There are college/university programs that require a 3.0 GPA (85% and up) to stay in as well or to keep scholarships.
-
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.
What a 7/10 actually means
- Thread starter Deleted member 41931
- Start date
But isn't that for Doctorates and for very specialized skills and occupations that needs a mastery of the subject to do the job and not for general courses?
OpenCritic has a histogram of the average review score for all of the games in its database. The median (i.e. the 50% percentile, so half of the games reviewed get higher average scores, and half get lower average scores) is between 7.1 and 7.2 (out of ten). It's quite interesting seeing quite how many games land in these two (with Days Gone's 7.2 average landing it on the 52th percentile. In comparison, World War Z's 7.1 average drops it to the 48th percentile).
If 7 is a 5, what's 8 and 9?
Unless the OP can be interpreted both ways.
I'm reading it like saying average should be 5, not 7. Is the OP saying 5 should be average, 7 should be good?
Which would make an interesting topic for some recently release games, lol.
This is one reason why I rarely to never go by reviews. I trust gameplay clips, and actually playing the game.
I think that's what's the OP is saying.
Unless the OP can be interpreted both ways.
I'm reading it like saying average should be 5, not 7. Is the OP saying 5 should be average, 7 should be good?
Which would make an interesting topic for some recently release games, lol.
This is one reason why I rarely to never go by reviews. I trust gameplay clips, and actually playing the game.
OP has a good point. Inflation has made 7 average in trends, but not in all people's minds.
People arguing over what some non-scientific number means gives me similar chuckles to that of when folks argue over pronunciation of a word written in roman characters, by presenting their own set of roman characters that somehow are supposed to give a more clear and less subjective reading.
(See that Shenmue thread.)
It makes sense for the middle of the scale to be average. But due to inflation it isn't. Thus the scale is wonky and not useful for describing how good something is, but rather is skewed to have many degrees of how bad something is. And that's not even something folks are interested in, as nobody* wants bad games in the first place.
Furthermore, just as any two of y'all in this thread probably have a different take on what exactly a 7 means, so does basically every game reviewer, which makes an average/aggregate of their collective near-7s virtually meaningless, as the numbers weren't measure the exact same scientific value each time.
Numbers just make us drop our guard and almost assume some sense of objectivity is in order. I mean, numbers are usually objective, and represent many reproducible scientific values.
Thus, the question shouldn't be what does a 7/10 or 70 on metacritic mean for a game (aside from possible missed bonuses from the publisher, because that's still a thing), but instead what does a 7 mean to each individual that's reviewing said game.
The solution?
Read the reviews.
It doesn't take long, and you'll know significantly more than if you just look at some number and assume what it means.
You'll also have less arguments with strangers about whether that number was correct or not, because you'll realize that it has to be correct. It reflects whatever opinion the person who assigned it has, and they're the foremost expert on their own opinion!
Reactions and observations on video games will have objective facts noted in them, but they will mostly contain subjective insights, which can have a ton more nuance than a 10 point or even 100 point scale.
Then, when you read your another review with possible a different number at the end, you can see what that number actually means, without any confusion as to who was right, because they both were!
It's a fantastic life choice. Don't sleep on it.
But what about Metacritic?
Use it! It's a handy quick list of a bunch of reviews that you can read!
Do you review games also?
Maybe don't include a number. Folks might just be scrolling down to see some otherwise meaningless number if you include one. If you don't, they'll either actually read it, or they won't, which they were trying not to do anyway by seeking out some holy number.
If you already don't include numbers, kudos to you! You've already dodged some bullets by doing so, because you can never give a game the "wrong" score if you never give it a score in the first place.
In conclusion, Jim Sterling was objectively wrong about Breath of the Wild. It was not a "7/10". It was most definitely an 8.8. I have a game thermometer that can objectively sense that stuff, and I can tell that Jim is making things up like it's just his opinion or something.
(*okay, so, some people actually enjoy bad games on purpose)
People arguing over what some non-scientific number means gives me similar chuckles to that of when folks argue over pronunciation of a word written in roman characters, by presenting their own set of roman characters that somehow are supposed to give a more clear and less subjective reading.
(See that Shenmue thread.)
It makes sense for the middle of the scale to be average. But due to inflation it isn't. Thus the scale is wonky and not useful for describing how good something is, but rather is skewed to have many degrees of how bad something is. And that's not even something folks are interested in, as nobody* wants bad games in the first place.
Furthermore, just as any two of y'all in this thread probably have a different take on what exactly a 7 means, so does basically every game reviewer, which makes an average/aggregate of their collective near-7s virtually meaningless, as the numbers weren't measure the exact same scientific value each time.
Numbers just make us drop our guard and almost assume some sense of objectivity is in order. I mean, numbers are usually objective, and represent many reproducible scientific values.
Thus, the question shouldn't be what does a 7/10 or 70 on metacritic mean for a game (aside from possible missed bonuses from the publisher, because that's still a thing), but instead what does a 7 mean to each individual that's reviewing said game.
The solution?
Read the reviews.
It doesn't take long, and you'll know significantly more than if you just look at some number and assume what it means.
You'll also have less arguments with strangers about whether that number was correct or not, because you'll realize that it has to be correct. It reflects whatever opinion the person who assigned it has, and they're the foremost expert on their own opinion!
Reactions and observations on video games will have objective facts noted in them, but they will mostly contain subjective insights, which can have a ton more nuance than a 10 point or even 100 point scale.
Then, when you read your another review with possible a different number at the end, you can see what that number actually means, without any confusion as to who was right, because they both were!
It's a fantastic life choice. Don't sleep on it.
But what about Metacritic?
Use it! It's a handy quick list of a bunch of reviews that you can read!
Do you review games also?
Maybe don't include a number. Folks might just be scrolling down to see some otherwise meaningless number if you include one. If you don't, they'll either actually read it, or they won't, which they were trying not to do anyway by seeking out some holy number.
If you already don't include numbers, kudos to you! You've already dodged some bullets by doing so, because you can never give a game the "wrong" score if you never give it a score in the first place.
In conclusion, Jim Sterling was objectively wrong about Breath of the Wild. It was not a "7/10". It was most definitely an 8.8. I have a game thermometer that can objectively sense that stuff, and I can tell that Jim is making things up like it's just his opinion or something.
(*okay, so, some people actually enjoy bad games on purpose)
Exactly from my own review scoring sheet:
"A score of 7: A game that misses the mark on some things, but manages to just be "OK". Whether you want to purchase it is up to the individual willing to accept said game for whatever flaws it may have."
That's basically how I see all 7s in general and it doesn't mean bad at all, just OK and good but could be better.
"A score of 7: A game that misses the mark on some things, but manages to just be "OK". Whether you want to purchase it is up to the individual willing to accept said game for whatever flaws it may have."
That's basically how I see all 7s in general and it doesn't mean bad at all, just OK and good but could be better.
7/10 to me says - "Might be good if you like the genre, but if you can you should wait for a sale."
I don't read reviews of movies either or even watch trailers because I've usually figured out the movie within seconds. IMDB is great.
Not just that, review scores are important because pretty much all reviews are spoiling stuff by talking too much about the story, world, gameplay, etc that I would rather find out myself when playing the game. Metacritic is great.
I don't read reviews of movies either or even watch trailers because I've usually figured out the movie within seconds. IMDB is great.
Only part I feel is overstated is this. There's instances where this is true, but for the most part 7s are given out because in general, most games really do manage to hit the average mark, just like most films, books, restaurants, people. It's not appeasement.
Most complaints about these scores come from people who are too eager to give something they dislike a scathing score, and fans that are too delicate to admit something they love is really mediocre.
Good write up though, 7s get people too excited or deflated in odd ways
How much someone will enjoy a game will never be decided by an aggregate score, no matter what it is. Aggregate scores are just numbers calculated by averaging many different opinions, some of them by people who might think a game is excellent, and others by people who might think it's junk. All of them are equally valid, whether they are attributed to professionals or not, and all of them will exist before someone adds them together and averages them. In fact, they will exist, unchanged, whether anyone bothers to calculate an average or not. All those separate opinions matter, aggregate scores do not.
7 has always meant 'passing' to me, especially because of school grades. It meets most expectations but has some rough edges.
A lot of the games I enjoy are the ones that score 7s and sometimes below on average. So I never really saw the 7 as all that bad. It's another example of why I'd like to see review scores go away. I understand people like to use metacritic as a quick reception check before buying a game but I think a rotten tomato like percentage system would do the same thing and work way better.
yeah, this. no idea anymore what, exactly, this whole 'score' conversation's about, or what it's attempting to accomplish. it's the definition of pointless :) ...
Yep. I wish I could get a census on how many people read the actual fucking review print versus those who just lose their shit over a number while ignoring what the writer is saying.
People act like these so-called "journalists" spend hours working on the number first, with the written review being a 10 minute afterthought. lol
Seriously?
You'd never buy a 7?
Have you ever considered the fact that you might actually disagree with reviewers?
A 7 means to be extremely competent in atleast one aspect. The rest isn't as much but nothing egregiously wrong.
Also could mean a very solid all around experience but not interesting enough to make it great. Some would say cliche or walking down a beaten path without adding much to the trope. (I'd argue this would go for 8's as well but 8's just do things better)
But YMMV. Take in the professional reviews, get the temperature of user reviews, watch non spoiler gameplay, and then make an informed decision. Many people's 7 is another person's 9. Conversely GOTYs could be boring shit to a person.
(I don't personally believe in perfect 10's unless it's named Bloodborne. And even then it's a 9.9999999999999999999999 until I get 60 fps. For me, Bloodborne has a flaw and it's their frames per second.)
Also, I don't have a problem with numeric scores. It's been ingrained in cultural reviews for decades now. It's hard to shake. Consumer need to inform themselves before making a buying decision. Conversely, there needs to be more voices and outlets to inform consumers - not less. These scores are just one of many ways to do so. You put your own personal stock into it.
I do have a problem when the written portion obviously doesn't match the numeric value assign. Like you trashed this game in the majority of your review but somehow it's an 8.5? What? How? Why? I respect people like Angry Joe that will explain the rationale of his numeric score.
Also could mean a very solid all around experience but not interesting enough to make it great. Some would say cliche or walking down a beaten path without adding much to the trope. (I'd argue this would go for 8's as well but 8's just do things better)
But YMMV. Take in the professional reviews, get the temperature of user reviews, watch non spoiler gameplay, and then make an informed decision. Many people's 7 is another person's 9. Conversely GOTYs could be boring shit to a person.
(I don't personally believe in perfect 10's unless it's named Bloodborne. And even then it's a 9.9999999999999999999999 until I get 60 fps. For me, Bloodborne has a flaw and it's their frames per second.)
Also, I don't have a problem with numeric scores. It's been ingrained in cultural reviews for decades now. It's hard to shake. Consumer need to inform themselves before making a buying decision. Conversely, there needs to be more voices and outlets to inform consumers - not less. These scores are just one of many ways to do so. You put your own personal stock into it.
I do have a problem when the written portion obviously doesn't match the numeric value assign. Like you trashed this game in the majority of your review but somehow it's an 8.5? What? How? Why? I respect people like Angry Joe that will explain the rationale of his numeric score.
Last edited:
According to this analysis of various movie rating systems from 2017, this doesn't seem to be an issue. On Metacritic movies seem to have closer to a normal distribution whereas games seem to be slanted towards higher scores.
Now what is causing this difference is anybody's guess but I don't think it's because game reviewers are more discerning.
I think the scale is working properly as is. The problem is that many never play or even know of the games in the 1-5 scale so they don't appreciate how polished and enjoyable even a "bad AAA 7/10" is.
And literally if a game is an 8 or less it's shit upon. Case in point this thread 7=5 BS. 7(70) is a solid game worthy of a try. 5(50) is average. If a game falls under 8 it's DOA in most cases. Why? Because people just look at scores while ignoring what was said about it. Case in poi t the BotW thread. Many claiming it wasn't worth the 10s it got while listing the came complaints many of the reviewers said the game had but explained how they didn't detract from the experience at all.
Oh yeah, but this kinda worked for me, except with Bioshock 2. Then I started to read the reviews too. I'm tight on a budget, so its a good filter.
it's almost like putting a number onto an opinion is inherently silly.
shout out to the nerds in this thread who take review scores far too seriously.
10/10 -- All around decent.
9/10 -- O.K. Not good, not great.
8/10 -- Serviceable but deeply flawed.
7/10 -- Literally unplayable.
9/10 -- O.K. Not good, not great.
8/10 -- Serviceable but deeply flawed.
7/10 -- Literally unplayable.
how can 5 imply average when statistically the average is ~7?
are you arguing that the majority of reviewed games are better than average? that throws the definition of average out the window.
because games are generally such a big time investment i don't even think 7s are worth trying most of the time, whereas i might check out a 5/10 movie here and there because i'm only staking an hour or two of my time.
i translate most AAA videogame reviews like this:
7 - average, almost definitely not worth the time even at a rock bottom price or given away for free.
8 - i might like it enough to see it through. especially if i'm a big fan of the genre.
9 - worth playing
9.5-10 - GOTY material, must play
indies get more leeway because they tend to be more interesting and less cookie cutter, which makes investing time easier.
if just you played all the 8+ games in just the genres you like, you'd probably still have way more than enough to play in a given year.
it's average, but if you enjoy the majority of AAA games then average is still good.
This is the review-scale I've been using for a long time now. Blame the rest of gaming media for perpetuating the idea that anything below an 8 is trash.
"A 7 isn't bad or good"...yeah, sorry, but I don't buy this in either respect. A 7 should be good. A 6 should be a positive score. Sure, a 6 is fairly mediocre; a real "for fans of the genre" type game, but a 6 should be more positive than negative. A 7 should be straight up positive. A real B/B- type of thing. Hardly outstanding, but a good experience overall.
But, this is gaming reviews we're talking about. And a 7 doesn't mean not good or bad there either. It means bad. If a 7 is a 5, then a 5 is a 0. Outside of select games like Ride to Hell, where it's a tossed off game that reviewers don't feel bad about kicking around, a game's score pretty much starts at a 5. A big game like this, getting 72 overall, getting 5 from some big sites...that's not saying "it's okay" like you suggest, or "it's good" like a 7 should mean. It's saying "it's bad, but we don't give out 3s".
But, this is gaming reviews we're talking about. And a 7 doesn't mean not good or bad there either. It means bad. If a 7 is a 5, then a 5 is a 0. Outside of select games like Ride to Hell, where it's a tossed off game that reviewers don't feel bad about kicking around, a game's score pretty much starts at a 5. A big game like this, getting 72 overall, getting 5 from some big sites...that's not saying "it's okay" like you suggest, or "it's good" like a 7 should mean. It's saying "it's bad, but we don't give out 3s".
It's since changed to a little lower, but my CS bachelors (nowhere crazy, a state school) needed that, it's a 2.7 now.
Exactly. This is why scoreless reviews should be the norm. Read the fucking review and form your own opinion instead of seeing a number and going, pfft 79, not worth my time. When it is probably a good game. But sadly most that seem to be obsessed with scores, metacritic, and the like only care about the score not the opinion.
OP
OP
There is an appreciable difference. Let's say you play 2 games. The first is a puzzle game. You play it and it's generally fine, but you breeze through it and find it boring due to a lack challenge. So you give it a 4. The other game is a VR title that makes you violently ill, so you give it a 1. The first unlike the second has the potential to be enjoyed even if it's unlikely. To put it in film terms, the Transformers sequels vs Death of a Nation. One is generally competent and has an audience that unironicly enjoys it, but overall is not very good. The other is offensive trash that will only be enjoyed by people share in its ideals because its overglorfied propaganda.
It's like I've (probably) said before:
People don't care about reviews, but they care about review scores.
People don't read reviews, but they read review threads.
The information age came and went. Now everyone just wants to see shit-shows and meltdowns.
I find that so weird... I mean, the half of 10 is 5, so 5 should be mediocre or a "fair" score, but 7 is the new 5. That's mathematically weird...
From my perspective, it has meant below average games. This is in comparison to the 8 or above games that I try to squeeze into my limited gaming hours these days. There are enough 9+ rated games and even more 8s that most anything 7 or below feels like a waste of time when you could be playing higher rated games instead.
That's my opinion of course.
That's my opinion of course.
It means only spend on 60 bucks if this is exactly what you are looking for. But even then, try waiting for a sale.
For everyone else, it means that this is a game that is not so good you have to play it even if the genre/theme and the game in general didn't interest you too much.
Example:
I really love driving games. Especially NFS Undergrounds. The 2015 NFS is not a game that I would suggest to anyone, but it was totally worth 30 bucks for me. I can overlook its mistakes because it gave me exactly what I wanted. Sure, it could've been better, and it's not going to win anybody over who don't care.
Same with Ace Combat. Although thankfully that game turned out quite okay not just for aviation fanatics.
This is the same reason why games like PDS grand strategies don't have to rely on reviews. These games are loved because they are PDS grand strategies. If they are, no matter what, I will play them because these are literally the only games that can give that experience. For some people, it would be a 3/10 boring click fest. For me, even the weaker ones are 9/10, because nothing can touch them in complexity and immersion.
For everyone else, it means that this is a game that is not so good you have to play it even if the genre/theme and the game in general didn't interest you too much.
Example:
I really love driving games. Especially NFS Undergrounds. The 2015 NFS is not a game that I would suggest to anyone, but it was totally worth 30 bucks for me. I can overlook its mistakes because it gave me exactly what I wanted. Sure, it could've been better, and it's not going to win anybody over who don't care.
Same with Ace Combat. Although thankfully that game turned out quite okay not just for aviation fanatics.
This is the same reason why games like PDS grand strategies don't have to rely on reviews. These games are loved because they are PDS grand strategies. If they are, no matter what, I will play them because these are literally the only games that can give that experience. For some people, it would be a 3/10 boring click fest. For me, even the weaker ones are 9/10, because nothing can touch them in complexity and immersion.
1-10 scale is as subjective as can be and perception also has a role. 8-10 is definitely what is perceived in the wide audience as recommendable and anything with 7 or lower has to have specific redeeming qualities or heart to be considered a cult classic.
Last edited:
that puzzle game you describe doesn't sound like a 4, if that's what you meant though it would still get a 1 star (it was a game that worked but that i did not like) where the game that makes me violently ill I wouldn't give a score to because i probably wouldn't have been able to finish it.
I've never really seen an issue with 7 being average. To me, anything that is so bad it deserves like a 1-3 is something on the level of Big Rigs, a game that fundamentally is broken and doesn't function as one would expect a game to. The "average" score gets skewed up because people don't generally release games that are that bad.
You all are over-thinking this.
If you all listen or read the reviews, the reviewer will tell you what flaws a game has in their opinion. When a game gets a 7, there is usually several things a reviewer doesnt like.
Its simple, so dont over-think it. I feel like every time an exclusive game reviews like this, a thread like this pops up.
If you all listen or read the reviews, the reviewer will tell you what flaws a game has in their opinion. When a game gets a 7, there is usually several things a reviewer doesnt like.
Its simple, so dont over-think it. I feel like every time an exclusive game reviews like this, a thread like this pops up.
I really dislike modern review scale.
Bottom scale was so much better.
In the 90's you didn't actually start to worry about a game's quality until it it was 5 or less.
Now days since the scale is so fucked I question even 9's.
Bottom scale was so much better.
In the 90's you didn't actually start to worry about a game's quality until it it was 5 or less.
Now days since the scale is so fucked I question even 9's.
This is our definition of a 7/10 on Push Square:
"A good game with more positives than negatives, these titles are not average in our eyes. A release awarded this score may lack ambition or polish, but still offers a quality experience. Fans of a given genre should not overlook a game with this score, but may want to consider which areas we felt let the experience down."
"A good game with more positives than negatives, these titles are not average in our eyes. A release awarded this score may lack ambition or polish, but still offers a quality experience. Fans of a given genre should not overlook a game with this score, but may want to consider which areas we felt let the experience down."
the reason the average is 70 rather than 50 is that there is a selection bias in what games actually get reviewed. no one bothers to review the worst asset flip crap, so the games that would get 40 and below are excluded from the metacritic data most of the time, which pushes up the average. so a 70 is an above average game even if it's an average review score