Current Events > Game review scoring is weird

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean is there really a difference between an 8.9 game and a 9.0 game? Why is the gap between 7.9 and 8.4 seem larger than the gap between 4/10 and 6/10? What's the point of a 10/10 score if it's never used?

I think a 5 point review scale is fine enough. 5/5 doesn't have the same expectations as a 10/10 game for whatever reason.
---

Darmik posted...

I mean is there really a difference between an 8.9 game and a 9.0 game? Why is the gap between 7.9 and 8.4 seem larger than the gap between 4/10 and 6/10? What's the point of a 10/10 score if it's never used?

Probably not, because review scores tend to curve like grades at 7 rather than 5, and they are used.
---

Letter ranks are better. Numbers are dumb

8.8
---

PlayStation 4 has 8.4/10 on IGN right now.

What does that mean exactly? Who knows.
---

a 5-point scale without halves or fractions is a great system

1: complete ass
2: pretty bad
3: okay
4: good
5: great

Kaiganeer posted...

a 5-point scale without halves or fractions is a great system

1: complete ass
2: pretty bad
3: okay
4: good
5: great

Exactly. And you avoid people making dumb score comparisons against games from different genres.
---

arbitrary decimals make scores seem like they have a large amount of thought put into it

The main problem is that 7 has become "average", the scale is lopsided.
While a 5 point system is a step in the right direction, I think we can do even better using not only letters but + & - so there can be a difference between A+, A, and A- while C is obviously still average.
---

Darmik posted...

Kaiganeer posted...

a 5-point scale without halves or fractions is a great system

1: complete ass
2: pretty bad
3: okay
4: good
5: great

Exactly. And you avoid people making dumb score comparisons against games from different genres.

Are you kidding? There are a bunch of 5 point, no halves scoring system in the world. A great majority of them are in between 4 and 5 in terms of scoring unless there was something that was inherently broken.

Scores in general is dumb. Recommendation should be the way to go, or better yet actually reading the review
---

Reviews should just drop scores entirely and let the text or video speak for itself. All a score does is enables lazy idiots to skip the review and not have to think.
---

DoomSwell posted...

The main problem is that 7 has become "average", the scale is lopsided.
While a 5 point system is a step in the right direction, I think we can do even better using not only letters but + & - so there can be a difference between A+, A, and A- while C is obviously still average.

The thing is that 7 is "average" out of the pool of games that had a chance to be any good to begin with. There's a ton of shovelware and primitive indie releases ("My first publishable game" sort of thing, made very quickly with minimal investment for the experience and rent money that month) that major sites often don't even bother reviewing.
---

The reviews are arbitrary to begin with, but the 10 point scale is much better than the 5 point scale, and the .9 is helpful because sometimes a game is between good and great.

the_rowan posted...

The thing is that 7 is "average" out of the pool of games that had a chance to be any good to begin with. There's a ton of shovelware and primitive indie releases ("My first publishable game" sort of thing, made very quickly with minimal investment for the experience and rent money that month) that major sites often don't even bother reviewing.

That's a good point. It's not like a movie where you can get it over with in an hour and a half.

Even on the 5 star review scale most games that get reviewed would get at least three stars.

Dash_Harber posted...

and the .9 is helpful because sometimes a game is between good and great.

So an 8.9 game is good and a 9.0 game is great? I dunno.
---

Darmik posted...

So an 8.9 game is good and a 9.0 game is great? I dunno.

Again, it's arbitrary and subjective. However, it does communicate with the reader that the game has some flaws that, while not completely negligble, are not game breaking, either. Like if a game is extremely good in most aspects, but has a couple bugs, you might want to put a .5 or a .9 instead of saying a 6 or a 7, which may indicate the game is subpar.

Dash_Harber posted...

Darmik posted...

So an 8.9 game is good and a 9.0 game is great? I dunno.

Again, it's arbitrary and subjective. However, it does communicate with the reader that the game has some flaws that, while not completely negligble, are not game breaking, either. Like if a game is extremely good in most aspects, but has a couple bugs, you might want to put a .5 or a .9 instead of saying a 6 or a 7, which may indicate the game is subpar.

I think the larger the scale is the less that communicates anything to the reader.

Most games seem to fall within the 80s range regardless. I couldn't tell you the difference between an 8/10 game and an 8.5/10 game because they all pretty much end up around that range. It's the 'great game but not GOTY contender' tier which is most AAA games at this point lol.
---

I also think the really big issue here is the decimals. they're what enable you to never rate anything below a 6.

In a system without decimals, using only 6 and up that gives five options (6-7-8-9-10) which would result in a lot of games you don't feel at all the same on ending up with the same number. It would feel immediately and obviously wrong as a rater. But with decimals it gives you over 40 options, and suddenly the top end is a lot less crowded and you can stick a ton more games in there.

A full 1-10 system with decimals gives you like, 100 different rating points. This is way more fine-grain than is really necessary in any situation imo and is what gives rise to questions like "what's the difference between 7.2 and 7.3 anyway?"

decimals should only show up in ratings imo when they're an average of multiple people's ratings on something. but I also think aggregate ratings like that are kind of pointless too so whatever
---