What do you feel is the ideal scoring scale?

With all the complaining of review scores I see around here, it got me to wondering what you gamers out there feel is the ideal scale to scoring games. This breaks down as;

100 point - using a scale 1-10 with .1 increments, or the basic percentage scale
20 point - a scale of 1-10 with .5 increments
10 point - a scale from 1-10 with no decimal increments
5 point - 1-5 stars, moons, bullets, pies, balloons, bowling pins, etc...

The way I see it, the 100 point scale is too diluted and leads to pointless bickering. I mean honestly, can anyone really elaborate on the qualitative gaming experience of a game that receives a 93 from one that receives a 92?

On the other end, the 5 point scale is just too vague. If you go by 3 stars as an average, and 5 as the "near perfect" (as I'm sure we all accept there's no such thing as perfect in any game), that leaves very little definition in between. To me there is a considerable range of what falls between, from Above Average, to Good, to Great, to Excellence, before you get to that coveted Prime measure.

So what does that 4 star score mean? Is it just a bit above the 3 star average, bordering on the perfection, or somewhere right in between? Like I said, leaves too much to misinterpretation. That's why I like either a 10 or 20 point scale (voting 20 here). Gives just enough definition to differentiate quality ranges without over saturating with too many miniscule and inconsequential differences.

What do the rest of you say?

100. 20 is way to little for a game that has to much wrong with it and Vice Versa.

100. 20 is way to little for a game that has to much wrong with it and Vice Versa.

rangegear

I like 100 point I hate seeing an almost amazing 8.9 game being rounded down to 8.5

[QUOTE="rangegear"]

100. 20 is way to little for a game that has to much wrong with it and Vice Versa.

Funconsole

20 point scale. 100 is too large and largely pointless, 10 is too small. Now all we have to do is get reviewers to use the whole scale, and stop overrating mediocre games. Like Mass Effect. :)

Courtesy of yeah_write: RK-Mara

thumbs up thumbs down. I like how kotaku reviews games - without scores and just posts their likes and dislikes about the games they've played. It appears as if too many reviewers slap a score on their game first, and then use the review to try and justify the score instead of just reviewing the game and saying what they liked and disliked about it.

100 point.

I like 100 point I hate seeing an almost amazing 8.9 game being rounded down to 8.5

kate_jones

If a game was an 8.9 i doubt it would be rounded down to 8.5 instead of rounding up to 9.0, just saying. 8.6 or 8.7 would be much more likely to be rounded down.

100 point.

Mozelleple112

20 point scale. 100 is too large and largely pointless, 10 is too small. Now all we have to do is get reviewers to use the whole scale, and stop overrating mediocre games. Like Mass Effect. :)

DarkLink77

It's times like this I know that in the 20 point scale, justice has been served 8) :D

Ideally I would prefer a 100 scale, but how can you differienciate between a 93 and 95 game?

Often times a 100 score gets more then alittle inconsistant.

So a 20 point score with smaller but more mutlined tiers are likely more useful for reviewers.

I do miss the old 100 scale, but I can understand the shift to a 20 point score. So take from that what you will.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

20 point scale. 100 is too large and largely pointless, 10 is too small. Now all we have to do is get reviewers to use the whole scale, and stop overrating mediocre games. Like Mass Effect. :)

AdobeArtist

It's times like this I know that in the 20 point scale, justice has been served 8) :D

I'd rather they just not have a score at all. Then people would actually read the reviews if they wanted to know someone else's opinion.

What about him?

rangegear

100 points. I like percents. And I feel like I can really carefully "hit" what I think about a game through 100 points.

5 point or 20. 100 just creates weird 8.977232381371973190 scores that are confusing and gives reviewers less of a reason to use the full scale.

5 point scale

1: Reserved For Mass Effect 2 (and maybe Skyrim) :P
2: Dont Buy
3: Meh
4: Good For What it is
5: Excellent

But more important would be the whole scale getting used.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

20 point scale. 100 is too large and largely pointless, 10 is too small. Now all we have to do is get reviewers to use the whole scale, and stop overrating mediocre games. Like Mass Effect. :)

DarkLink77

It's times like this I know that in the 20 point scale, justice has been served 8) :D

Misusing and abusing the word "overrated" doesn't make it any more true :P

Either 100 point or 5 point scale.

I say 100 because that is sort've how Gamespots old system was and I liked it.

I said five because that is basically how most review sources go they review from 5-10.

How about a 2 point scale if it is below average just give it a "Fail". If it was above average give it a "Pass"

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It's times like this I know that in the 20 point scale, justice has been served 8) :DAdobeArtist

Misusing and abusing the word "overrated" doesn't make it any more true :P

o·ver·rate   

[oh-ver-reyt]

- verb (used with object), -rat·ed, -rat·ing.

to rate or appraise too highly; overestimate: I think you overrate their political influence.

Nope, pretty sure that I'm using the word correctly. Which is probably why RDR stomped in it tems of awards here last year. ;)

The Percentage system is best in my eyes because it shows the writer does have a firm opinion of the game and can use the precise % increments to place the game between others he has reviewed before. Whether you agree with the final figure or not, atleast that critic was prepared to put their neck on the line and give an exact answer, not some vague generalisation lesser systems use.

Any idiot can give a game 4/5 but that kind of rating is absolutely useless when you look at their other reviews, and surprise, surprise find that most of the games they reviewed all scored the same result.

The more precise the reviewer can be the more seriously I will take them and their site/magazine. Case in point - newspapers and multi-plat games magazines tend to use the simplified scale out of 5 or their own system with stupid symbols. They also tend to get writted by journalists who just get told to write a review about whatever game came in and therefore very unlikely to have specialised in either that platform or genre of game. Once you start looking at dedicated games reviews from platform specific sources you start to see the review scores are becoming more in depth, differentiating them from the Sunday paper tat.

5 point or 20. 100 just creates weird 8.977232381371973190 scores that are confusing and gives reviewers less of a reason to use the full scale.

Upparoom

Like some others have said, I'd just prefer no score at all. Just a well written review. Numerical scales feel arbitrary - suchs as the distinctions between an 9.5 and a 10. Or something like Perfect Dark - it's so hard to quantify whatever little detail that made it get a 9.9 on this site as opposed to a 10.

I think the 100 point scale is pretty dumb. I'm glad Gamespot switched it to 20 point.

If people are serious about reviews, they should not be reading a number or letter. They should be reading the written reviews. In fact, many here are like sports fans who are more concerned over the final scores than reading what happened for each game.

4-point. Everything breaks down into nice, neat categories (1=awful, 2=mediocre, 3=good, 4=great; as opposed to the arbitrary differences between, say, an 8/10 and a 9/10), providing useful at-a-glance information without overshadowing the review itself (you need the context of the review to really understand the score, whereas larger scoring systems try to totally summarize the quality of a game).

There's no need for scores of any kind; the content of a review ought to speak for itself.

100 Scale, but with no decimals.

I like Kotaku's style of reviewing games, to be honest. The answer is right there in front of you, with no score (or thumbs). You just read the damn thing.

EDIT: Wow. I should have read more posts before posting my self. Glad to see many people see that from my perspective as well.

Wait. If I start from one and go all over 10 with .05 increments I get a 20 point scale?:?

Wait. If I start from one and go all over 10 with .05 increments I get a 20 point scale?:?

glez13

When it's a pure integer system, no decimals at all, then 1-10 is a 10 point system. If you have .1 increments, then 1-10 is essentially 100 points (8.7 is the same as 87 on a 100 point or percentage scale). So yeah, having half point increments on 1-10 is the same as 1-20 without the decimals. It's about how many gradients there are in the scale, where each decimal is a gradient.

And I'm starting to see the wisdom of doing away with scores altogether. After all, not even a 10 would do justice to Mass Effect 2. Putting numbers aside, the review would simply have to declare the game "An unpredented achievement in RPGs and the unchallenged Game of the Generation". Right Darklink777, right? ;) :P

1-5 with .5 increments.

5 points.

• 1 - you shouldn't play this
• 2 - you probably shouldn't play this
• 3 - it depends heavily on your preferences whether you should play this or not
• 4 - you should probably play this if you like this type of game
• 5 - you should definitely play this if you like this type of game, or maybe even if you don't

That is all you could possibly need to say with a score. A larger scale is only good for reviewers who are wishy-washy (or simply afraid to give 'low' scores), or fanboys who want to see a bigger number beside their favorite game.

My rating scale would be:

• Day-1 Must Buy
• Solid Game
• Solid Rent
• Wait For bargain bin.
• Avoid

[QUOTE="Upparoom"]

5 point or 20. 100 just creates weird 8.977232381371973190 scores that are confusing and gives reviewers less of a reason to use the full scale.

Inconsistancy

It was a hyperbole dude :P