EGM changes its 15+ year rating system

[Steven]

Got the latest ish today. Say goodbye numbers, and hello letters. EGM's "classic" 0-10 rating has officially been replaced by an A+ through F system with their April 2008 issue (#227).

They say the reason for change: now it's easier for the readers to gauge. C is average, in any book, whereas many people see 5/10 as average, and some others see 7/10 (70%) as average, despite EGM clearly listing a 5.0 as average.

Their classic Platinum, Gold and Silver Awards still stands.

[Snapple]

I think it makes sense. There would be nothing wrong with the number system if people actually freaking used 5/10 for average. Having a 10-point system and then never using most of the numbers is so dumb. At least yeah, a "C" is average in anyone's book.

You know who was really terrible with the 10 point system? Judgment Day on G4. Every episode had a few quotes like, "It's a mediocre game, no better than a rental. I give it an 8 out of 10."

[InsaneDavid]

You know who was really terrible with the 10 point system? Judgment Day on G4. Every episode had a few quotes like, "It's a mediocre game, no better than a rental. I give it an 8 out of 10."

That's because Victor Lucas and Tommy Tallarico are both tools. I don't care what you've composed, you still come across as a total asshole Tommy.

[Berserker]

That's because Victor Lucas and Tommy Tallarico are both tools. I don't care what you've composed, you still come across as a total asshole Tommy.

This is a total aside, but Victor Lucas always kinda reminded me of one of those guys from those ITT Tech commercials.

As for the topic, even though I don't read EGM I think ditching the numbers system is good news, as it's one step closer to the Utopian ideal of "buy it" or "don't buy it".

[swlovinist]

I stopped at issue 216 or so. I encourage any change to the mag to make it better than what it has become. When EGM went to the "talk conversation way of reviewing games", I absolutely hated it. I missed the boxed paragraphs and reviews individual reviews gave. I predict that this mag will be the next to go, I give it less than a year.

[FrakAttack]

People still read video game magazines? :?

[Steven]

I stopped at issue 216 or so. I encourage any change to the mag to make it better than what it has become. When EGM went to the "talk conversation way of reviewing games", I absolutely hated it. I missed the boxed paragraphs and reviews individual reviews gave. I predict that this mag will be the next to go, I give it less than a year.


Oh tell me about it. I too hate, hate, *HATE* the current lame conversational review style. The old boxed paragraphs of the 90s (and into the 00s) were simple, served its point, and looked sweet. The current review layout is just BLEH.

And even though the smaller reviews of the 90s weren't exactly Hemmingway, they were much more fun to read than today's lame crap.

[/rant]

[boatofcar]

I'd like to see it dumbed down even further-- Buy, Rent, Avoid.

[Slate]

I'd like to see it dumbed down even further-- Buy, Rent, Avoid.

I rent all games before I buy so that system wouldn't work for me.. Not that I've read a single EGM magazine since 2003/2004.

[NE146]

Anyone remember EGM's "Direct Hit" review system where if a game was just good but average it get a "Hit" rating, or if it was really good it'd get a "Direct Hit!" rating?

Problem was the only thing I think I ever saw were "hits" and "direct hits" ROFL

[Push Upstairs]

I seem to recall "Super Monaco GP" getting two 10's.

Did any other game ever get a 10 rating?

[boatofcar]

I seem to recall "Super Monaco GP" getting two 10's.

Did any other game ever get a 10 rating?

Sure, all the freakin time. I think the last one was Halo 3 with two 10's and a 9.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'd like to see it dumbed down even further-- Buy, Rent, Avoid.

Buy has a few variables that could be addressed better. There is a distinction between near universal must own titles and the games fans of the series/genre/developer shouldn't miss and deserves better than a 'rent' but, may not be for everyone. The reader could make that distinction for themselves but, when the readership can't read a 5/10 as average they still need training wheels.

[RetroYoungen]

Hmm... maybe one of those free magazine subscriptions will start back up and I can see this new system... but I'm not interested in buying an issue to see how they're planning to make it work.

As close as I'm getting now is downloading their video podcast. And that's because I get to see some footage, and it's free. 'Tis all.

[emceelokey]

Makes sense to me. Whenever I grade anything I typically use the A-F grading or 1-5 since those are pretty much the same. anything 1-10 is pretty useless. Especially if they do .5,.6,.7 or any thing after a decimal. Is there much of a difference between a game that's 8.5 and 8.7?

[blue lander]

That's because Victor Lucas and Tommy Tallarico are both tools. I don't care what you've composed, you still come across as a total asshole Tommy.

I remember getting in a lengthy argument with Tommy on the Judgment Day board about how tilted their scoring system was, and of course he saw nothing wrong with the whole "two guys play a game for a bit, give whatever cursory off-the-cuff observations they think of, and then score it with a virtually random number" system of rating games.

He may be a raging, arrogant asshole of Derek Smart proportions, but at least he cares enough to interact with his viewing audience. The fact that he flies into a rage if one of them disagrees with him or doesn't worship him as the top figure in the gaming industry sort of negates the potential benefits, though.

[BydoEmpire]

I don't subscribe to EGM anymore, but it's a great move. I always thought the letter grade system was by far the best - there's no debate or confusion about what grade means what.

[BydoEmpire]

Anyone remember EGM's "Direct Hit" review system where if a game was just good but average it get a "Hit" rating, or if it was really good it'd get a "Direct Hit!" rating?

Problem was the only thing I think I ever saw were "hits" and "direct hits" ROFL
I remember some "near misses" or something - I still have a couple of those issues, I'll have to go look it up.

[fishsandwich]

I stopped at issue 216 or so. I encourage any change to the mag to make it better than what it has become. When EGM went to the "talk conversation way of reviewing games", I absolutely hated it. I missed the boxed paragraphs and reviews individual reviews gave.


Amen to THAT. I hate the current style but I still subscribe.

[bangtango]

A bigger problem with EGM than their review scale is the people reviewing games. The number of people who you might see review a game in a current issue is bigger than the cast of Full House in its last season. Not only that but most of the people look like tards that got lost on their way to Hot Topic and wound up in the EGM office. I've seen reviews where one guy is a freelance writer who doesn't even work for the magazine, another is an intern and a third is just a random entry level gopher from the gallery of people on the current Review Crew.

Like it or not, their best era for reviewing games was when Ed, Steve, Martin and Sushi X did it. So what if Steve "owned" the magazine, if Ed supposedly never played games and had some other guy write reviews as "Ed Semrard" or if Sushi X might have been played by 2-3 guys (though he wasn't back then)?

At least you knew who was going to be reviewing games each month, even if you didn't like one or two of them, and gradually you got an idea of what each guy liked and didn't. The only noticeable problem with their review system back then was that if a non-SF2 fighting game came out (aside from some of the Neo Geo stuff which scored all right) then they'd bury it whether it was good or not. For example World Heroes on SNES.

[koster]

Bart Simpson: "I got a D–. I passed. I got a D-. I passed. I passed."

I can't see EGM giving many (if any) F grades, despite the numerous crappy games out there...

[Oobgarm]

One foot in the grave.

[Famidrive-16]

That's because Victor Lucas and Tommy Tallarico are both tools. I don't care what you've composed, you still come across as a total asshole Tommy.

http://tommytal.ytmnd.com/

Crappy quality audio, but totally worth listening through, especially when he gives the rating at the end in a distressed manner.

[InsaneDavid]

He may be a raging, arrogant asshole of Derek Smart proportions, but at least he cares enough to interact with his viewing audience. The fact that he flies into a rage if one of them disagrees with him or doesn't worship him as the top figure in the gaming industry sort of negates the potential benefits, though.

That and well, for someone who just - won't - shut - up - about - TRON, he basically crucified Victor Lucas for him talking about "yellow guys" in TRON during the TRON 2.0 review. "There're no yellow guys in TRON!!! What yellow guys?!! There aren't any yellow guys!!!"

Um.. uh... CLU? Not getting into the original color schemes that were reworked before the rest of the film was finished, but yeah, CLU be yellow.

Back on topic though... I haven't bought an issue of EGM since the mid 1990's. All the issues since have been from free magazine subscription listings. Granted I did like their spinoff EGM2 once it became Xpert Gamer and even more when it became GameNOW.

[Cryomancer]

there's a flash somewhere with Tallarico's head mouthing with a clip from perfect hair forever going "I HAVE SEX WITH DOGS"

[bangtango]

Bart Simpson: "I got a D–. I passed. I got a D-. I passed. I passed."

I can't see EGM giving many (if any) F grades, despite the numerous crappy games out there...

Oh, they'll do it. There is a certain segment of their readership, however many are left, that likes to see them trash a game every few months.

As for the questions about how often EGM was giving out 10's under the old system, they gave two of the SFII games 10's if I remember right. I'm sure at least one of their guys gave either Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time a 10.

A few months ago, in fact, someone wrote into their letters section accusing EGM of giving way too many 10's, so they've obviously been doing it recently. I think it was Shoe who replied saying there is no such thing as a "perfect game" so just because a game gets a 10 doesn't mean the magazine thinks it is perfect.

[NE146]

I remember some "near misses" or something - I still have a couple of those issues, I'll have to go look it up.

Ok you're right. I broke out one and yes, I found a "miss". LOL

I got this nifty scanner now so heck I just scanned it in. Here my friends is an old-ass EGM "negative" review

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v48/b2stoys/th_IMG_0002.jpg (http://www.users.uswest.net/~bapcruz/IMG_0002.jpg)

[LiquidPolicenaut]

Like it or not, their best era for reviewing games was when Ed, Steve, Martin and Sushi X did it. So what if Steve "owned" the magazine, if Ed supposedly never played games and had some other guy write reviews as "Ed Semrard" or if Sushi X might have been played by 2-3 guys (though he wasn't back then)?

I totally agree with this. I can still bring out some old issues of EGM I have and read them like I was reading it for the first time...*sighs*...memories...

[otaku]

I still read egm and other gaming mags while at work (no net access there) but to me they all pretty much suck. The net is far better even the magazine's sites are better than the mags they backup. Anyway used to love to read mags though before I got the net. I haven't enjoyed egm that much though the last 4-5 years

[Famidrive-16]

I can't see EGM giving many (if any) F grades, despite the numerous crappy games out there...

I believe one reviewer gave a GBA Mortal Kombat game a straight 0.0 rating once.

Before that, the lowest I ever saw them go was 0.5, which I saw for Flintstones Bowling, Superman 64, and some PSX Tank game.

[j_factor]

I don't think switching to letters does anything to change the inflation aspect. I mean, just take a look at Play magazine...

I really liked GameGo's reviews. It was either thumbs up or thumbs down. Every game boils down to this: either it's worth playing, or it ain't. Worth it only if you rent, or worth it only if you're a fan of the genre, or worth it but not as much as Game X, all of that can be specified in the review itself.

Actually, that's one of the reasons I never liked EGM's reviews. They're just little blurbs.

[Poofta!]

I stopped at issue 216 or so. I encourage any change to the mag to make it better than what it has become. When EGM went to the "talk conversation way of reviewing games", I absolutely hated it. I missed the boxed paragraphs and reviews individual reviews gave. I predict that this mag will be the next to go, I give it less than a year.

i personally like the current review system more so than the paragraph style boxes from before. this way i actually get to know a little about the game. EGM isnt going anywhere, sorry to break it to you.


that said, at first i hated the A-F system, thinking about it some more i think it wont be too bad... but i still prefer a 10 scale (like EGM used to have, or even what Game Informer does).

the best rating system ive ever seen is in PC Gamer. 0-100%. no game ever reached over 98% and the lowest i ever remember seeing was like 8%. you get a page or so (sometimes half for lesser known games) for a review and a little box w/ pros, cons and bottom line.

[norkusa]

Doesn't this new review system really have to do with how EGM pissed off a few companies with shitty review scores a couple months ago to the point where they stopped submitting games? A C+ score is going to sound a lot more forgiving than a 5.

Looks like more of a compromise instead.

[rbudrick]

I can understand the reasoning behind the change, but there are so many degrees of "F" that it makes it much more difficult to really rate a really bad game.

-Rob

[blue lander]

I don't understand why people put so much thought into game rating systems. If you want to know how good a game is, read the review. Why have a 100 point rating system if there's no consistant different between, say, 78 and 79?

Any system that goes beyond telling you if a game is good, mediocre, or bad is overdoing it in my book. If you want more information than that, get it from the review itself rather than the letter or number attached to the bottom of it.

[InsaneDavid]

I don't understand why people put so much thought into game rating systems. If you want to know how good a game is, read the review.

That's the reason I stay away from a rating or grading system when I review something. If the numbers where all that mattered then that's all that would be in the review.

[josekortez]

Didn't EGM's now defunct sister mag GameNow use an A-F grading system? I'm not sure that's why it died because there were so many other reasons...

[boatofcar]

I don't understand why people put so much thought into game rating systems. If you want to know how good a game is, read the review. Why have a 100 point rating system if there's no consistant different between, say, 78 and 79?

Any system that goes beyond telling you if a game is good, mediocre, or bad is overdoing it in my book. If you want more information than that, get it from the review itself rather than the letter or number attached to the bottom of it.

People love numbers and/or grades on reviews. That's why they do it. I'm sure if it were up to the reviewers themselves, they wouldn't assign them.

[Push Upstairs]

I loved PC Gamers percent system. I loved the mag because anything below40% was almost guaranteed a hilarious review.

[Steven]

People love numbers and/or grades on reviews. That's why they do it. I'm sure if it were up to the reviewers themselves, they wouldn't assign them.


Not everyone, of course, but many; certainly enough. Hell, I enjoy seeing numbers. Grew up with it, and when the reviewer is someone I trust/enjoy reading their takes, nothing beats reading their thoughts, checking out the numerical score and going about your business. I believe in rating games myself -- my overall score being a combination of various aspects, but the two main ones being:

1. Overall, how much I like (or dislike) the game
2. How well I feel it stacks up to its competition at time of release

And again, nobody should take reviews (much less ratings and numbers) for anything more than they're worth: that person's opinion -- nothing more, nothing less.

FTR, 1-10 scale with .5 increments >>> A-F scale and 1-100% ratings IMHO

Just my take :)

[blue lander]

People love numbers and/or grades on reviews. That's why they do it. I'm sure if it were up to the reviewers themselves, they wouldn't assign them.

Pretty much, yeah. The "professional" reviewers I've talked to say the same thing.

[swlovinist]

i personally like the current review system more so than the paragraph style boxes from before. this way i actually get to know a little about the game. EGM isnt going anywhere, sorry to break it to you.

Ziff Davis (1Up, EGM) file for bankruptcy recently...we will see how long that stretches them. I think that the magazine has lost its fanbase and direction. I was a HUGE fan and subscriber of the mag for a long time(issue 9). I wish them luck, but do not see the new ratings thing fixing the mags problems.



personally I think the UK mags kick our countries asses!

[Steven]

Ziff Davis (1Up, EGM) file for bankruptcy recently...we will see how long that stretches them. I think that the magazine has lost its fanbase and direction. I was a HUGE fan and subscriber of the mag for a long time(issue 9). I wish them luck, but do not see the new ratings thing fixing the mags problems.

personally I think the UK mags kick our countries asses!


Yes, UK mags have always been superior, IMO. Bigger in size, off-the-wall humor and some really grade-A coverage over the years spanning multiple UK mags. Of course, some were average, but a few pubs really stood out.

As for EGM, it is a sinking ship. A new rating system won't change much, if anything. You mentioned lack of direction, and I'll throw in lack of soul. IMO, what helped made EGM from inception to about '94 so good was the "soul" each issue carried. To me seeing the latest EGM in my mailbox, or at the grocery store, was like opening a present on Christmas morning. They gave me a similar sense of joy.

True, I have a bias in that I don't care for today's current games, but the writing quality straight up leave no lasting imprint. The layouts are fugly and the mag feels like a cheap, very light paperweight.

[Iron Draggon]

well I don't understand why they would complicate things with +/- if they're gonna use A-F... it's a magazine, not a course curriculum... and if you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense at all to use A-F for game ratings...

A = 91% - 100%
B = 81% - 90%
C = 71% - 80%
D = 61% - 70%
F = 0% - 60%

so what they're saying by using a system like this is that any game that isn't more than 10% better than the average game is a failure, if you consider 50% to be average... and when using a percentage system, it should be safe to assume that 50% is average, as that would be the halfway point... just as 5 is average on a 1-10 scale, because 5 is the halfway point, then it makes sense that 50% is average on a percentage scale for the same reason, and the A-F grading system has always been based on a percentage scale... DUH!

[BydoEmpire]

well I don't understand why they would complicate things with +/- if they're gonna use A-F... it's a magazine, not a course curriculum... and if you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense at all to use A-F for game ratings...I still think A-F is the only system that makes sense (other than maybe a simple 5 star rating). The reason is demonstrated by your post. Some people consider 70% - or 7/10 - "average." Yet there are a lot of sites that use the whole scale and therefore 5/10 is average (like the old EGM system). For those places 50% is average, not terrible. Using a letter grade removes all ambiguity. C means average. There's no question. Everyone has a good idea what a "C" grade means. Whereas a 7/10 - who knows? It depends on the reviewer, it depends on the site, and it depends on the reader's perception of the number. People complain all the time about games that "only" got a 7/10, when the mag/site itself lists 7/10 as "good." There's too much ambiguity and subjectivity in numeric grades - letter grades are immediately clear.

Also, I still think the text of the review is most important. That's why I don't like review system that have too much granularity. 5 stars, or A-F is plenty. One person's 73% will be another's 74%. That's kind of ridiculous. But the text of the review will tell me that regardless what the score is, I might really enjoy or dislike the game.