[POLL] Video game reviewers should start using the Siskel & Ebert review sys

Who agrees?

• Two thumbs up: Highly recommended.
• One thumb up: Recommended.
• Two thumbs down: Not recommended.

Who really needs TWENTY levels of precision when it comes to reviews? Let alone 100 levels of precision? Especially when the vast majority of reviews end up in the top half of that range?

1up is the only review site doing things right, with their A+ to F system.

Although multiple choice polls are inherently biased, yours is just exceptional. Well done sir.

no. there's not enough in between.shoeman12

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

• MGS4 - 2 thumbs up
• GTA IV - 1 thumb up
• Assassins Creed - 1 thumb down
• Haze - 2 thumbs down
• Too Human - 2 thumbs down and a shake of the head

...System Wars will be no fun, then.

You think you are smart for reading the content of the review, but it's more fun to argue about numbers that at least give you a hint of how the reviewer felt about the game. Plus, not everyone reads every review.

If you want to have no fun in System Wars, go ahead. I, on the other hand, like the 20 point system the best. I don't really like 3 at all. 5 is okay, but still a bit broad. 10 is perfectly fine, but I mostly need the 20 point system because of the 9.5's. 100 is pointless because I can't tell what makes an 8.3 game better than an 8.2 game.

GameSpot won't listen to you, anyway, which is good.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.air_wolf_cubed

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

What distinguishes AAA from AA? Wouldn't that just be the same as Highly recommended and Recommended?

And why do you need to distinguish bad from terrible? Wouldn't you avoid both anyway?

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

your way would be good average or terrible. that's like getting a 9, an 8, or a 4, no other choices. even for movies, siskel and ebert have a horrible system of reviewing them.

How would I exist if I couldn't debate between AAA and AA?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.air_wolf_cubed

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

2 thumbs down = bad

2 thumbs up = good

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

What distinguishes AAA from AA? Wouldn't that just be the same as Highly recommended and Recommended?

And why do you need to distinguish bad from terrible? Wouldn't you avoid both anyway?

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

What distinguishes AAA from AA? Wouldn't that just be the same as Highly recommended and Recommended?

And why do you need to distinguish bad from terrible? Wouldn't you avoid both anyway?

What if I only buy three games a year? I want to buy the very best of the best. And if you tell me to just read the review and find out myself, then I see no reason for any ratings at all.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.shoeman12

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

your way would be good average or terrible. that's like getting a 9, an 8, or a 4, no other choices. even for movies, siskel and ebert have a horrible system of reviewing them.

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

[QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

your way would be good average or terrible. that's like getting a 9, an 8, or a 4, no other choices. even for movies, siskel and ebert have a horrible system of reviewing them.

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.DeathScape666

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

What distinguishes AAA from AA? Wouldn't that just be the same as Highly recommended and Recommended?

And why do you need to distinguish bad from terrible? Wouldn't you avoid both anyway?

What if I only buy three games a year? I want to buy the very best of the best. And if you tell me to just read the review and find out myself, then I see no reason for any ratings at all.

Exactly. My way is a balance of both. Like someone who just glances at movie reviews, Siskel and Ebert's review system gives a general indication of the film's quality. And if the two reviewers disagree with one another (i.e. one thumb up), then the text review reveals even more about the film/game's real quality because it focuses on the points of disagreement instead of being a general description that doesn't help anyone because it tries to cover everything.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.DeathScape666

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

your way would be good average or terrible. that's like getting a 9, an 8, or a 4, no other choices. even for movies, siskel and ebert have a horrible system of reviewing them.

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

If you agree that "Highly recommended," "Recommended," and "Not recommended" covers the entire spectrum of messages that a review needs to convey, then why NOT change the system to something that focuses on the most useful part of the review (recommendations) instead of dressing it up with unnecessary steps?

If you're right, why aren't hotels rated up to twenty stars instead of only up to five stars? Why aren't restaurants rated to a hundred stars instead of only three stars? Why don't movie reviewers, book reviewers, or music reviewers use a 1-20 rating system? Why is it only games that use an insanely convoluted 1-100 or even just 1-20 system?

No, because Ocarina of Time and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves should not have the same score.Tylendal

That's what the Game of the Year awards are for. Like the Oscars.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

your way would be good average or terrible. that's like getting a 9, an 8, or a 4, no other choices. even for movies, siskel and ebert have a horrible system of reviewing them.

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

If you agree that "Highly recommended," "Recommended," and "Not recommended" covers the entire spectrum of messages that a review needs to convey, then why NOT change the system to something that focuses on the most useful part of the review (recommendations) instead of dressing it up with unnecessary steps?

If you're right, why aren't hotels rated up to twenty stars instead of only up to five stars? Why aren't restaurants rated to a hundred stars instead of only three stars? Why don't movie reviewers, book reviewers, or music reviewers use a 1-20 rating system?

No, I don't agree with that.

I don't like those rating systems. I have an opinion, dude. I feel the twenty point system is large enough to give me a simple answer that "X reviewer enjoyed Hotel A more than Hotel B." Maybe Hotel A got 20 out of 20, while Hotel B got 19 out of 20. If both Hotels got 5 out of 5, I would then have to... actually read stuff to determine which is better.

If you feel that the rating system is too exaggerated and such, then that's fine. You know their reviewing system well enough to determine whether or not "X game is recommended or not."

If you don't, then just read what they said about each rating. Simple enough.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]No, because Ocarina of Time and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves should not have the same score.mjarantilla

That's what the Game of the Year awards are for. Like the Oscars.

Then Crysis and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves would have the same score. OMGODZ!

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]No, because Ocarina of Time and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves should not have the same score.DeathScape666

That's what the Game of the Year awards are for. Like the Oscars.

Then Crysis and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves would have the same score. OMGODZ!

Crysis won "FPS of the Year." WarioWare didn't.

FAIL!

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]no. there's not enough in between.mjarantilla

thats really not specific enoughair_wolf_cubed

Why?

your way would be good average or terrible. that's like getting a 9, an 8, or a 4, no other choices. even for movies, siskel and ebert have a horrible system of reviewing them.

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

If you agree that "Highly recommended," "Recommended," and "Not recommended" covers the entire spectrum of messages that a review needs to convey, then why NOT change the system to something that focuses on the most useful part of the review (recommendations) instead of dressing it up with unnecessary steps?

If you're right, why aren't hotels rated up to twenty stars instead of only up to five stars? Why aren't restaurants rated to a hundred stars instead of only three stars? Why don't movie reviewers, book reviewers, or music reviewers use a 1-20 rating system? Why is it only games that use an insanely convoluted 1-100 or even just 1-20 system?

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]No, because Ocarina of Time and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves should not have the same score.mjarantilla

That's what the Game of the Year awards are for. Like the Oscars.

Then Crysis and Wario Ware: Smooth Moves would have the same score. OMGODZ!

Crysis won "FPS of the Year." WarioWare didn't.

FAIL!

I'm glad I failed because if I didn't, I wouldn't have gotten that extremely awesome picture. ^_^

I also don't think there was a Mini Game Compiliation of the Year. If there was, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves would win fo' sho.'

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

DeathScape666

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

If you agree that "Highly recommended," "Recommended," and "Not recommended" covers the entire spectrum of messages that a review needs to convey, then why NOT change the system to something that focuses on the most useful part of the review (recommendations) instead of dressing it up with unnecessary steps?

If you're right, why aren't hotels rated up to twenty stars instead of only up to five stars? Why aren't restaurants rated to a hundred stars instead of only three stars? Why don't movie reviewers, book reviewers, or music reviewers use a 1-20 rating system?

No, I don't agree with that.

I don't like those rating systems. I have an opinion, dude. I feel the twenty point system is large enough to give me a simple answer that "X reviewer enjoyed Hotel A more than Hotel B." Maybe Hotel A got 20 out of 20, while Hotel B got 19 out of 20. If both Hotels got 5 out of 5, I would then have to... actually read stuff to determine which is better.

If you feel that the rating system is too exaggerated and such, then that's fine. You know their reviewing system well enough to determine whether or not "X game is recommended or not."

If you don't, then just read what they said about each rating. Simple enough.

How would a number tell you that Reviewer X Hotel A more than Hotel B? What if Reviewer X had stayed in an exemplary Hotel C in between staying in Hotel A and B, and Hotel C raised his expectations and thus his standards, so he ended up reviewing Hotel B slightly lower than Hotel A only because he rated Hotel A on the old standards, while Hotel B was rated on the new standards, but they are both still on the same "tier" of quality?

That's why hotels are rated on a four/five-tier scale instead of a hundred-point scale. Hotels are rated on hundreds of individual factors, but hotel reviewers (and movie reviewers, and book reviewers, etc.) know that the recommendation is more important than the score.

FAR too vague. With the 1-10 system, only top tier gems will ever score a full 10, and then excellent, great, and so forth. With a ??/3 rating, you'd be giving anything from an 8-10 the same score, and then 6-7, when with our current system there is a huge difference between one point and its neighbors.

All that would do is make purchasing games more difficult :?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

death919

If you agree that "Highly recommended," "Recommended," and "Not recommended" covers the entire spectrum of messages that a review needs to convey, then why NOT change the system to something that focuses on the most useful part of the review (recommendations) instead of dressing it up with unnecessary steps?

If you're right, why aren't hotels rated up to twenty stars instead of only up to five stars? Why aren't restaurants rated to a hundred stars instead of only three stars? Why don't movie reviewers, book reviewers, or music reviewers use a 1-20 rating system? Why is it only games that use an insanely convoluted 1-100 or even just 1-20 system?

School grading systems are comparative in that students' grades need to be compared to one another (hence the concept of the "grading curve"), which means schools DO need a little extra detail. But even then, they still use a "general" system in the 0.0 to 4.0 GPA system. Notice how colleges and jobs tend to know only if a student "got a 3.0 or higher" GPA or "2.0 or higher" GPA? Sure, there are decimals, but no one pays attention to them. But people DO pay attention to those extra decimals in game reviews.

FAR too vague. With the 1-10 system, only top tier gems will ever score a full 10, and then excellent, great, and so forth. With a ??/3 rating, you'd be giving anything from an 8-10 the same score, and then 6-7, when with our current system there is a huge difference between one point and its neighbors.

All that would do is make purchasing games more difficult :?

WAIW

Why would you need to know the exact scores? Why would you need to know whether a game is "prime" or only "excellent" or just "great"?

In the end, reviews are intended to give RECOMMENDATIONS. And in the end there are only a few ways to convey a recommendation: highly recommended, recommended, and not recommended.

School grading systems are comparative, which means schools DO need a little extra detail. But even then, they still use a "general" system in the 0.0 to 4.0 GPA system. Notice how colleges and jobs tend to know only if a student "got a 3.0 or higher" GPA or "2.0 or higher" GPA? Sure, there are decimals, but no one pays attention to them. But people DO pay attention to those extra decimals in game reviews.

mjarantilla

In the end, reviews are intended to give RECOMMENDATIONS. And in the end there are only a few ways to convey a recommendation: highly recommended, recommended, and not recommended.

mjarantilla

Gamespot's review objectives are different than your opinion though:

"The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform".

Sorry but your rating system does not accomplish what gamespot has set out to do.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

School grading systems are comparative, which means schools DO need a little extra detail. But even then, they still use a "general" system in the 0.0 to 4.0 GPA system. Notice how colleges and jobs tend to know only if a student "got a 3.0 or higher" GPA or "2.0 or higher" GPA? Sure, there are decimals, but no one pays attention to them. But people DO pay attention to those extra decimals in game reviews.

death919

Oh please. :lol:

People never compare games in that manner, no more than they compare movies or music CDs or books. Why aren't movies, books, or music reviewed in the same way? Because it's useless.

The main difference you are missing is that school grades CAN be that specific because they are empirically graded. 38/50 questions correct? You get a 76% grade. Where is the empirical grading for games? There is none. It's all opinion, which means that everything that's stated in a game review can only be taken as a very general guideline.

Ever heard the term "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"? There is no such thing as an "accurate" review. It's pure foolishness.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Actually, it's more like 9 to 10, 7-8, and 6 and below. What's wrong with that?

mjarantilla

What the hell is wrong with just having 1-10, then? If you can equate this stupid thumbs up crap to these numbers, anyway, why even bother changing the ****ing rating system? To be less fun and be smarter?

You know what two thumbs is, what one thumb up is, and what zero thumbs up is in your mind, so why change it? Hmmm?

It's stupid. They have no reason to change it.

If you agree that "Highly recommended," "Recommended," and "Not recommended" covers the entire spectrum of messages that a review needs to convey, then why NOT change the system to something that focuses on the most useful part of the review (recommendations) instead of dressing it up with unnecessary steps?

If you're right, why aren't hotels rated up to twenty stars instead of only up to five stars? Why aren't restaurants rated to a hundred stars instead of only three stars? Why don't movie reviewers, book reviewers, or music reviewers use a 1-20 rating system?

No, I don't agree with that.

I don't like those rating systems. I have an opinion, dude. I feel the twenty point system is large enough to give me a simple answer that "X reviewer enjoyed Hotel A more than Hotel B." Maybe Hotel A got 20 out of 20, while Hotel B got 19 out of 20. If both Hotels got 5 out of 5, I would then have to... actually read stuff to determine which is better.

If you feel that the rating system is too exaggerated and such, then that's fine. You know their reviewing system well enough to determine whether or not "X game is recommended or not."

If you don't, then just read what they said about each rating. Simple enough.

How would a number tell you that Reviewer X Hotel A more than Hotel B? What if Reviewer X had stayed in an exemplary Hotel C in between staying in Hotel A and B, and Hotel C raised his expectations and thus his standards, so he ended up reviewing Hotel B slightly lower than Hotel A only because he rated Hotel A on the old standards, while Hotel B was rated on the new standards, but they are both still on the same "tier" of quality?

That's why hotels are rated on a four/five-tier scale instead of a hundred-point scale. Hotels are rated on hundreds of individual factors, but hotel reviewers (and movie reviewers, and book reviewers, etc.) know that the recommendation is more important than the score.

Yes, but that holds true for both the twenty point system and the three point system. On top of that, the review would also call Hotel B just "good" even though it's better than Hotel A---referred to as "great"--- after seeing the excellent of Hotel C. The review would also alter.

But you made your point. I understand what you mean, and you gave legitiment reasons for wanting this system rather than the current one. I don't need anymore of an explanation. I respect the fact that you backed up what you said with very good reasons, but I still disagree with you. Even if my arguments are terrible and unreasonable, I still stand by what I say. Not because I'm ignorant, but because even if all these points in favor of the three point system are against me, I still feel a desire towards the twenty point system for a reason I simply can't explain. The reason for my preference may be silly, stupid, or unprofessional to you, but that doesn't really matter to me. I know I came off as cynical at first, and I'm sorry for that.

You don't have to convince me anymore. I understand where you are coming from, but my stance still remains the same.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="WAIW"]

FAR too vague. With the 1-10 system, only top tier gems will ever score a full 10, and then excellent, great, and so forth. With a ??/3 rating, you'd be giving anything from an 8-10 the same score, and then 6-7, when with our current system there is a huge difference between one point and its neighbors.

All that would do is make purchasing games more difficult :?

death919

Why would you need to know the exact scores? Why would you need to know whether a game is "prime" or only "excellent" or just "great"?

In the end, reviews are intended to give RECOMMENDATIONS. And in the end there are only a few ways to convey a recommendation: highly recommended, recommended, and not recommended.

Halo has a 9.5 on IGN, and 9.5 here. Super Mario Galaxy has a 9.7 on IGN and a 9.5 here. How do you know which game is recommended more than the other?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

In the end, reviews are intended to give RECOMMENDATIONS. And in the end there are only a few ways to convey a recommendation: highly recommended, recommended, and not recommended.

death919

Gamespot's review objectives are different than your opinion though:

"The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform".

Sorry but your rating system does not accomplish what gamespot has set out to do.

What GameSpot has set out to do is stupid and arrogant and has no place in a practical world. It's a fantasy that caters to fantasists, which is why it should be changed to a more realistic system.

1up has already done it. It may not be as general as Siskel & Ebert's, but it still works pretty well. A direct A to F system, with no "plusses" or "minuses" would've been better, though.

What GameSpot has set out to do is stupid and arrogant and has no place in a practical world. It's a fantasy that caters to fantasists, which is why it should be changed to a more realistic system.

1up has already done it. It may not be as general as Siskel & Ebert's, but it still works pretty well. A direct A to F system, with no "plusses" or "minuses" would've been better, though.

mjarantilla

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

What GameSpot has set out to do is stupid and arrogant and has no place in a practical world. It's a fantasy that caters to fantasists, which is why it should be changed to a more realistic system.

1up has already done it. It may not be as general as Siskel & Ebert's, but it still works pretty well. A direct A to F system, with no "plusses" or "minuses" would've been better, though.

death919

Nope, in reality. When I say that personal opinions can't be applied to the general population with any kind of accuracy, that's not an opinion, that's fact. And by extension, any attempt to act contrary to that fact cannot be fact. Hence, it is fantasy.

I don't know why you even need to bother with thumbs. Just get rid of scores altogether, as many movie reviewers do.

If you're relying solely on the numbers to tell you the difference between a great game and an exceptional one, you aren't using reviews properly. The text is the substance of the review. All the score needs to tell you is, "Is this game worthwhile?" and the text of the review can handle the rest, including giving the full spectrum of that relative quality.

Someone mentioned being bothered by the possibility that Wario Ware Smooth Moves and Crysis would have the same score. But are you really going to rely on an abstract numbering system to tell you relative quality between games? You know that Wario Ware and Crysis aren't remotely similar, and are hardly comparable. You don't need a complex distinct scale to tell you that. So let the reviews compare the games that need to be compared, and let the scores handle only the most general of judgments.

Now is this Ebert and Zombie Siskel? Or Ebert and Roeper. Not to sound nitpicky or anything. :PLocke562

Ebert & Roeper came after Siskel & Ebert, so it's still the Siskel & Ebert system because they "originated" it (I think). :P

[QUOTE="death919"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

What GameSpot has set out to do is stupid and arrogant and has no place in a practical world. It's a fantasy that caters to fantasists, which is why it should be changed to a more realistic system.

1up has already done it. It may not be as general as Siskel & Ebert's, but it still works pretty well. A direct A to F system, with no "plusses" or "minuses" would've been better, though.

mjarantilla

Nope, in reality. When I say that opinions can't be accurate, that's not opinion, that's fact. And by extension, any attempt to act contrary to that fact cannot be fact. Hence, it is fantasy.

Agreed -- its simple + effective.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Nope, in reality. When I say that opinions can't be accurate, that's not opinion, that's fact. And by extension, any attempt to act contrary to that fact cannot be fact. Hence, it is fantasy.

death919

Nobody stated that.

It's a fact that opinions, as well as game quality, are not quantitative things. They can't be measured with any degree of accuracy. From this fact, it seems logical to reason that any attempt to produce a quantitiative result for a problem that has no quantitative answer will fail.

What people like has nothing to do with it.

Nobody stated that. sonicmj1

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]Nobody stated that. death919

He never said that people would prefer his system. He just said that the current system is based on a fantasy, and it should be changed to better reflect the nature of video games and how people use reviews.

Unless I missed a quote where he said that people would prefer his system. If you can show me that quote, I'll admit I'm wrong.

[QUOTE="death919"][QUOTE="sonicmj1"]Nobody stated that. sonicmj1

He never said that people would prefer his system. He just said that the current system is based on a fantasy, and it should be changed to better reflect the nature of video games and how people use reviews.

Unless I missed a quote where he said that people would prefer his system. If you can show me that quote, I'll admit I'm wrong.

But at the end of the day:

SYSTEM WARS WOULDN'T BE FUN WITHOUT THE CURRENT REVIEW SYSTEM. :D

It was never directly stated, but why make a thread that basically says "we should switch from a review system that people like to a review system that people don't like"? I'm assuming that if he's making a thread about a new review system, it's because he feels that more people will prefer the new system. Because why would gamespot change their review system to something less liked and get less website views? It wouldn't make sense.

death919

Historically, there's precedent that people like scores in their game reviews. It's always tended to be that way. CGW (when it was a magazine called CGW) tried getting rid of scores for a while, and reader outcry forced them to put the scores back.

But just because people like something the way it is doesn't mean that it's right to forego change when change is the right thing to do. I support a more general scoring system (or abolishing scores altogether) not because I think people will like it, but because I think it will lead to more informative and useful reviews (reviews have text too, you know), and less squabbling over decimal points. Not to be melodramatic, but I support this stance because I believe it's the right course of action to take, regardless of what people think. If people didn't stand up for what they thought was right because 'the general public doesn't like it', the world would be a much worse place.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="death919"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

What GameSpot has set out to do is stupid and arrogant and has no place in a practical world. It's a fantasy that caters to fantasists, which is why it should be changed to a more realistic system.

1up has already done it. It may not be as general as Siskel & Ebert's, but it still works pretty well. A direct A to F system, with no "plusses" or "minuses" would've been better, though.

death919

Nope, in reality. When I say that opinions can't be accurate, that's not opinion, that's fact. And by extension, any attempt to act contrary to that fact cannot be fact. Hence, it is fantasy.