Lame. 100 point scale is way better.
Two 9s can be of very different levels of quality.
Two 9s can be of very different levels of quality.
5 is literally in the middle... lol
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
IGN simplifying their review score scale to 10 points.
- Thread starter Naga
- Start date
Why would I need 10 choices to describe my overall opinion when I'm trying to put it in a most simple way and general way? 10 options is just way to much.
I prefer a four star system.
No stars means it is absolute garbage.
One star means it's pretty garbage.
Two star means it's a bit garbage.
Three star means it's not garbage.
Four star means it's hella not garbage.
Very scientific, you see.
I prefer a four star system.
No stars means it is absolute garbage.
One star means it's pretty garbage.
Two star means it's a bit garbage.
Three star means it's not garbage.
Four star means it's hella not garbage.
Very scientific, you see.
If they would rate every game it would be the average. But they do not review crap! Why? Noone wants to read it. The only occasions when such low scores happen is when it is a highly anticipated game that's utterly crap.
So the main reason there are no 1-5 scores and its reviews is that they would be suicide to produce ;)
5 point system would be better, though I actually advocate for a 6 point system (scale of 5 but with 0 as the lowest possible score instead of 1)
Reason why is because I don't like the idea of there being a perfectly average score, I think the score should have to lean one way or the other towards good or bad. On a scale from 1-5, the average is 3. On a scale from 0-5, the average is 2.5 which means that 3 leans slightly more towards good and now you've got 3 distinct levels of good and bad instead of only two, and no more cop out "meh" score either.
Reason why is because I don't like the idea of there being a perfectly average score, I think the score should have to lean one way or the other towards good or bad. On a scale from 1-5, the average is 3. On a scale from 0-5, the average is 2.5 which means that 3 leans slightly more towards good and now you've got 3 distinct levels of good and bad instead of only two, and no more cop out "meh" score either.
Last edited:
I think meh and mediocre are synonymous in my mind. Seems right. 5 is lower average, and 6 is higher average.
By having a . scale is essentially making the reviews a 100 point review rather then a 10 point review it was originally intended to be.
This is probably for the better. Creates less stupid review scores and forces the reviewer to commit to a score/narrative rather then a half ass answer.
This is probably for the better. Creates less stupid review scores and forces the reviewer to commit to a score/narrative rather then a half ass answer.
I think 5 star system works a lot better. 3 is average but still good. Everything above is varying degrees of great, everything below is bad.
The thing with 10 point system I think alot of people perceive good quality to be rated at 8 and above.
The thing with 10 point system I think alot of people perceive good quality to be rated at 8 and above.
I get what they are going for, but I feel like a 20 point scale is better. I think saying a game is a 7.5 instead of a 7 is actually quite important.
I was already over IGN reviews, they just seem rushed to shit. Everyone should just find that one person on a podcast or something that like the games you like and dont have to rush a review out because they have to.
Way to much granularity in a 10 point scale. Who cares about 1-4,its just degrees of shit,. A 1 out of 10 games smells more shittier than a 2 out of 10? It should be 5 stars,with none of that half star bullshit either. Its up to you,the reviewer,to round up or down depending on how you feel.
Nah those games should just be 9's, I don't think any game should be a 10, you shoot yourself in the foot when you do that. It would have to be a unique game like disco elysiuum
The old system was fine, and the new system also seems fine. The bigger issue in my mind is that most reviews assign one score to a game, even if there are multiple versions of that game and they often don't even mention what platform they played it on. For example if you give Bloodstained an 8 or 9 on PS4, that score certainly should not apply to the Switch version.
I know you got dogpiled but, out of curiosity, what did you think it meant?
You know I cared about this shit TOO MUCH when I was like 16. That was over 20 years ago now and in those 2 decades my eyes have been opened to a review system that only one website dared used back in the day (which I just hated back then). None other than Daily Radar. They only had a 4 point scale, no decimals.
Something rated on that scale is challenging in a way because you actually have to commit to a decision much like "at the movies" did for years prior to daily radar. Why ? because there no longer exists a way to call a game average. No one cares about a 5/10. All they care about is 1/10, 4/10, 8/10 and 10/10. So why bother having anything else ?
Obviously these scores weren't just numbers but I think it's easy to see now what they were meant to imply - Direct Hit (amazing, don't miss game , the type of game that scores a 9 or a 10/10), Hit (still fantastic but has less than a handful of issues keeping it from being a milestone, these days a 7-8/10). Miss (this just didn't work but it might not be terrible, probably equivalent in this day and age to a 5 or a 6/10 , back in 1999 they got a TON of hate mail for giving this rating to final fantasy 8) and finally , Dud (trash, if there are any redeeming qualities, they weren't enough this from being binned. This covers anything that would score a 4/10 or lower because honestly, who buys a 4/10 game unironically ? outside of someone who only reads IGN and still bought godhand and Double dragon Neon because IGN is the pits). Sisken and Ebert of course pretty much adhered to the same scale but called it 2 thumbs up, 1 thumb up, 1 thumb down, 2 thumbs down but it honestly meant just about the same thing in the end. Why do you need decimals all over the place ?
IGN can get some props then for whittling their points system down but let's all be honest with ourselves here - no one cares about a game that gets less than a 7/10 even on this new scale. Everyone is focused much more on games that get an 8/10 and how much better is X compared to Y when Y also scored an 8/10.
Something rated on that scale is challenging in a way because you actually have to commit to a decision much like "at the movies" did for years prior to daily radar. Why ? because there no longer exists a way to call a game average. No one cares about a 5/10. All they care about is 1/10, 4/10, 8/10 and 10/10. So why bother having anything else ?
Obviously these scores weren't just numbers but I think it's easy to see now what they were meant to imply - Direct Hit (amazing, don't miss game , the type of game that scores a 9 or a 10/10), Hit (still fantastic but has less than a handful of issues keeping it from being a milestone, these days a 7-8/10). Miss (this just didn't work but it might not be terrible, probably equivalent in this day and age to a 5 or a 6/10 , back in 1999 they got a TON of hate mail for giving this rating to final fantasy 8) and finally , Dud (trash, if there are any redeeming qualities, they weren't enough this from being binned. This covers anything that would score a 4/10 or lower because honestly, who buys a 4/10 game unironically ? outside of someone who only reads IGN and still bought godhand and Double dragon Neon because IGN is the pits). Sisken and Ebert of course pretty much adhered to the same scale but called it 2 thumbs up, 1 thumb up, 1 thumb down, 2 thumbs down but it honestly meant just about the same thing in the end. Why do you need decimals all over the place ?
IGN can get some props then for whittling their points system down but let's all be honest with ourselves here - no one cares about a game that gets less than a 7/10 even on this new scale. Everyone is focused much more on games that get an 8/10 and how much better is X compared to Y when Y also scored an 8/10.
10 point is a million times preferable to 100 point. The latter is just ridiculous.
Now makes bad games 2s and not 6s.
Now makes bad games 2s and not 6s.
I thought they had moved to a 20-point scale ages ago (i.e. 0.5 increments), but I guess they were still using the 100-point scale?
What? Mediocre just means run-of-the-mill, not nessisarly bad.
They did this before and then went back to the old system again, they need to make up their mind
I think they could've kept .5 increments as part of the scale but, yeah, this is for the best. Scores like 7.1 never made much sense to me
School work is graded on the % completion, % you got correct, and even when it doesn't fall into those two categories, it's % of boxes checked on a rubric. Assessing art has nothing to do with any of that, so it's really not comparable at all.
will they fix the ridiculous 'grading on a curve for low achieving high schoolers' thing they have going on, where 7 is a functioning piece of software
this shit was in the pilot episode of the critic
'your job is to review movies on a scale from good to excellent'
'what if i don't like the movie?'
'that's what good is for'
cheerleading industrial writing for sycophants.
the only thing to praise will be the site's bankruptcy
this shit was in the pilot episode of the critic
'your job is to review movies on a scale from good to excellent'
'what if i don't like the movie?'
'that's what good is for'
cheerleading industrial writing for sycophants.
the only thing to praise will be the site's bankruptcy
This is true, but a lot of people still equate the school grading scale with how all things are graded/reviewed all the same. Add in how reviews have been consistently reinforcing that thought process for years (with nearly always giving out 6-10s) and well... here we are.
