Which Review Scale is Better 'Out of 5' or 'Out of 10'

[njiska]

A simple question, which review system is better for games?

Something out of 5 or Something out of 10.

I tend to think 'Out of 5' works better because it's more informative.

5 - Great
4 - Above Average
3 - Average
2- Below Average
1 - Crap

Afterall who looks at a game below 5 on an 'Out of 10' scale?

[Johnny_Rock]

1 to 5


The worst is when they do 1 to 10 but ad half-points because you get alot of this guy give it a 8 and this guy gives it an 8.5

[Half Japanese]

I don't mind either really. What I find really pretentious are reviewers that give scores like '7.2' or '5.1' or shit like that. 1-5 or 1-10, and half points variations only.

[meancode]

Oh man don't get me started on this! I am also sure Gamereviewgod will chime in here too.

Out of 5 system is a lot better. It is a REAL shame that GameRankings.com thinks otherwise.

But they can go to hell with their 100 point system.

You bring up an *excellent* point Njiska! Who does look at a game score under 5 on a 10 point system?

But I will look at a 2 or even a 1 out of 5 just to see why it got something that low.

[meancode]

No half point varients!

What is a 3.5/5 got that a 3/5 doesn't? And if you think it should have a 3.5/5, then you might give it a 4/5 unless it truely is a 3/5 game.

Half points do make more sense on a 10 point scale, and for that scale I agree with the half points only, and not the 7.3 crap.

[njiska]

Oh man don't get me started on this! I am also sure Gamereviewgod will chime in here too.

Getting GRG's response is half the reason i posted this.

I think you can do Have points on a 5 scale better then you can on a 10. After all 4.5 stars and 3.5 stars is pretty common.

Just like a B+, it's just slight better then the soild number.

[meancode]

My money is on a rant from GRG about the 7/10 score.

Any takers?

[pacmanhat]

I prefer the 1-10 scale. It's just the way I've always been presented with this sort of thing...you could say it's what I'm used to. And I'm not sure that I understand the argument about not looking at a game that scores less than 5 out of 10. If it's that bad, I don't see why you would want to look at it anyway, regardless of the scale on which it's graded.

[keiblerfan69]

I like out of 10. It just seems much more fair. Like a game that isn't perfect can get a a 9 instead of a 4.

[pragmatic insanester]

1 out of 10. more room for variety. there's a notable difference between a weak but enjoyable 6/10, a "must love the subject matter" 5/10, and a "there might be a good section or two in here" 4/10.

[meancode]

Here is something that Gamereviewgod wrote for BC. It is what we go by.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/234339.php

I might be a little biased, but I could not agree more.

[kedawa]

If I have to choose from only those options, then I think a true ten point system is best (i.e.. no decimals), whether it be a 5 star system with half stars, or just an out of 10.

I think there are far more important aspects of a scoring system, however, like weighing the importance of graphics and sound, whether or not to knock a sequel down a point for being only as good as its predecessor, rather than an improvement, or whether or not to revisit and adjust old scores over time to keep them relevant.

[DonMarco]

A collection of thoughts:

If I ever did a score system, it wouldn't be based on numbers or letters.

The 1-10 system is metric-y. The 1-5 system is more kiddy.

Was it PSM that did the little charts that had the game's score over a period of time, with it decreasing or increasing? I think it was.

"ProTip" should be in the dictionary.

[RCM]

I'm totally against review scales. If people measure the quality of a title by a certain amount of stars, thumbs up, etc. what's the point of writing the review?

"It has 5 stars so I know it's great!" Spare me.

[Anexanhume]

I actually like out of 100. I feel like it makes the reviewer be more meticulous about his or her reasoning.

[poopnes]

Well I personally like "out of 10", with average being a 5. I also believe if you're going to use any rating scale use all of it! I hate Game Informer's reviews because anything under 7 is below average. Why is there a need for 6 points of crap? So yea I like EGM's reviewing scale where a 5 is average a 1 is shit and 10 is the cream of the crop. I also hate when magazines are afraid to use "1" and "10". I don't want to see a game every month get one, but there's times when they could and should be used. There is no perfect game but there are some that are close and are instant classics. Why shouldn't they get that "perfect" 10?

[Richter Belmount]

10 out of 10 kinda makes a little more specific.

[Skyone]

10 out of 10.

4.5 out of 5 just sounds ghey.

[njiska]

10 out of 10 kinda makes a little more specific.

Does it really? How does one define an 8.5 from an 8? or even an 8 from a 7. The problem with the ten point system is that it allows for too much variation.

The 5 point system is exact because every score has a comparable ranking. With the 10 point scale you run into 7 'being better then average' and 8 being 'better then better then average, but not great'. See with the 10 point system things get convoluded.

[Julio III]

Whenever I rank things I always rank them out of 5 stars. Pretty much because I can't really rank things with more deviation than that. Out of 10 there is just too many numbers to think about. Out of 5 is simple and easy and I can easily say, thats a 2 star film or thats a 4 star game. It has easy meaning and is pretty much across the board where out of 10 is abused as stated because people don't use the full range whereas they do out of 5.

[Hams]

1-10 seems clearer especially when you get close to 10

[THATinkjar]

1 to 5


The worst is when they do 1 to 10 but ad half-points because you get alot of this guy give it a 8 and this guy gives it an 8.5

That is a great point. For main reviews, I prefer the 1-10 scale (with half points, if need be) but if you're looking through user reviews to get a common opinion, all those .5s really make it tough to come to any sort of overal conclusion.


Afterall who looks at a game below 5 on an 'Out of 10' scale?

Who looks at scores 2 or below on an 'Out of 5' scale? And anyway, a 3/5 sounds better than a 6/10 to me, so I'm more tempted to buy a 3/5 game - which is not good for my wallet!


1-10 seems clearer especially when you get close to 10

Great point! More distinction between a 4 out of 5 and an 8 out of 10. 4 out of 5 feels like a 9 out of 10.

GameSpy cheat. They use a 5 star scale with half stars. Thats just a done up ten scale.

[classicb]

Here is something that Gamereviewgod wrote for BC. It is what we go by.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/234339.php

I might be a little biased, but I could not agree more.

I'd be interested in what GRG conversion rate is since he post all his reviews from the blog here on DP which has a 1-10 scale.

For the record I'm a big fan of the 1-5 system. Less is more.

[THATinkjar]

Here is something that Gamereviewgod wrote for BC. It is what we go by.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/234339.php

I might be a little biased, but I could not agree more.

I'd be interested in what GRG conversion rate is since he post all his reviews from the blog here on DP which has a 1-10 scale.

For the record I'm a big fan of the 1-5 system. Less is more.

I hadn't seen that. At first, when I read the bit about 5 stars out of 5 not being a sign of perfection... I was nodding my head. But everything he argues in favour of a five star scale you could argue for a ten point scale. 5 out of 5 is the same as 10 out of 10, right?

[kedawa]

Maybe an academic score would be better.
A for the best games, B for very good games, C for Average games, and F anything that sucks.
You've got all the bases covered without wasting more than one spot for crap games, and if you need more specificity amongst the worthwhile games, then you can use +/-.

[classicb]

Maybe an academic score would be better.
A for the best games, B for very good games, C for Average games, and F anything that sucks.
You've got all the bases covered without wasting more than one spot for crap games, and if you need more specificity amongst the worthwhile games, then you can use +/-.

that's pretty much the 5 point scale if you kept the letter D for below average games

[2Dskillz]

The review is what matters, numbered ratings mean little because we all have different tastes. Without actually reading the review (I prefer reading several) you are not getting an acurate depiction of the game. One through five is really enough to get the general idea of what the reviewer was writing towards.

Also when I used to review I got reemed by the editor for using numbers below 6 to often, a simple 1 to 5 scale would have probably avoided much of this.

[hezeuschrist]

10 out of 10 kinda makes a little more specific.

Does it really? How does one define an 8.5 from an 8? or even an 8 from a 7. The problem with the ten point system is that it allows for too much variation.

The 5 point system is exact because every score has a comparable ranking. With the 10 point scale you run into 7 'being better then average' and 8 being 'better then better then average, but not great'. See with the 10 point system things get convoluded.

My argument here is likely well known, as I got into one hell of a shitstorm with Zach about this. Apparently I'm wrong AND I rape children. But hes not around anymore and even if you could find the thread I'm sure he edited all his posts.

Anyways, my argument here is this. I prefer the 100 point scale within a certain publication or review site. For example, Bethany Massiwhatevera from Gamespot does most of their RPG reviews, and it makes it real easy to determine that she thought Tales of Legendia is a better RPG experience than Grandia III (8.0 and 7.6 respectively). According to another reviewer within the site, Symphonia scores higher than both of those (8.8). That's simple and easy, and being a huge fan of Symphonia I know both of those games are going to be worth my time, but may not draw me in as hardcore as Symphonia did. But taking those assumptions across multiple sites doesn't make sense, and saying that Tales of Symphonia is better than Star Wars: Empire at War for PC (8.7) is just stupid. If you don't take the numbers out of context they can work.

And to be fair to a site like GameRankings, they really don't have any choice but to rank games on a 100 point scale. Anything else would skew the data too far from some of the reviewers intended views...

And on that note, the numbers mean nothing. If something scores horrendously poorly, I won't bother reading the review. If it's a game I was looking forward I'll read the review regardless of the score, and if it's something I was marginally interested in I'll check it out if it scored well.

[chrisbid]

scales and grades are arbitrary, there is no specific science behind rating games on a 100 point or even a 10 point scale. the 5 point or letter grade scale works the best, and most games should be in the 2-4 range and 1 or a 5 should be used sparingly. A game is either fun or it isnt, that is really all there is to it.

[Gamereviewgod]

Here is something that Gamereviewgod wrote for BC. It is what we go by.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/234339.php

I might be a little biased, but I could not agree more.

I'd be interested in what GRG conversion rate is since he post all his reviews from the blog here on DP which has a 1-10 scale.

For the record I'm a big fan of the 1-5 system. Less is more.

Well, the scale just adjusts using common sense. A 5 or a 6 would be a *** on Blogcritics. 7-8 would be ****. You can figure it out from there.

I was going to cut and paste the same link since that's where all of my stances are on the topic. Averages don't pan out on a 10-point scale. Ever. Most sites never use the whole scale either. 10s are so rare that there's hardly a point in using them. A five star rating doesn't mean something like "perfection," it just means it's a damned good game.

With that, I'm just repeating myself.


real easy to determine that she thought Tales of Legendia is a better RPG experience than Grandia III (8.0 and 7.6 respectively).

Is it really? So Legendia is .4 times better than Grandia? That's useless to score that way. On a five scale, they both nab themselves a 4. Would you really NOT buy a game because of a .4 gap?

[Oobgarm]

Both sides can argue till the cows come home. No matter how you slice it, they both work out in the end. However, I prefer the 10 point scale with half increments.

The 10 point scale allows for more specific ratings. Particularly in mags like EGM, where 3 reviewers can have sometimes heavily varying opinions.

The half increments allow for refining. Say you have a PS2 game that gets an 8, but the same game on the Xbox gets an 8.5 due to graphical upgrades or faster load times.

Small things like that can make a difference, and I say that you can never have too much knowledge on a product before you go buy it.

[chrisbid]

The 10 point scale allows for more specific ratings. Particularly in mags like EGM, where 3 reviewers can have sometimes heavily varying opinions.

the crap is totally arbitrary, averaging out several arbitrary scores doesnt change that


The half increments allow for refining. Say you have a PS2 game that gets an 8, but the same game on the Xbox gets an 8.5 due to graphical upgrades or faster load times.

unless there is a direct gameplay issue, these differences should not be reflected in the score. this should be mentioned in the review and left alone. minor differences by their nature do not affect how much fun a game is to play. if there was a difference in fun factor (lack of online play in a cube version), then it may warrant a full point drop.


Small things like that can make a difference, and I say that you can never have too much knowledge on a product before you go buy it.

therefore you have a contridiction, if you really want all the information available, then read the review, dont rely on a number pulled out of the ass of a reviewer.




more refied scales have only led to grade inflation, and have given publications more wiggle room for corrupt practices like IGN giving Madden 05 a .1 higher grade than NFL 2K5. you cant help but think of the possibility of money changing hands.

if you want objectivity, then read the review. numbers are subjective no matter how specific the scale.

[googlefest1]

i choose the out of 10 - larger range

personaly i like out of 100 - just my preferance

[meancode]

Here is something that Gamereviewgod wrote for BC. It is what we go by.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/234339.php

I might be a little biased, but I could not agree more.

I'd be interested in what GRG conversion rate is since he post all his reviews from the blog here on DP which has a 1-10 scale.

For the record I'm a big fan of the 1-5 system. Less is more.

GRG upscales for DP. It is because DP uses a 10 point scale.

5 Star systems upscale to 10 point system just fine.

4/5 = 8/10.

1 Star = 2 points.

As for half stars (an entire point in 10 point scale) that is a gray area.

[meancode]

Here is something that Gamereviewgod wrote for BC. It is what we go by.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/234339.php

I might be a little biased, but I could not agree more.

I'd be interested in what GRG conversion rate is since he post all his reviews from the blog here on DP which has a 1-10 scale.

For the record I'm a big fan of the 1-5 system. Less is more.

I hadn't seen that. At first, when I read the bit about 5 stars out of 5 not being a sign of perfection... I was nodding my head. But everything he argues in favour of a five star scale you could argue for a ten point scale. 5 out of 5 is the same as 10 out of 10, right?

5/5 is not the same as 10/10, not by a long shot. That is the point!

[THATinkjar]

5/5 is not the same as 10/10, not by a long shot. That is the point!

Yes it is. 5 is the maximum, just like 10 is the maximum. When you try and compare 5 to 10, they may no longer be the same, but they are attempting the same thing: to represent the highest possible score on that scale. So, 5 out of 5 is the same as 10 out of 10 - the best score on that scale possible.

[chrisbid]

5/5 is not the same as 10/10, not by a long shot. That is the point!

Yes it is. 5 is the maximum, just like 10 is the maximum. When you try and compare 5 to 10, they may no longer be the same, but they are attempting the same thing: to represent the highest possible score on that scale. So, 5 out of 5 is the same as 10 out of 10 - the best score on that scale possible.


no, they are not

there are a lot of games on a ten point scale that get 9s. the 9 score is overused on a 10 point scale, and its rare for a game to be scored under 5 (which should be in the average range).

the most accurate scale is the three point scale

3 - good
2 - average
1 - poor

a five point scale adds extreme examples on either end of the scale and should used on rare occasions

5 - classic
4 - good
3 - average
2 - poor
1 - omgwtf

i really cant think of any additions needed, hell roger ebert has made a living off of 2x2 scale for decades.

[hezeuschrist]

real easy to determine that she thought Tales of Legendia is a better RPG experience than Grandia III (8.0 and 7.6 respectively).

Is it really? So Legendia is .4 times better than Grandia? That's useless to score that way. On a five scale, they both nab themselves a 4. Would you really NOT buy a game because of a .4 gap?

You're taking it way too literally, and apparently you missed the point that both games were reviewed by the same person, within the same publication. There's no way to quantify what any number assigned to a game in any context means. A game isn't ".4 times better" than any other game if it scores that much higher, it simply means that the reviewer enjoyed the one game a little more than the other. The bigger the gap, the bigger the difference in enjoyment. It could be something as menial as shorter load times or a little better voice acting, things you'd figure out by reading the review.

You're doing exactly what I said by taking the numbers out of context. And yes, there definitely are people out there that would not purchase one game because of a difference as insignificant as .4, but those people are tools. You're assuming that anyone who prefers the more detailed rating scales never reads reviews, and thats absurd.

[Daria]

You're taking it way too literally, and apparently you missed the point that both games were reviewed by the same person, within the same publication. There's no way to quantify what any number assigned to a game in any context means. A game isn't ".4 times better" than any other game if it scores that much higher, it simply means that the reviewer enjoyed the one game a little more than the other. The bigger the gap, the bigger the difference in enjoyment.

That just sounds like a nightmare to maintain consistancy over an extended period of time. Sure you could compare Legendia and Grandia 3, but how do they rank up to your initial opinions on say Final Fantasy X. Not only has the standard of what you'd expect from a PS2 title shifted in that time, but how are you suppose to juggle FFX in relationship to Okage to Suikoden III, to Phantom Brave, to ect. Somewhere along the line the point decimal comparisons just aren't going to match up. You'd have to reevaluate every score you've ever assigned every time you write up a review for a new game.

It's impractical.

5 point scores are neat, easy to interpret, and easy to compare. Chances are a good game isn't going to jump to an outstanding game over the course of two years. If you're being objective you should only be looking at the product you're rating, not subjectively comparing it to another title that you might have enjoyed maginally more.

[chrisbid]

You're doing exactly what I said by taking the numbers out of context. And yes, there definitely are people out there that would not purchase one game because of a difference as insignificant as .4, but those people are tools. You're assuming that anyone who prefers the more detailed rating scales never reads reviews, and thats absurd.


what is absurd is trying to quantify fun to tenths of a degree. its totally subjective. these numbers are pulled out of a reviewers ass.

if you read the reviews on specific points, why do you need a score to reflect them?


i wouldnt be so against the practice if there were at least definiative rules on scoring... but there arent, and there is no good way of making any

[Snapple]

The more different possible scores that can be given to a game, then the more the reviewer is going to be inclined to give similar scores. And that, I believe, is a bad thing.

Like say there's a review system of 1 to 10, and in addition, you can also have half-points. So there are 20 possible scores for a game (or actually I guess 19 possible scores, but whatever). When that happens, people will start rating games "8.0, 8.5, 7.5, 7.5" and then they'll think they're giving fair grades because they're giving a different grades, even though they're really not.

If you are forced to only give one of five scores: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, then I feel someone is more likely to force themselves to really analyze which games are fun and which ones aren't, unless the same person who grades on a scale of 7.5 to 8.5 wants to just rattle off a list of 4, 4, 4, 4, etc, to expose them as easy graders.

I totally agree with chrisbid. There's no point or purpose in trying to quantify "fun" to such a specific degree. This isn't math. This isn't science. This is just someone's opinion. Let me know why this game is fun or is not fun. Don't tell me why a game is an "8" instead of an "8.5," because I don't care.

1 to 5. Less numbers is better.

[Daltone]

I'm a fan of scores out of 10, with 5 being average. And six being a perfectly acceptable score. Rather than this nonesense where only really flawed stuff gets less than 7.

[hezeuschrist]

You're doing exactly what I said by taking the numbers out of context. And yes, there definitely are people out there that would not purchase one game because of a difference as insignificant as .4, but those people are tools. You're assuming that anyone who prefers the more detailed rating scales never reads reviews, and thats absurd.


what is absurd is trying to quantify fun to tenths of a degree. its totally subjective. these numbers are pulled out of a reviewers ass.

if you read the reviews on specific points, why do you need a score to reflect them?


i wouldnt be so against the practice if there were at least definiative rules on scoring... but there arent, and there is no good way of making any

I never said that was the case, and I never claimed that anywhere tries to rate games in hundredths of "fun." How do you even come up with this dreck? Is it so hard to grasp that one person who reviewed two RPG's released a week apart could enjoy one very slightly more than the other by giving one game a marginally higher rating?

How is this so hard to understand? Daria brings up a good point, but it's still being taken way WAY too literally. How do you compare scores early PS2 RPG's like FFX or Suikoden III to more recent Atilier Iris or Grandia III? In context of time, with a grain of salt. Not as a holy grail of the definition of a games worth. Not as if the commandments of the God of videogames has rated these games himself.

If the numbers mean nothing to you, thats super. Really, it is. The way I see them, it makes sense, and I can see patterns across publications I read more than others. Yes, I do read reviews.

And this is going to be interesting. How many of you sent a top 25 list into DP?

[chrisbid]

And this is going to be interesting. How many of you sent a top 25 list into DP?




i didnt for this exact reason, ranking games is subjective bs

[njiska]

There's a key piint here that some of you have missed. A reveiw score is suppose to tell you if something is good or not.



the most accurate scale is the three point scale

3 - good
2 - average
1 - poor

a five point scale adds extreme examples on either end of the scale and should used on rare occasions

5 - classic
4 - good
3 - average
2 - poor
1 - omgwtf

See Chrisbid nailed the whole point of reviewing on the head.

The 10 point system is a ranking system. It tells you something is better then something, not that something is good. It's a ranking system and if you need any proof of that go to http://www.gamerankings.com


My argument here is likely well known, as I got into one hell of a shitstorm with Zach about this. Apparently I'm wrong AND I rape children. But hes not around anymore and even if you could find the thread I'm sure he edited all his posts.

I'd beleive it.

[hezeuschrist]

So you don't have a personal favorite game? Do you play games? Are they all the same, are they all equally as fun as the next?

Are you trying to say that a person isn't capable of liking one game more than another by a small degree?

[chrisbid]

[quote="hezeuschristHow is this so hard to understand? Daria brings up a good point, but it's still being taken way WAY too literally. How do you compare scores early PS2 RPG's like FFX or Suikoden III to more recent Atilier Iris or Grandia III? In context of time, with a grain of salt. Not as a holy grail of the definition of a games worth. Not as if the commandments of the God of videogames has rated these games himself.

[/quote]



what happens is grade inflation, which is why half points and tenth points were introduced in the first place.

"Suikoden III was fun and Suikoden IV was fun, but it has better graphics so therefore deserves a slightly higher score,

but not that much higher since SIV isnt really any more fun than SIII was

so lets make a 'tweener score to reflect this slight improvement"



now multiply this gradual effect over 10 years, and what you get is a virtual 3 point system anyway with 7s, 8s, and 9s

[hezeuschrist]

The 10 point system is a ranking system. It tells you something is better then something, not that something is good. It's a ranking system and if you need any proof of that go to http://www.gamerankings.com


Well... yeah. Is that bad? After all, it's not the reviewers job to tell me if a game is good, it's to tell me if the reviewer thinks it's good. I'm the only one that can tell me if a game is good.

If you want to be completely sanitary about it, a "review" does not contain the slightest bit of personality or tilt from the person writing it. It should, in theory, be nothing more than a summary of features of the game and the 100% objective points of the game, such as a general time to complete. There, that's a review. To write or give a critical report. Absolutely no room for opinion, only complete facts.

As you know, if thats how game "reviews" were handled, they wouldn't exist, nearly everything about the medium is subjective by nature and it'd be impossible to write entirely objective reviews.

There's no reason why a reviewer can't compare similar titles, citing similarities and differences, and overall PERSONAL enjoyment of the title versus the other. Regardless if thats viewed as ranking or reviewing, it's helpful to the person reading it if they've played the other title.

[njiska]

The 10 point system is a ranking system. It tells you something is better then something, not that something is good. It's a ranking system and if you need any proof of that go to http://www.gamerankings.com


Well... yeah. Is that bad? After all, it's not the reviewers job to tell me if a game is good, it's to tell me if the reviewer thinks it's good. I'm the only one that can tell me if a game is good.

If you want to be completely sanitary about it, a "review" does not contain the slightest bit of personality or tilt from the person writing it. It should, in theory, be nothing more than a summary of features of the game and the 100% objective points of the game, such as a general time to complete. There, that's a review. To write or give a critical report. Absolutely no room for opinion, only complete facts.

As you know, if thats how game "reviews" were handled, they wouldn't exist, nearly everything about the medium is subjective by nature and it'd be impossible to write entirely objective reviews.

There's no reason why a reviewer can't compare similar titles, citing similarities and differences, and overall PERSONAL enjoyment of the title versus the other. Regardless if thats viewed as ranking or reviewing, it's helpful to the person reading it if they've played the other title.

The reason his personal enjoyment doesn't matter is because he's suppose to be telling you whether or not to buy the game, NOT "You should buy the game, it's not as good as so and so, i mean it's close and the difference is negligable. Buy it, It not This, but it's not shit either"

If he does tell you that it should be in the body of the review, not the score. The score is mean to be nothing more then a slightly advanced yea or nay system.

[anagrama]

A ten-point scale with no decimals/half marks is the most straightforward and my personal favourite.
Why have 1-5 with half-values included? Just do 1-10 instead.

And it's always worth mentioning late 80's UK mag "Ace" - they took things to a ridiculous extreme with a 1000-point scale!

[chrisbid]

i do have favorites, but i dont believe in micro ranking work. super mario bros was an outstanding game, it has historical signifigance, it redefined the platform genre, and put the NES into the forefront of video games and allowed video games to be reborn from the depths of the crash,

i cant argue against any of those facts


but is it the "best game of all time" ? i cant say if it is or it isnt. it would be completely subjective on my part. what about Tetris, Pong, Pac Man, Sonic the Hedgehog, or Wolfenstein 3D, Street Fighter II... the list of milestone type games is long, and each is an established cornerstone of the hobby. but i cant say that one is more important or better than another.

[chrisbid]

i do have favorites, but i dont believe in micro ranking work. super mario bros was an outstanding game, it has historical signifigance, it redefined the platform genre, and put the NES into the forefront of video games and allowed video games to be reborn from the depths of the crash,

i cant argue against any of those facts


but is it the "best game of all time" ? i cant say if it is or it isnt. it would be completely subjective on my part. what about Tetris, Pong, Pac Man, Sonic the Hedgehog, or Wolfenstein 3D, Street Fighter II... the list of milestone type games is long, and each is an established cornerstone of the hobby. but i cant say that one is more important or better than another.

[hezeuschrist]

Alright njiska, you completely lost me. I honestly don't know what you were trying to say there. I get that it's used for many people as a cornerstone for purchasing, but I never use it as such unless it scores in the extreme ends, either I'll go out and buy it right away if it scores fantastically well, or I'll hold off until the bargin bin, or never, if it scores extremely poorly.

And yes, I do read the reviews to find out why they're given such extremes, and if I don't think the reasons justify the scores then I disregard it and look to pick it up on the cheap anyways.

Honestly though, the reviews that get me to buy games are giant 5 page long threads about games on boards like this. If a bunch of likeminded gamers are praising a game heavily I'm definitely going to check it out, sooner than later.

And chrisbid, why does everything need to be completely objective? I understand were talking about review scores, but even reviews themselves can't be completely objective or they'd have no content.

Really though, you don't have a favorite title? It's supposed to be completely objective, there's nothing wrong with having a top 25 list of personal favorites.

[hezeuschrist]

EDIT: Holy ass, double posts everywhere.

[njiska]

Alright njiska, you completely lost me. I honestly don't know what you were trying to say there. I get that it's used for many people as a cornerstone for purchasing, but I never use it as such unless it scores in the extreme ends, either I'll go out and buy it right away if it scores fantastically well, or I'll hold off until the bargin bin, or never, if it scores extremely poorly.

And yes, I do read the reviews to find out why they're given such extremes, and if I don't think the reasons justify the scores then I disregard it and look to pick it up on the cheap anyways.

Honestly though, the reviews that get me to buy games are giant 5 page long threads about games on boards like this. If a bunch of likeminded gamers are praising a game heavily I'm definitely going to check it out, sooner than later.

And chrisbid, why does everything need to be completely objective? I understand were talking about review scores, but even reviews themselves can't be completely objective or they'd have no content.

Really though, you don't have a favorite title? It's supposed to be completely objective, there's nothing wrong with having a top 25 list of personal favorites.

Ok let me reword my statement.

The object of a review is to evalutate a game based on it's merrits. A review score is designed to sum up those evalutations in to a score based on set expectations.

A good score means that the game is well designed and therefore worth buying a bad game isn't. It's not so much that the reviewer tells you to buy it, but rather the reccomend you check it out.

The problem with doing this on a 10 point scale is that you overly complicate a simple system. Good, Bad or average really says it all. The 5 point system just allows for the incredibles.

Most games reviewed on a 5 point scale recieve a score of 2,3 or 4 very few recieve a 5 or 1 because cause prefection is the highest possible standard.

When you go to a 10 point scale you lose the beautiful simpliciity of that style because now you not only have to decided if a game is average or not, but how average is it?

Some people have claimed they like the 10.0 scale because it allows reviewers to be more exact, but the bottom line is that such precision isn't nessicary.

I realize now just how poor my original post was, but i'll chalk that up to lack of sleep and the fact i have to rush off to a meeting. I transplanted the buying system over the good bad system, which while correct in the eyes of the publishers, was definitely the wrong thing to do.

[chrisbid]

And chrisbid, why does everything need to be completely objective? I understand were talking about review scores, but even reviews themselves can't be completely objective or they'd have no content.

Really though, you don't have a favorite title? It's supposed to be completely objective, there's nothing wrong with having a top 25 list of personal favorites.


i believe that reviews should be subjective, however, i dont believe that you use subjective criteria for something objective like a score

i do not have a "favorite title of all time", i can make a list 25 games, but for me to put them in order and have that order be significant would be completely inaccurate...

when you vote for school board or city council, you do not rank your favorite candidates, you simply vote for x number of candidates on the list, whoever gets the x number highest vote totals win the seats. i feel this poll would have been better served with this method as it removes an artificial layer of subjectivity.

[Berserker]

After thinking about this for a bit, I'm somewhat torn. I think that really each of these scales mentioned could be useful for different situations. This is thinking ideally of course, disregarding the relatively scattered sort of preferential varation in which they're applied in real-life game reviewing/ranking.

Here are my thoughts.

-No binary systems, e.g. Ebert's "thumbs up/thumbs down". Games are different than movies in that instead of just watching them, you also have a measure of interactibility there. This leads me to believe that you'd really be over-simplifying with a "get it/don't get it" type of system.

-Use the 3-point good/average/bad system for longer, article-sized reviews. This allows for a general at-a-glance idea of where the game stands, while more particular strengths/weaknesses are explained by reading the review itself.

-Use a 5-point system for smaller, round-up type reviews, usually the kind where several different games are looked at in a single article. This would be useful for gauging the overall strength/weakness of the game when you don't have as much written space in which to quantify them.

-Use a 10-point system for game rankings. The only possible problem is that you probably wouldn't want to use the same number twice. If you're ranking more than 10 games with this, make use of the decimal system. .5 for less games, the full .0-.9 for more. This would be indespensible if you're dealing with a database of game reviews.

[jdc]

I like the idea of an academic score, A B C etc.

When talking game scores, "8 out of 10" SOUNDS more lofty than "3 out of 5". Out of 5 sounds so.....blunt.

[cyberfluxor]

I don't mind all the different scales, more so what I look at is who is rating the game and then what they gave it. I've played games that are like 2/10 and loved them and I'm sure quite a few others have as well. But getting back to the ranking system thing.

I like the 1-5 the most because it feels more direct and to the point. The best is the Stars example, because it feels like they are competing for something. Would you like to be called a 3, or 3 stars? Stars! Or if you would like, use another item to represent what the numbers mean.

In general though, I don't care what someone ranks the game. I look at who created it, some screen shots, maybe a trailer if available, what are some of the special features in it, and the year along with price. That's more important to me then someone's score, but I will look at it.

[davepesc]

Obviously, if you have half-point grades, a 5-point scale IS a 10-point scale.

I'm fine with either, but reviewers need to use the whole scale with the midpoint being average. And if the midpoint is average, then the majority of games should end up around there. If everything is an 8, then 8 is "average."

[Lothars]

Obviously, if you have half-point grades, a 5-point scale IS a 10-point scale.

I'm fine with either, but reviewers need to use the whole scale with the midpoint being average. And if the midpoint is average, then the majority of games should end up around there. If everything is an 8, then 8 is "average."

That's IMO the best wording of what I think yet

Thank you,

Basically I don't have a preference but I will have to say that chrisbid I disagree, I read reviews to see how someone thought of it if I go to a gamesite such as IGN or Gamespot and read a review than I don't expect that to be the be all and end all of info needed but it helps, I also expect a certain amount of bias in each review no matter who reviews it.

I am more likely to buy a game from reviews on this board from a bunch of people saying it's great than to go onto a site and read the review there.

it's an opinion and that is what a review is.

but hey that's my opinion.

[Kid Ice]

i do not have a "favorite title of all time", i can make a list 25 games, but for me to put them in order and have that order be significant would be completely inaccurate...

That's how I feel. I like a five point scale. If a game is among the system's best it gets a five. So I'd say Castlevania SOTN, Colony Wars, and Gran Turismo would be fives. Saying "Well SOTN is a little better than Colony Wars, so SOTN gets a 9.6 and Colony Wars gets a 9.3" is just goofy to me. How do you quantify a comparison between two completely different games? It's apple vs. orange (or pizza vs. chocolate ice cream in my way of thinking). Sure I could say Gran Turismo is better than R4, but they're still two of the best racers on the system so why make that distinction...to me it's a Star Wars vs. Empire comparison. You could argue "But if you could only play one racing game", but the bottom line is two must-play games are two must-play games even if one is superior.

[chrisbid]

Basically I don't have a preference but I will have to say that chrisbid I disagree, I read reviews to see how someone thought of it if I go to a gamesite such as IGN or Gamespot and read a review than I don't expect that to be the be all and end all of info needed but it helps, I also expect a certain amount of bias in each review no matter who reviews it.


where do you disagree? i plainly said reviews should be subjective, opinions and tilt should be openly expressed within a review or critique of a game. what i dont like is when this subjectivity bleeds into something objective like a score. im not saying that scores should be completely done away with, but scoring should be simple and well defined, the more range you have in scoring, the more cloudy the criteria and the more useless the number ends up being.

[unwinddesign]

Gamepro uses a 5 point scale.

I hate Gamepro.

Gamepro brings back bad memories of buying games that got a 4.0, only to be completely unplayable turds.

1 to 10 for the win.

[hydr0x]

interesting, interesting

i can clearly see this is an US board, if it was a german site there'd be almost no discussion. why? because everyone favouring one of the systems a lot is likely doing so because he grew up with it or experienced the other one as bad some day in the past.

now, let me comment on the two main arguments used in here against 10 / pro 5 points

1) "The 10 point range is not used, every game scores in 6-9" Well, all i can say is: Don't blame the system, blame the reviewers.

there are 3 reasons why this is happening:

- Reviewers are too stupid to accept that 5 is the average
- 5 is not the average score, but the "mediocre game" score, if all games were perfect the average would be a 10/10 but the scale wouldn't change at all. Accept it or not, the average game nowadays is more polished than back in the 16-Bit days. Well, anyways, just because 5 is in the middle of the range doesn't mean the average score has to be 5.0. Let me ask you this: think of a scenario (as unrealistic as it is) where every game is basically perfect and deserves a 5/5 or 10/10. Would you still complain that the scale sucks because the average score ain't 2-3 / 5.0 ??? right, that would be plain stupid. So, what did we learn here?? well, one thing, it's NOT necessary (or even possible) to achieve an average of 5.0 in a 10-point scale
- 5-point to 10-point conversions don't work, you'd get sth like this: 1 gets 2, 2 gets 4, 3 gets 6, 4 gets 8 and 5 gets 10. Aaaaaha, notice sth here? the before mediocre score of 3 becomes a 6, not a 5!!! Also, the old average was (1+2+3+4+5)/5=3, the new one would be (1+2+...+10)/10=5.5.

You'll notice two things in there: 1) What was once the average (3) is now ABOVE average (6 > 5.5). Anytime someone converts scores from 5-point to 10-point like that (like gamerankings.com does) it ruins the 10-point scale because the average is shifted towards the 10

all these are reasons why you can't blame the system, but only it's usage

2) "The 5-point scale allows for good, bad, mediocre plus the 2 extremes"

I ask you, who said the 10-point scale doesn't allow this???

the extremes: 1, 10

leaves you with 8 different scores for good, bad and mediocre. You have 2 ways to split this up, either bad/good get 2 points each and mediocre the range from 4-7 is mediocre. Or you have 3 points each for bad/good and 5-6 for mediocre. Both (obviously) average out at 5.5 (as i calculated above). So, isn't this just as easy to work with as a reader as the 5-point scale? everything 6+ is more good than bad, with 7/8-10 being good-superb and 5- is more bad than good with 1-3/4 being total crap-bad. I don't see how this is harder to "read" than a 5-point-scale, other than you might be used to it?!?

also, just an example, with a 5-point system both, Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA would get a 4/5, because both are good and neither perfect. BUT this score totally denies that there's a HUGE difference in realism and quality between them. Sure, you can read both reviews to learn about this, but of what use at all is a score if it does not help you at all with a decision to buy a certain game? if you do not want the score to work without the review, why even USE a score?!? if i have to read the review to see which of 2 games is better then a score is totally useless, just leave it out and go with reviews only (just like some mags are in fact doing it)

i actually wanted to say more, but i'm too tired now, so i'll leave it now ;)

[THATinkjar]

also, just an example, with a 5-point system both, Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA would get a 4/5, because both are good and neither perfect. BUT this score totally denies that there's a HUGE difference in realism and quality between them. Sure, you can read both reviews to learn about this, but of what use at all is a score if it does not help you at all with a decision to buy a certain game? if you do not want the score to work without the review, why even USE a score?!? if i have to read the review to see which of 2 games is better then a score is totally useless, just leave it out and go with reviews only (just like some mags are in fact doing it)

Hydrox to the rescure! That is a great example. I have nothing more to say, other than I stand by what you said.

[Sniderman]

Many good points for both sides of the issue. For me, I prefer the 10-point scale as it allows for more differentiation between grades/ranks. In other words (to take this to an extreme), would you rather grade your games on a 2-point scale (Condition: good/bad) or on a 100-point scale? (Condition: 92% vs. Condition: 7%) A larger scale allows (theoretically) for a more concise grade.

[Tan]

i prefer the 5 point scale myself, but having said that the 10 point scale is good for comparing a game that has multiple platforms i.e. if a game is considered great on the ps2 they'd give it a 9/10 but if the xbox version has 5.1 and better online it would get a 9.5/10

[anagrama]

i prefer the 5 point scale myself, but having said that the 10 point scale is good for comparing a game that has multiple platforms i.e. if a game is considered great on the ps2 they'd give it a 9/10 but if the xbox version has 5.1 and better online it would get a 9.5/10

But, if half-marks are used that's a 20-point system not 10-point. Decimals a simply redundant - 1-5 with half-marks? Use 1-10 instead. 0.0 to 10.0? Use 1-100 instead. Simple.

[Oobgarm]

Got a few things to mention, apologies for this post's rambling/broken nature.

I don't understand why everything has to be simplified, like being able to take any and all criteria into consideration when rating/grading a product and having those criteria reflect in the score.

Like how HJC mentioned the Tales of Legendia and Grandia III thing...OPM gave them the same score, 4/5. Gamespot did 8.0 and 7.6, respectively. Both titles are good, but each one has a different element that makes it a good game, and by the same token, each has specific drawbacks.

So, by the reasoning I've gathered from this thread, they should just both be lumped into an 'average' category and their specific stregnths/weaknesses not be accounted for in the final review score?

I mean, almost everyone knows that the 'top' or 'big' titles like RE4, God of War, Mario Kart, Madden, etc. are going to score high and they're going to get them regardless if they're a 9.0 or 9.5. But when you get games that are more in the realm of 'above average' or 'niche' games, like many RPGs and action/adventure titles, a small difference in a review score can really help influence a person's buying decisions. And when it comes down to those small differences in score, the actual written review helps showcase the specifics. If two games in the same genre get close, yet differing, scores, I'm going to dig through the review itself to find out why. The two work hand-in-hand. I look at review scores as a sort of summary, and based on those scores, I'll decide if further research and review reading is necessary.

When you get into .1 or .2 increments, it does get a little out of hand, and finding reasons as to why there is a small difference is often impossible. Since I prefer a 10 point scale with 1/2 increments, by brain automatically rounds .1, .2, .6, and .7 increments down and .3, .4, .8, and .9 increments up.

Perhaps the reviewer's personal tilt caused the variance? No matter what anyone says, tilt is a very important and powerful factor in a review. It's good that Gamespot includes it in their tally. As a fan of racing games, I'm willing to overlook small details of a franchise I enjoy, but a person who only holds a mild interest in the genre may not be so forgiving. On the flipside, if a franchise I really enjoy slips up and drops an effort that doesn't quite live up to its predecessor, I may more inclined to be harsh about than someone who doesn't share that same level of interest. It's important for something like that to be brought to the forefront.

If you're going to consider older titles, you have to go into it knowing that the games were scored as such when they came out. No consideration is made for future releases, and it shouldn't be. At that point in time, that's what the game scored. The industry trends that were in place at that time influenced the score.

[hydr0x]

i prefer the 5 point scale myself, but having said that the 10 point scale is good for comparing a game that has multiple platforms i.e. if a game is considered great on the ps2 they'd give it a 9/10 but if the xbox version has 5.1 and better online it would get a 9.5/10

But, if half-marks are used that's a 20-point system not 10-point. Decimals a simply redundant - 1-5 with half-marks? Use 1-10 instead. 0.0 to 10.0? Use 1-100 instead. Simple.

correct as always, James ;)

i'm not sure if i like 10 or 100 better, it probably doesn't matter too much. 5 on the other hand i think is not good for real reviews, but perfect for the first impression style "reviews"

[chrisbid]

But when you get games that are more in the realm of 'above average' or 'niche' games, like many RPGs and action/adventure titles, a small difference in a review score can really help influence a person's buying decisions. And when it comes down to those small differences in score, the actual written review helps showcase the specifics.




the problem is that scoring is NOT DEFINED, the numbers are totally pulled out of the ass of the reviewer, THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE. even if the scores of two games were given out by the same reviewer, will you ever know how the numbers are tabulated? where do you make deductions? bad load times? bad voice acting, a fat check from the publisher for ad space? this is the problem i have with ranking games and super-specific rating scales. take a look at these

http://games.ign.com/ratings.html

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

once you dip below 6, both lists struggle to come up with new adjectives for lousy games

here is the 1up criteria

1 - Crap
2 - Disaster
3 - Painful
4 - Broken
5 - Average
6 - Playable
7 - Good Stuff
8 - Excellent
9 - Outstanding
10 - Genius

that doesnt even include the half points, and there are a lot of extra adjectives on that list, and while 5 is supposed to be average, a quick look up and down a list of review scores show few games falling below 7 letalone 6. by definition, most games cannot be "above average"

[Oobgarm]

the problem is that scoring is NOT DEFINED, the numbers are totally pulled out of the ass of the reviewer, THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE.

But isn't that the reviewer's job? Isn't that what they get paid to do?

But with any ratings system, especially in an entertainment field, the decision to rate game X with a 'poor', 'average', or 'good' rating (or number score) is purely subjective, no matter what.

Unless strict guidelines are set up by some sort of governing body, there will never be a truly OBJECTIVE way of scoring and/or rating videogames.

[jajaja]

I think 1 to 10. Gives you more "room to play" when you should rank something.

[chrisbid]

Unless strict guidelines are set up by some sort of governing body, there will never be a truly OBJECTIVE way of scoring and/or rating videogames.

exactly, so why make the problem worse, by adding extra layers of subjectivity, a simple well defined scoring system reduces the problem