This is why GS has the best rating system

I'm very glad they changed it to a .5 system, just now IGN gave their 3rd 8.9 in a row. MLB10,BFBC2,FFXIII. I mean using simple math, going past .5 would be the next greater number or below would keep it at that. You simply cannot explain why a game can get a 8.9 and not a 9.0, just give it a 8.5 then to show its good but not nearly a good enough game to earn a 9.0. A 8.9 says yeah it should get a 9.0 but we're nitpicking the score to microdetails that the written review will never show or explain. Bada-bing, bada-boom!

They gave mlb a 8.9, gow3 a 9.3 and mass effect a 9.6. Wow

I agree I hate how they give 8.9's just so they game doesn't get AAA. They should have to address why it didn't get .1 higher.

On the other hand, the thing I don't like with GS's system is when the same game gets 2 different scores (Fallout 3 for example got a 9 on 360 and an 8.5 for PS3). Now I've played a full playthrough on each console. On PS3, the game was buggy at times, had frame rate drops, and froze sometimes.

I was expecting the 360 version to a lot better, but I experienced the exact same issues (not as often, but they still interrupted the game). That and the 360 had slightly better graphics. I don't think a .5 spread would justify the difference since it isn't that significant. Maybe the 360 version would be a 9 and then PS3 version would make an 8.7-8 maybe

agree there isn't much difference between between 2 games that have increments of .1. the .5 system is better. Also i wouldn't necessarily would compare different games cause IGN has alot of inconsistant standards when it comes to rating compare the BFBC2 review to MW2 for example

They gave mlb a 8.9, gow3 a 9.3 and mass effect a 9.6. Wow

Aboogie5

I like how movie reviews are done. 4 stars is perfect. Really, a .5/.1 scale up to 10 is just for show and talk. It's fun yeah, but 4/4 is all we need.

I preferred the old .1 scale and just round it off.

Why just not complete number scoreage is not better?

the only systems that fail are those that have less than a 10 point system, so like a 5 star system, or those that use a 100 point system like IGN. a 10 or 20 point system (20 point like GS) are good. I also like the 40 point system of Game Informer a lot, but thats probably cause I just like Game Informer. navstar29

[QUOTE="navstar29"]the only systems that fail are those that have less than a 10 point system, so like a 5 star system, or those that use a 100 point system like IGN. a 10 or 20 point system (20 point like GS) are good. I also like the 40 point system of Game Informer a lot, but thats probably cause I just like Game Informer. gammon56

No, they have .25, .50. .75 and whole numbers, so it's not a 10 point system.

I don't think it really matters, honestly...an 8.9 rounds off to a 9, and a 9.2 rounds off to a 9.0, in my eyes (what's with the extra odd numbers? I'm glad GS stuck to the simpler .5 increments). DethSkematik

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. I can see why you would think "oh it would automatically round up", but I don't think it works like that in reviews. Like I said, why would a game that is "great" by GS standards on the old rating system suddenly become AAA and editior's choice on the new system?

If they consider a game "great", I don't see how it suddenly recieves different (better) status just because of the way the rating system is.

I'd rather have a letter grade system. A+, A, A-, etc...

I think they should stick with the 5 point system, but I think a second opinion that goes by 1 point increments would be cool too.

I actually prefer the old .1 system. But the .5 system is just fine too. Granted even at school I hate getting 79's and 89's on my tests. :P

I'd rather have a letter grade system. A+, A, A-, etc...

kholdstare61

This. I want it to feel like school

[QUOTE="DethSkematik"]I don't think it really matters, honestly...an 8.9 rounds off to a 9, and a 9.2 rounds off to a 9.0, in my eyes (what's with the extra odd numbers? I'm glad GS stuck to the simpler .5 increments). Doolz2024

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. I can see why you would think "oh it would automatically round up", but I don't think it works like that in reviews. Like I said, why would a game that is "great" by GS standards on the old rating system suddenly become AAA and editior's choice on the new system?

If they consider a game "great", I don't see how it suddenly recieves different (better) status just because of the way the rating system is.

The 5 /5 scale is the best, as it quickly tells you all you need to know from the # part of the review.

5 Great game, a masterpiece.

4 Good game.

3 Game was alright, get it if you like the genre.

2 Bad game, only get if you are a hard core (blind) fan or if they are literally giving them away.

1 Game is horrible, and deserves to be burned rather than played.

Ive always been fond of the star rating system, giant bomb does it pretty well, and most movie sites use it.

http://www.giantbomb.com/help/ scroll down to the second question and it elaborates on their rating system. With numerical ratings its always so spotty, even in .5 increments. Hell there are people on system wars that make 8.0's seem like bad games, thats insane! Even lettering systems are better, it narrows things down much better, unlike numerical systems which are way to broad.

I actually prefer these types because they can be more personal for what the reviewer may feel for the score through his experiences, not all of which could be translated to paper without spoiler alerts and in some cases may require actual psychic links to actually convey what they felt.

I prefer on a scale of 1-5 because it's much more specific on the quality of the game itself.

I've heard Jeff Gerstmann was the one that really pushed for the .5 system. As .1 doesn't really matter. I mean what makes one game .1 better than the other. Which is also one of the reasons he uses the 5 star rating system at his own site. (GiantBomb) I've also heard Adam Sessler discuss how there shouldn't really even be scores for games. And readers should just take what they want out of a review and judge if they want to buy it or not.

[QUOTE="gammon56"][QUOTE="navstar29"]the only systems that fail are those that have less than a 10 point system, so like a 5 star system, or those that use a 100 point system like IGN. a 10 or 20 point system (20 point like GS) are good. I also like the 40 point system of Game Informer a lot, but thats probably cause I just like Game Informer. StealthMonkey4

No, they have .25, .50. .75 and whole numbers, so it's not a 10 point system.

I was totally against the .5 system when Gamespot came out with it but it has really grown on me. I use it myself now when rating games.

I've also heard Adam Sessler discuss how there shouldn't really even be scores for games. And readers should just take what they want out of a review and judge if they want to buy it or not.Microdevine

I agree with him. I believe Play Magazine attempted the same (not sure if they still have it) but caught some flack for it.

I prefer the 1-1,000,000 scale, where clearly a 987,389 rated game is better than a 987,386 game, which are both outdone by the 989,621 game which scored an extra 2000 just for being an FPS.

I think whatever scale a site/company/magazine uses is alright. Being an */5 system or */10 system or whatever, doesn't really matter. Maybe people should forget about the number and actually read/watch the review?

i like the .5 system but GS reviews are getting all over the place lately

Clearly there is enough to differentiate games by 0.25 increments out of 10. I agree that 0.1 is really nitpicky, but I can't help but feeling that a 0.5 is too broad. Surely some 9.0 games could be nudged down to 8.75 or up to 9.25.

I strongly disagree.

A .1 rating system grants more more freedom when reviewing games to really express how the game stacks up in your head. It's not nitpicking, it's legitimate. Since gamespot switched over, I've given many 8.5 ratings, and in no way were all games in the category equal. A .1 rating system is essential for differentiating between games.

After all, most games worth buying get at least a 7.5 or 8.0. That's basically 5 possible scores a game can receive (not counting 10.0, which no game should ever receive). That is incredibly limiting.

Think of it like a score inside a teir, 9.0 means it hit the amazing and 9.8 would mean its ****ing awesome vs 9.0 which is only amazing. I think giving it an 8.9 just means its really really really good, but lacks somethign that makes it amazing.

The old system is far superior. Why choose less precision when you can have more? Kevin could have taken .1 or .2 off for FF13's poor graphical performance on 360, he wouldn't be forced to take .5 off. That's a terrible system.

I like how movie reviews are done. 4 stars is perfect. Really, a .5/.1 scale up to 10 is just for show and talk. It's fun yeah, but 4/4 is all we need.

LOXO7