Game Ratings
 

So, I have to ask, why do number ratings get so much hate? I mean, all it is is summing up an entire review into a number score. Sometimes people don't want to read a whole review, they just want to know "how good is this game?" A number system is an excellent way to say that. 10/10 is an excellent game. 9/10 was great, but had a couple minor flaws. Keep going down till 1/10 meaning this is a terrible horrible game and if you like it you're a horrible person.

Besides, if you don't like number reviews, you don't have to go by it, there's still an entire review explaining the good and the bad about the game, number score aside. I don't see why some people disregard an entire review because it uses a number system.

The problem is that certain games aren't for everyone, so you may want to read it to find out what it is. Braid has excelent reviews, but is shunned by many PRECISELY by it's puzzle oriented nature (instead of being "just a platformer").

Just like that, we have first or third person "shooters" that aren't really shooters in the normal sense, so you may not like them. Objective reviews are supposed to tell you those things, so you know exactly what you're getting.

And I really haven't seen anyone disregard a review cause it has numbers on it. I usually read the review first and then see the number.

Basically, it's an useless addition to a what could be a nice review(Or at least how nice a review can get, they already have their own problems).

First, because people may get to the exact same score(Or close to it) for completely different reasons which pretty much screws the "how good is this game?" question. Mean, a guy deduces two points for hating the plot but loving responsive commands and another deduces two for the controls while congratulating the excellent plot, you got two 8.0 reviews and no idea what to do with the game.

Second, it's already bad to compare one review of the same game to another, it's downright horrible to compare two different games, with different genres and styles for their scores. How does a 9.0 RPG compares to a 9.0 Fighting game? or a 7.5 Racing and a 7.5 Action? Double the headache if the game has multiple genres.

And to be fair, you shouldn't listen to reviews in the first place. The only way to know if you're going to like a game or not, is playing it.

Because using decimals (or units in a one-hundred system) for completely arbitrary reasons make no sense whatsoever. Under what criteria is a 7.9 fighting game better than a 7.7? Why does a 9.8 game not receive the full ten?

In my opinion, scores should be from 1-5, ranging from Horrible to Bad to Average to Good to Must Buy. A four-star rating is also cool with me.

There is no objective standpoint to judge anything by [though I immediately just thought of, like, benchmarking performance on PCs and such, I guess that's fairly objective measurement?], let alone people's opinions of games.

You like what you like and no corny voiceacting or repetitious control scheme that some review gave a 6/10 for will change that for YOU. With that logic, I can safely say there's games out there that have received atrocious ratings, reviews, and even sales, that I've gained countless hours of enjoyment from. One man's trash is another's treasure and all that.

That being said, numerical scores are not to be completely discounted. To RT, I would say there is very little difference once you get into the decimal points, but that's almost slippery slope. That being said, I like to think there is a pretty strong correlation between the number score given to a game, and it's potential goodness. The correlation grows stronger when you include more reviews (increase in 'objectivity'), so things like RottenTomatoes and Metacritic and all that are quite cool. That is, CHANCES ARE, if you searched by highest ratings on such websites, I betcha most of the games at the top are good games.

To give a different perspective, when I'm trying to pitch a game to someone at work, or when they ask about a game, I never give a numerical score (maybe because it's corny). I've learned to hate customers asking "What's a good game?" (and about 1 in every 10 ask exactly that), because I couldn't possibly know what they consider good qualities. I try to ask questions like "Well, what games do you generally play? What genres do you like, gameplay elements do you consider?" Then answers finally come out like "Oh I like shooters" and I can point them towards Gears of War 2, Left 4 Dead, and all that.

On its own, the number score is not worth much, especially if it means opening your wallet or not. If I was in a game store looking at any given title, and the salesperson said "Oh well such and such site gave this a 6.7 out of 10", that's even less information than I get from looking at the back of the box, so...Yeah.

the thing with numbered reviews is that they dont really "replace" the review itself. it's a flawed system that is not directly connected to the review, actually.

As in, a 10 would be a perfect game, and 5 would be an good game (since it's half). But what you see in actual reviews is that anything below 8 means the game is utter shit. and 1,2,3 are only meant for games that simply dont work.

Is reviews should be bound to something, i belive it should be a simple clear message. Classify reviews like this:

-D: Not worth of your time
-C: Good for rentals
-B: Buy it just if you really like this type of game
-A: Buy it with no worries. It's really good.

following the review score there should be this disclaimer: "This review and it's score represents just the reviewer's personal opinion"

I wouldn't say your characterization is quite right...

I agree there is "mark inflation" in the review world just as there's inflation in the academic world (at least in Canada, I can't speak for anywhere else). But plenty of games with 7 scores are decent, which leads me to view games roughly as you would view grades on your report card. Generally, I wouldn't look at a test I got 50% on and say "Wow, that's a good mark!" just because it's half of 100%. More like anything 9 and up is really great (no game is perfect, none, a 10 is not a perfect game). Between 8 and 9 is really good, 7 is good, 6 is average (and who wants to pay $75 for average?), 5 is crap, and anything below 5 is shit (i.e. FAIL).

Reviews do not need disclaimers. Instead, the onus should be on the reader to have the brain power to remember this is one, or maybe a few people's opinions.

I have been considering a rating system not unlike yours, Bell. Except it was going to be a three rating, Borrow, Rent, or Buy. Mostly because the acronym would be BRB and oh my isn't that clever? Then a pal asked what if the game is utter shit, so I guess a fourth category would be Burn, or perhaps Kill (k brb!).

Game reviewers, movie reviewers, and music reviewers are wasted jobs, imo.
 

Why does 10 have to mean a perfect game. It shouldn't be a part of the number score if it wasn't attainable. I've always considered 10 as the bar you set for the best of the best games, ones that exceed your expectations for a video game. When you get a 10, you raise your standards.

Plus, anything below 8 shouldn't mean utter shit. I'll probably give Afro Samurai a 7, and I'm having a great time with it, just not as good a time as the games I gave an 8. I'd also give the first Halo a 7, and it's my favorite Halo. Heck, I'd give Halo 2 a 5, and I still enjoy playing the multiplayer in that when I get the chance.

How about a number score along with a one sentence summary of the review?

One last point to address, you really shouldn't be comparing scores for different genre's of game anyway. You want to know how a fighting game stacks up, compare it's score to the one for a fighting game you've played. You want to know how good an RPG is, compare it's score to the one for another RPG.

No. Nobody should ever have to put a disclaimer explaining that their opinion is an opinion. If anyone can't gather that, and treat every review as fact, I have a DVD Rewinder I'd like to sell them. I think it's entirely fair of a game reviewer to write a review and expect that reader to use their brains a bit when reading it. I may give Mega Man 9 a great score, but if you don't like old school, sidescrolling platformers, it's obviously not for you regardless.

Then why criticize one part of a review? Besides, I actually get some good use out of reviews. If I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy a game or not, I usually like to have some knowledge of what's good or bad about the game before playing it. You can't just write everything off as a "rent it first" because most video game rental places, at least the ones I have near me, don't have Persona games, or God Hand, or some such to rent.

I still haven't found a place where I can reliably rent games. Gamestop buying/selling doesn't really count.

I saw a site once that gave /10 numerical ratings, percentile ratings and school grades. I have to assume someone actually made a formula to convert each into the two others just to satisfy people who prefer any one of the three. I have to assume they got paid for it.