Current Events > 5 as average, or 8 as average?

(+) Yeah! (+)

wheres your mid at

definitely mid.

below that threshold i consider trash...

In terms of games, I think a 5/10 is a pretty bad score. It's a game that's playable and not much else. Anything below that is when you start getting into hugely buggy piles of shit.

I know "6-7" is a thing right now but stop trying to make 5-8 happen...

/s (obvs)

8/10 is "average" in the sense that most games land in the 6/10 to 10/10 range in terms of quality and playability, and so 8/10 is the middle and probably the most common. Few complete professional products really drop below a 6/10.

5/10 is "average" in the concept of just how bad a game can truly get.
5/10 is neither terrible nor good. Playable. Generally not going to be worth the effort.
Below 5/10 would range from bad to outright unplayable trash.

Trash. Mid is 7ish

8 is not average.. Not for games. Average is closer to 7-7.5/10.

For movies, average is 5.5.

I think it depends on the type of media. I've been using IMDB for a long time and have come to view a rating of around 7 for TV shows to be average, but for movies an average rating is more like 5-6. For games it's probably more like 7-8.

It's meant to be mid, but it is actually trash.

Ratings people give tend to skew toward the higher end, which pushes "average" towards the 7 or 8 side of the scale. 5 is bad.

Movies it is average. Video games it is pretty bad, but not quite trash.

Depends on the genre. If it's a genre I like, 5 is mid. If it's a genre I dislike, then 5 is trash, and it's about time critics are waking up to how trash the whole genre is.

Mid=trash now iirc

5 is mid except for games, which have become very shewed. 7.5 is an average game.

Dissident_77 posted...

5 is mid except for games, which have become very shewed. 7.5 is an average game.

Games have a lot more ways to be bad than most other things though. So it kind of is fair for like a good chunk of the scale to be taken up by bad ratings.

Youre kidding yourselves thinking that 5 is mid when historically its been bad. Hell, anything lower than 5 is probably as rare as a 10...except for that year when we got Kong and the gollum game.

7/10 would get you a C in school, which is considered average.

Why is it not 5/10 which is exactly in the middle? Because its expected that you are going to do somewhat well. Its expected that you have studied and have some idea of what you are doing, that is why 7/10 is the average on all things and not 5/10.

When someone is rating a video game or a movie, its expected that the creators have put thought and effort into making a good game or film. Its expected that they are actually trying. Thats why the average in our society is 7/10 and not 5/10. Its expected that people have done a good job.

Bleuets posted...

When someone is rating a video game or a movie, its expected that the creators have put thought and effort into making a good game or film. Its expected that they are actually trying. Thats why the average in our society is 7/10 and not 5/10. Its expected that people have done a good job.

Everything you said is true except games and movies are evaluated differently. The average for a game is around a 75 on Metacritic but around a 55 or 60 for movies.

Depends on the medium, as well as the source of the ratings. For most forms of artistic media (Games, Music, Film, Literature etc.) something rated as a 5 is probably going to be trash. Particularly in fields with high barriers to entry like Games or Films/TV, where there is a bias in ratings due to that barrier of studio production/publishing format (i.e if something is below a 5/10 chances are the studio pulls the plug on the whole thing rather than release it). Also for rating systems like RottenTomatoes a 50% rating would be considered more mid than trash.

My own personal rating system is on a simple 1-5 scale:

1. Life-altering (in a bad way)
2. Exceedingly bad, to the point of notability
3. Average, not great, not terrible
4. Exceedingly good, to the point of notability
5. Life-altering (in a good way)

8 being average is wild to me.

The old argument used be 7 was average, with people relating it directly to school grades.

Honestly, and rating scale where over half the ratings are functionally useless is broken.

Thats why the 1-5 scale is better.

Review scales aren't based on averages. It's a numeric scale of quality. Not a comparison of averages. If it's done on averages, then the more good games that come out, the lower their scores should be. That's counterintuitive.

Depends on the medium, but a lot of times if I'm giving something a 5, that's quite bad. I think of it like it's not worthy of my time or something.

Average games are trash when theres thousands of great games I have yet to play.

LosingStreak06 posted...

Life-altering (in a bad way)
Exceedingly bad, to the point of notability
Average, not great, not terrible
Exceedingly good, to the point of notability
Life-altering (in a good way)

Feel like this is also a scale with nearly half of it unused. good life-altering games are probably countable singlehand (and honestly I think probably has more to do with the context it was played in than the game itself) and I can't even imagine what a bad life-altering game is

actually nvm I can totally imagine, it's like when people go into debt spending $50000 on virtual lootboxes. that's a bad life-altering game

Feels like 6-7 is the 'average' score for video game ratings, and 5 is starting to be like 'this game is actively not great or special, but some folks might like it'.

Here are my definitions when it comes to video games:

10/10 - Masterpieces
These games are not only exceptional from an objective standpoint (as far as objectivity goes...) but also rank among my personal all-time favorites.

9/10 - Excellent
Outstanding games that come close to greatness, though they are not among my personal all-time favorites.

8/10 - Very Good
Strong games with only minor flaws. Definitely worth playing.

7/10 - Good
Enjoyable games with some noticeable issues. Still worth playing if you like the genre or concept.

6/10 - Mediocre
Average or slightly below. These games have several flaws and may only be worth checking out under specific circumstances.

5/10 - Poor
Generally not worth your time. Likely to disappoint in most areas.

4/10 and below - Skip it
Significantly flawed or broken experiences. Not worth playing.

-5. Nearly every gamer should consider trying. Well made by every measure. (Rez, RE4, Doom).
-4. Genuinely good game with some quirks holding it back. (No More Heroes, Whiplash).
-3. Average game with some redeeming qualities. (My Sims, Mushroom Men).
-2. Worth checking out if the concept is interesting, but the execution is flawed. (Lula: The Sexy Empire, Family Guy).
-1. You monster (Big Rigs, Wing Island)

I've always felt like 7 being average is like grading a class on a curve. It's too high up there in the rating system to be considered average.

I don't care what people grade games, but I think they should have some kind of chart describing each score, of giving examples of games they scored that rank.

Neither. Average doesn't factor into it. 5/10 is meh; 8/10 is good.

Not great

Like grading a paper. 7/10 is average.

I would consider 5/10 to be mid. However, part of me would feel like if reviewers gave it a 5 out of 10 that they must consider it bad since I feel like 7-8 is average for reviewers. At the same time though I give 0 fucks what a reviewer rates a game as it factors 0% into whether I think I'll like a game or not.

Jupiter posted...

I would consider 5/10 to be mid. However, part of me would feel like if reviewers gave it a 5 out of 10 that they must consider it bad since I feel like 7-8 is average for reviewers. At the same time though I give 0 fucks what a reviewer rates a game as it factors 0% into whether I think I'll like a game or not.

I mean, it can. In general, I just know what looks interesting and operate on that. But there have been borderline cases where I'll scroll down to see if review aggregates are good.

That's kind of why I prefer reviews that don't give out scores.
I much prefer when it's a "this is what worked for me and what didn't" kind of review.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

I mean, it can. In general, I just know what looks interesting and operate on that. But there have been borderline cases where I'll scroll down to see if review aggregates are good.

I would say my tastes differ than the average. I mean take a game like Time Stalkers. One of my favorite games on Dreamcast. According to Google, it got a 3/10 from HonestGamers, 6/10 from IGN, and a 1/5 from GameFAQs. If I went by reviews, I would think this game isn't worth playing. Yet not only did I like the game, I absolutely loved the game and would buy a sequel or even a remake.

Jupiter posted...

I would say my tastes differ than the average. I mean take a game like Time Stalkers. One of my favorite games on Dreamcast. According to Google, it got a 3/10 from HonestGamers, 6/10 from IGN, and a 1/5 from GameFAQs. If I went by reviews, I would think this game isn't worth playing. Yet not only did I like the game, I absolutely loved the game and would buy a sequel or even a remake.

Yeah, same here. My favorite Phantasy Star is 3, the one everyone else hated. And I generally find "greatest ever" games, you know, ok.

I think what it is for me is the whole rest of the Internet is furiously searching for reasons to hate, and if they find none, the thing was amazing. But I operate in completely the opposite direction. I look for what I liked, and it's only bad if that list is empty.

So like, Phantasy Star 3 has a good 1/3 of the game world that's almost entirely empty, and the music kinda sucks, so everyone hates it. But I don't care about that when the setting is cool as hell and it has that crazy cool generations system and stuff.

5 is average for sure. Gotta understand there are a metric fuckton of games like I wouldn't be surprised if the number was over a million. Most are mediocre trash you've never heard of and didn't make a big enough impact to even get reviewed.

5 as I use it is dead average. Of all the things in the world, this is one of em type average. Completely inoffensive, does what it says on the tin but has zero aspirations of being more average. As modern reviewers use them... who are we kidding. They either assign the score they're paid to or ask chatgpt to write the review.

Anything blow 7 is unplayable garbage for the most part.

kirbymuncher posted...

Feel like this is also a scale with nearly half of it unused. good life-altering games are probably countable singlehand (and honestly I think probably has more to do with the context it was played in than the game itself) and I can't even imagine what a bad life-altering game is

actually nvm I can totally imagine, it's like when people go into debt spending $50000 on virtual lootboxes. that's a bad life-altering game

Yes, one of the other admitted weaknesses of my scale is that its not incredibly useful for comparing or ranking things, as the vast majority of games, films, tv shows, books, songs, albums, art exhibits, meals, plays, musicals, or other experiences fall into the average category.

5

10 = Perfect
9 = Great
8 = Good
7 = Ok
6 = Subpar
5 = Bad

And Im not really sure what would differentiate 1 thru 4. Theyre all just really bad. On the scale, 5-10 kinda runs through the entire range of most games, while 1-4 is a continuation of 5. Half of the rating system is designated for what would be a 1 on a traditional 1-5 scale.

honestly, doing NPS surveys on a global company was a pain in the ass for this exact reason. The american side of management kept classing 8 and lower as a problem, ignoring that the UK's going to vote 6 as mid, and the US will put 9-10 for anything acceptable. And then you've got the Saudis, where you'll get a "Fine, can't think of any way to improve this service. 4/10."

Unless its a borked system that dont include 1-4, I view 5 as average, 8 as pretty good.