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

[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."