 completely horrible reviews, and nobody important pays attention to them anymore. Now it's all about HipHopSite.com. Reviews are absolutely integral to Gamespot's success, and their word undoubtedly carried the most weight in the gaming industry. I suspect that will change, dramatically, in the wake of this new review system.

Reviews are absolutely integral to Gamespot's success, and their word undoubtedly carried the most weight in the gaming industry. I suspect that will change, dramatically, in the wake of this new review system. D_Znuhtz

Who are you to say that? There are plenty of places that have coveted reviews. Gamespot it not special in that regard. What Gamespot is most known for is the forums, not the reviews, although their reviews are among the best, they are far from the one with the most weight.

Anyone else thinking this is just because Jeff G has been getting chewed out for his reviews lately? I do like the "emblems" idea though.PBSnipes

Honestly, its not our fault that Jeff can't do reviews. He should just be fired and the old system can stay.

In looking through some of the posts in this thread, I have some rather sobering news for some of you:

Gamespot doesn't give 2 craps about the System Wars forum of it's rules and logic.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Anyone else thinking this is just because Jeff G has been getting chewed out for his reviews lately? I do like the "emblems" idea though.Hippostrike

Honestly, its not our fault that Jeff can't do reviews. He should just be fired and the old system can stay.

[QUOTE="D_Znuhtz"]Reviews are absolutely integral to Gamespot's success, and their word undoubtedly carried the most weight in the gaming industry. I suspect that will change, dramatically, in the wake of this new review system. SpruceCaboose

Who are you to say that? There are plenty of places that have coveted reviews. Gamespot it not special in that regard. What Gamespot is most known for is the forums, not the reviews, although their reviews are among the best, they are far from the one with the most weight.

What do you mean "who am I to say that"? I am D_Znuhtz. I don't have to be anyone particular to speak my mind. What I stated was my opinion, and you can disagree with it. Just the way I disagree that GS is known for the forums (GameFAQS) which are moderated and disinfected to the point that you can't even say what's on your mind. I think GS is easily more well-regarded because of their reviews than anything else. GS reviews are what sell games, not "who do u think wud win in a fight" threads, and when you're spending 70 bucks on a video game, you might want a reliable source of information.

for the people who said yes, why? why do you want a more vague system instead of a more accurate one?mattyomo99

Because you obviously dont understand that a 1/10 of a difference between scores blow a half a point is rather meaningless, vague and inefficient. The difference between an 8.8 game and 9.2 game as to which is better is up personal opinion, the difference is so minute. Hell there are 7.5 games that are better than 9.5 games, based on a person's opinion and taste.

A half point differential allows for a more definitive difference between games. Scores are there to get a very general idea of a game, the actual review is what matters. Going by a number alone to decide which is a better game to buy is just stupid, the only reason people here care is because now they cant own each other saying their game got a 9.6 and the other persons game got a 9.4, so their game is obviously better.

round them.

its easier

[QUOTE="mattyomo99"]for the people who said yes, why? why do you want a more vague system instead of a more accurate one?enduin

Because you obviously dont understand that a 1/10 of a difference between scores blow a half a point is rather meaningless, vague and inefficient. The difference between an 8.8 game and 9.2 game as to which is better is up personal opinion, the difference is so minute. Hell there are 7.5 games that are better than 9.5 games, based on a person's opinion and taste.

A half point differential allows for a more definitive difference between games. Scores are there to get a very general idea of a game, the actual review is what matters. Going by a number alone to decide which is a better game to buy is just stupid, the only reason people here care is because now they cant own each other saying their game got a 9.6 and the other persons game got a 9.4, so their game is obviously better.

And you obviously don't understand that a score based on .1 increments is inherently more accurate than one based on .5 increments.

I don't hate the change,but I don't particularly like it.I'm mainly just neutral about it.But really,all I care about is the full written review.The numbers don't really matter much.

Are there people here aware that GS is not the only gaming review site on the net?

And hey, you guys have already made your decision to hide behind gamerankings, so whats the point of this?:|

round them.

its easier

oback

Great argument. :roll: I hope they listen to the great, unwashed and unpunctuated masses on this one. Durr make it easier soes like I kin unnerstan it hee haw!

Are there people here aware that GS is not the only gaming review site on the net?

And hey, you guys have already made your decision to hide behind gamerankings, so whats the point of this?:|

FrenziedRaldo24

its the most accurate and best in my mind

[QUOTE="enduin"]

[QUOTE="mattyomo99"]for the people who said yes, why? why do you want a more vague system instead of a more accurate one?D_Znuhtz

Because you obviously dont understand that a 1/10 of a difference between scores blow a half a point is rather meaningless, vague and inefficient. The difference between an 8.8 game and 9.2 game as to which is better is up personal opinion, the difference is so minute. Hell there are 7.5 games that are better than 9.5 games, based on a person's opinion and taste.

A half point differential allows for a more definitive difference between games. Scores are there to get a very general idea of a game, the actual review is what matters. Going by a number alone to decide which is a better game to buy is just stupid, the only reason people here care is because now they cant own each other saying their game got a 9.6 and the other persons game got a 9.4, so their game is obviously better.

And you obviously don't understand that a score based on .1 increments is inherently more accurate than one based on .5 increments. C'est la vie.

[QUOTE="enduin"]

[QUOTE="mattyomo99"]for the people who said yes, why? why do you want a more vague system instead of a more accurate one?D_Znuhtz

Because you obviously dont understand that a 1/10 of a difference between scores blow a half a point is rather meaningless, vague and inefficient. The difference between an 8.8 game and 9.2 game as to which is better is up personal opinion, the difference is so minute. Hell there are 7.5 games that are better than 9.5 games, based on a person's opinion and taste.

A half point differential allows for a more definitive difference between games. Scores are there to get a very general idea of a game, the actual review is what matters. Going by a number alone to decide which is a better game to buy is just stupid, the only reason people here care is because now they cant own each other saying their game got a 9.6 and the other persons game got a 9.4, so their game is obviously better.

And you obviously don't understand that a score based on .1 increments is inherently more accurate than one based on .5 increments. C'est la vie.

In a perfect world maybe, but everyone is different so that .1 difference means nothing. And again you miss the point because the actual number is rather meaningless, its a tool to organize games and give people a general idea as to the quality of the game, the review(along with screenshots, previews, and vidoes), not the numerical score are what people are supposed to use to judge whether they want the game or not.

Only people on forums who bicker about games care about decimal increments, outside of that they arent useful and should not carry any weight. Until you all understand the role the numerical score has and its real world value its quite meaningless to argue which system is better.

HELL NO!

*SIGNED*

[QUOTE="FrenziedRaldo24"]

Are there people here aware that GS is not the only gaming review site on the net?

And hey, you guys have already made your decision to hide behind gamerankings, so whats the point of this?:|

mattyomo99

its the most accurate and best in my mind

I gotta wonder how many people here actually READ reviews from multiple gaming sites rather than just looking at numbers. Unfortunately I don't think the GS editors are going to care about what the whiny fanboys think just for the sake of more tension in this forum:|

i bet cows are voting to keep the .5 systemOldParr

:lol:... I couldn't help but laugh a little.

[QUOTE="D_Znuhtz"][QUOTE="enduin"]

[QUOTE="mattyomo99"]for the people who said yes, why? why do you want a more vague system instead of a more accurate one?enduin

Because you obviously dont understand that a 1/10 of a difference between scores blow a half a point is rather meaningless, vague and inefficient. The difference between an 8.8 game and 9.2 game as to which is better is up personal opinion, the difference is so minute. Hell there are 7.5 games that are better than 9.5 games, based on a person's opinion and taste.

A half point differential allows for a more definitive difference between games. Scores are there to get a very general idea of a game, the actual review is what matters. Going by a number alone to decide which is a better game to buy is just stupid, the only reason people here care is because now they cant own each other saying their game got a 9.6 and the other persons game got a 9.4, so their game is obviously better.

And you obviously don't understand that a score based on .1 increments is inherently more accurate than one based on .5 increments. C'est la vie.

In a perfect world maybe, but everyone is different so that .1 difference means nothing. And again you miss the point because the actual number is rather meaningless, its a tool to organize games and give people a general idea as to the quality of the game, the review(along with screenshots, previews, and vidoes), not the numerical score are what people are supposed to use to judge whether they want the game or not.

Only people on forums who bicker about games care about decimal increments, outside of that they arent useful and should not carry any weight. Until you all understand the role the numerical score has and its real world value its quite meaningless to argue which system is better.

The number is anything but "rather meaningless". You can word a 7.3 review to make it sound like the pros outweigh the cons by a healthy margin, but numbers put it in black and white. The difference between a 6.5 review and an 8.7 review is that I will actually read the 8.7 review before deciding whether I want to even rent the game, while a 6.5 to me equates to a total waste of time and money. Anyway this is besides the point. The difference won't come down to a .1. An 8.7 game like Supreme Commander is obviously not as ground-breaking and genre-defining as God of War (9.3), yet they could conceivably both be lumped together under the new system.

Gamespot's review system was the best. They are changing it because Jeff got too much flak from fanboys? This sounds like the answer to all their troubles :lol: .5 increments are too generic. Reviews should be 1.0-10.0 or 1-100%. I don't want wiggle room when my money is at stake.

I believe it's a good idea. I was reluctant at first, but I'm seeing it clearer now. Think about it: the difference between an 8.3 and an 8.7 (both are rounded 8.5) can't be more than personal reviewer opinion. The perfect reviewer would have to be completely unbiased, totally deprived of personal opinion (much like a perfect journalist, in most cases) but that is, obviously, impossible.

With that in mind, it is obvious that the score of a game is going to be mixed with the reviewer's opinion (which is necessarily different from anyone's opinion - the most it can be is similar) and, by making scores evolve in larger steps, a portion of the reviewer's opinion is lost, which is a good thing, because what is an 8.7 for a reviewer can be an 8.4 for you, and in that case an 8.5 would serve both equally. Additionally, this new system reduces this opinative bias because, given that you trust the reviewer's credibility, probably any other credible reviewer would give the same game the same 8.5 score, independently of opinion, whereas in the old system, one may give it 8.3, another one 8.7 and so on...

Now, you may argue, what if the reviewer's opinion matches mine? What if an 8.7 for the reviewer would actually be an 8.7 for me? Well, that's when the actual review comes in. If you find a score that pleases you, you go read the review, which gives both factual data from the game (graphic quality, sound, etc.) and the inevitable opinion. That's when you decide if that opinion matches your own, or if it doesn't, and you move on. Everybody wins.

(...) An 8.7 game like Supreme Commander is obviously not as ground-breaking and genre-defining as God of War (9.3), yet they could conceivably both be lumped together under the new system.

D_Znuhtz

You're wrong. If you round those scores, Supreme Commander gets an 8.5 and God of War gets an 9.5.

The number is anything but "rather meaningless". You can word a 7.3 review to make it sound like the pros outweigh the cons by a healthy margin, but numbers put it in black and white. The difference between a 6.5 review and an 8.7 review is that I will actually read the 8.7 review before deciding whether I want to even rent the game, while a 6.5 to me equates to a total waste of time and money. Anyway this is besides the point. The difference won't come down to a .1. An 8.7 game like Supreme Commander is obviously not as ground-breaking and genre-defining as God of War (9.3), yet they could conceivably both be lumped together under the new system.

D_Znuhtz

The number does not put it in black and white, they are just as much subject to bias as the review, not even mention the Tilt score is completely based on the reviewers bias. At least with the review you have a better chance of seeing how much the reviewer favors or dislikes the game. And its not like they are reviewing the games the same way as they have, the whole system of how games are reviewed is being changed not just the numerical rating. Award and demerits are being given to games to point out specific flaws and achievements.

And your point about Supreme Commander and God of War is completely moot since thats up for debate depending on a persons tastes. It only matters to those people here that they could be lumped together. In an actual buying situation a person wouldnt compare their scores to decide which to buy because they are completely different games, its a non factor. As well we dont know the rating critea for the new system because they are not using the 5 ponit system of Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value and Tilt. Whose to say that GoW wouldnt receive a a 9.5 under the new system and Supreme Commander an 8.5 or 9.0.

Its sad you think a 6.5 renders a game a complete waste since there are multitudes of 6 and 7 rated games that are simply great, as well as many many 8 and 9 rated games that are complete bores and wastes of time. Baten Kaitos Origins is one of the best RPGs of last gen yet it only got a 7.5, while Dragon Quest VIII a completely archaic and bland game whose only achievement was a beautiful world and graphics got a 9.0. Both reviewed by the same person. Ratings do not always equate to whether a game is good or not they are just a general marker, which even then doesnt always do its job.