If not, why do all the reviews I see use numbers?

If not, why do all the reviews I see use numbers?

Other urls found in this thread:

insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Should games be rated on a ten point scale?
Yes.
And they should use ALL the numbers, and all numbers should be integers.
Fuck your 8.8 bullshit convention.

No, should be "Avoid, Passable, Recommended, Must buy"
Every game has flaws and design/story choices which not everybody will enjoy

insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/

should Sup Forums on Sup Forums be shutdown forever ?? so we dont need to see a bunch of waste of time, oxygen and space degenerates who thinks they are the center of the universe bu they are nothing but a bunch of neet living in their parent's basement posting stupid useless and worthless threads about their failure thoughts here ???

numbers are meaningless but important

meaningless because it tells NOTHING about the product, important because people USE THESE NUMBERS TO JUSTIFY PURCHASES.

Reviews are just consumer recommendations. Whether you give something your highest possible recommendation or a 10/10 doesn't really matter.

People equate scores in games to scores on tests in school

a 100 is a perfect score on a test, but a 100 for a video game doesn't mean it's perfect, it means it's the best game you played that year.

No. The five point scale is objectively superior.

>reading reviews

I prefer reviews as more nuanced criticisms, because I think games and taste in games is much more nuanced than that. There are many highly regarded games that I would agree are very competently constructed but that I still find utterly boring, and there are derided, poorly constructed games that I still find very compelling. I prefer to read a more personal analysis to get a feel for the game itself.

Because you can avoid reading anything and just look at the score to form your opinion. Kind of like Sup Forums does with hivemind.

Yeah but then reviews without a convenient little blurb or number score get passed over and ignored

Think about how all the reputable reviewers use a number score. All of them.

They should be rated on a 5 point scale, as that's all that anyone ever uses. People just use a 10 point scale to make it look like they're being more fair and favorable to a title they don't like. In actuality, a 6/10 is a 2/5. Everyone knows it, but most people just seem to be more ok with getting a 6 rather than a 2, even if it's the same result.

>and all numbers should be integers.
Fuck your 8.8 bullshit convention.

I like this idea, but the number system is too inflated for vidya. 7's should be 5's, 9's should be 7's 90% of the time. I propose that games follow academics and are graded A, B, C, D, and F. Like you said, no B- or C+ bullshit. It would be much easier to determine a games quality between an A and a B than a 10 or a 9.

Absolutely fucking not.

The entirety of modern gaming is now critiqued in summary with a single digit. This makes modern reviews more or less the equivalent of shitposting.

Check my 5.

x/100 scale or bust. Everything else is degenerate

They did away with grading in Finland and they are among the top nations for success in education. Pull your head out of your 200 year old ass and realize the world has changed.

Why are Fingols such top tier shitposters?

Ah yes, when everyone is mediocre, no one will be. Bravo Finland.

If you cut off the divisors between letters then you leave no difference between the extremes.

That said I'd say the star system (out of five stars) should be employed as the final line of the reviewers ENJOYMENT alone.

You can enjoy a game despite its flaws and thus give it a 90 when in truth the game is niche and only appeals to a subset of players

Senran Kagura is very sexually gratifying, but does the gameplay hold up? (it actually does but for the sake of the argument pretend it doesn't and the only leg it has to stand on is fanservice)

In that case someone who appreciates sexual content would be more wiling to slam it with a higher rating at the end of the day, rather than a source that might get shamed for giving such high marks to a sexually pandering game.

I used to think that too but the problem is people do not equate average to 50% (it should be), because a fifty in school is a failing grade.

Any average game on ign gets a 70

You've seen the scale.

Finland actually has among the smartest students in the world. Based on nationally applied tests they score the highest outside of small sects of asians. They can do away with scores because all their children want to learn and are intelligent. I'd know I've been to Finalnd, I've seen the nation and they are overwhelmingly smart but also autismally cold to one another as fuck.

Non-response away with you cuck.

No. 14 on the world ranking for tertiary education m80. Maybe they're onto something.

No. What matters in a review is the things that are being said, not the numbers that are slapped on at the end. Giving a game an "8" doesn't really adress what is in the game and how it works.

>If not, why do all the reviews I see use numbers?
Because it's an easy way to summarize the entire review and give the reader a general idea of what you said without having the reader spend too much time reading the review. It also makes it easier to share online, because anyone it spreads to can read and understand the information very quickly.

Because we use a decimal system?

As opposed to not using numbers, and just having text in a review.

no, they should be summarized without a number

Numbers really just make it useful to create a general consensus.
On the other hand, reviews without a number and a simple system like mentioned would be better.
On my third mutant hand, people should just READ both positive and negative reviews to look for common threads and see where people agree to form a better idea.

>cuck

No. A 5 point scale. Knuckle down on the bullshit. I actually like X-Play's scale in that regards:

1. Don't play unless you're drunk on a bet.
2. Even if you're a die-hard fan, you wouldn't be wrong in skipping this one.
3. Rent it, you might like it.
4. It's good, get it if you're into such games, or want to try something new.
5. It's good, just short of perfection aside from some potential, minor hiccups.


This. You don't average scores, you can't have half a "good" it's either good or it isn't. It just shows reviewers are wishy washy or want to say something's shit without actually saying it.

Fuck that level of cowardice.

games should be rated 'good/bad' and nothing else. everything else is fucking retarded.

Text is a good way to have a clear compass on the game, ideally at least.

Honestly who cares about reviews, just pirate it and try it before you buy.

How about we stop giving the same score for different games for completely different reasons?

>I'll give this game a 6/10 because the gameplay is bad but I'll also give the other game a 6/10 because the story is bad

Yes, but only if people understood what it means. As in, 1=literally unplayable gigantic piece of shit, 5=average and unremarkable but still enjoyable for what it is, 10=best game ever made

> 5 and still enjoyable.
(No).

The problem with 10 point scales is that they end up being based school letter grades making a 7 a C or average. This means there's only 5 letters for the 10 numbers BUT 1~5 are all used to represent an F in this scale making that range pretty much useless.

This. A 5 should mean "average" as it is literally the mean number on the scale of 1 to 10.

> all these cucks who don't realize that hierarchical grading is meaningless and only serves to segment society into smaller more manageable chunks of data.

It's the pursuit of objectivity for the sake of someone's opinion, which is paradoxical. I think 5 point scores are OK, but people need to ditch the implication that all people will agree on the quality implied by a number score. It's silly.

How about this then?

People can't ever divorce themseleves from the school grading system for numbers, so how about stars. One star games are to be avoided, two star games are well below average, three is the middle ground, four is superior, and five is among the best.

The stars are specific to the reviewer's enjoyment while in a convenient chart below they can outline the qualities of a game. You can have a five star must play game while also outlining any weaknesses a game might have.

For the sake of the argument, let's say Undertale was a five star game, the lower graph would put a low score for visual and a middling score for difficulty because even the developer admits it looks like shit and it's not that hard.

There are plenty of games that I'd give high marks for but would not consider hard games, but a game's difficulty is a very important factor when deciding if you want to buy a game.

Spectacle by the way is gratuitous sex or violence. Cutting people to pieces in metal gear rising or doom or the half naked women in senran kagura would cement high scores in that category for both.

Comparing it to a letter grading system isn't a terrible idea, just so long as people realise that a 10 or 9 are an A, an 8 or 7 are a B etc. Or you can say a 10 is an A+, a 9 an A, an 8 a B+ etc.

Why should I care about reviews in the first place? Someone else's arbitrary opinion about a piece of software isn't helpful to me in any way. Only way I'll be able to form an opinion is by watching some (non-narrated) gameplay footage or borrowing a friend's copy of the game.

THREE POINT SCALE

GOOD
OKAY
SHIT

ANYTHING ELSE IS OVERKILL

Eurogamer do this but they fuck up by adding a 4th point.

Essential
Recommended
(Literally a blank score which shouldn't even be allowed)
Avoid

No, since it's opinion based it should be based on a recommendation system.

No because no one ever uses it properly.

5 scale is a lot better, but that's abused a lot too

Yes, but it should ALWAYS be with a description as to why.
The way I rate things is to split the game into five components.

>Gameplay
>Story
>Characters
>Music
>Artwork/Graphics

and then set each to a value of 10 to rate out of. Then I add everything up, multiply by 2 and divide by 10, rounding for the final score

Game A
>Gameplay 8- Devs focused on creating intuitive mechanics which lend themselves to the player in various ways allowing the player to play for long periods at a time without feeling bored or as if things were too tedious.

>Story 6 - The theme of the game is light-hearted and casts an easy-going tune over everything you do. The game doesn't get too serious with any of the characters and everything feels more like a Slice of Life than it does an adventure game. However, while it is lighthearted, it tells what story it does have very well with its writing.

>Characters 5 - The characters aren't fully fleshed out due to the setting of the story, but their interactions feel natural with what back-story you're given and they develop distinct characteristics from one another allowing the player to grow attached to them without much effort.

>Music 9 - The music in this game is created by the legendary Fujiharazuka Mofukusica with an orchestra of 900 people who all have intricate knowledge of what makes impactful video game music. They all signed up as a show of support and their passion is displayed through the tunes you'll have stuck in your head for years to come.

>Artwork/Graphics 6 - The game won't be winning any awards as the best looking title, but it does look easy on the eyes. I gave it a rating of 6 instead of 7 due to the stylized graphics. While it looks distinct and can be praised for the look among some gamers, it's a style that needs to grow on you over time to fully appreciate.

Overall I would rate this game a 7/10. If you're a fan of the series it will be more of the same fun. Newcomers are in for a treat.

No, it's a lazy way of reviewing because my 9/10 isn't necessarily your 9/10.

Nothing about what you just said requires numerical grading at all.

You say that, but literally nobody will ever read paragraphs of text about a game unless it's to figure out why it was graded as such.

What game is your pic please?

I have to agree with this.
A 10 point scale has so much room for subjective bullshit that ultimately means nothing to anyone but the reviewer.
There's rarely a difference between a 4-7 rated game aside from the reviewers personal taste.

>1-3 changes to SHIT
>4-7 changes to OKAY
>8-10 changes to GOOD

This is the problem

I feel like what I write is overlooked because I actually go into detail about why I like or dislike a game

People take one look at a big blocky chunk of words and ignore it.

>This entire discussion

That's where you place your grade/scale in giant text so they can skip to it. I regularly review titles doing this and seem to get a good following out of doing so.

Gun Gun Pixies. A Vita exclusive.

> literally nobody will ever read paragraphs.

God I love that word sometimes. If they aren't willing to read the actual fucking review then we should not be concerned as to the opinions of our lessers.

I live in Cali so I tend to type like a retard when talking informally.
Those "lessers" are the ones getting the game. Those who want paragraphs of why a game is good or bad are the significant minority.

Not that non but...
Why have the number at all then?
If you have to explain it its almost like the numbers don't mean a goddamn thing at all.
Either the number is the only important thing or it isn't at all.

should I put it at the bottom then or the top?

If you're going to turn people away from your review, why bother putting the time into writing your opinions about a game? You could have beaten the entire game, farmed the achievements, but because you wrote out a detailed summary of the game's qualities you get largely ignored in favor of someone who had nearly nothing valuable to say.

And yet that significant minority is probably the only one actually paying fucking attention to what is written.

> don't mean a goddamn thing at all.

IT NEVER DID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

5 point scale is superior to 10.

You don't need 10, it's too specific for something that is ultimately an opinion, 5 is perfect because it's literally-

1. Garbage
2. Below average
3. Decent
4. Very good
5. Fantastic

Compare that to 10, and the line between a 6 and a 7 is much finer, all you're doing is saying "this game is better than that game." and that's something that easily leads to inflation.

I put it at the top since 90% of those who care about reviews care for the numerical value anyway.

Then I place the independent rating along-side the category so they can see what the best part of the game was.

>And yet that significant minority is probably the only one actually paying fucking attention to what is written.

Y-Yes user. That's what I said.
It's why a numerical value + description is best.

Good luck changing the status quo. Unless you get IGN, Kotaku, and Metacritic on board, you wont fix anything.

> 50% of society is made up of retards.

Truly, nothing of value was lost.

>IT NEVER DID IN THE FIRST PLACE.
That was my point user...

No scale, games should be reviewed in writing. Grading on scales promotes too many unhealthy behaviors and causes far too much contention.

the best way is just watch some youtubers play for a bit and judge if looks like if it is your kind of game

So why bother with the description at all if the sensationalist mighty number 9 is all that matters?

>it means it's the best game you played that year.
Even that isn't clear.
Numerical scores should either be on very "rough" scales, like (1,2,3,4,5) or not exist at all. If you want to provide a condensed form of your review, write a short abstract and put it at the beginning of the review.

Then you agree that numerical grading systems are over-simplified for both the writer and the reader's sake?

Also that GOTY shit needs to stop.

General public doesn't want to read. They want emjois, big numbers, or a picture to tell them your message. People are unintelligent and wont spend the time to read your essay on why [game] is [opinion].

Of course.
I don't see the point of the number being there at all if it has to be explained, which it always must be.

Because if you don't the minority who do read the writing will start criticizing how you don't know shit and spread the news that you're not even a person who enjoys games since you just arbitrarily graded things from their perspective.

I don't understand how it's this hard for you to get that both are needed for good reviews for the masses.

>not wanting to get the game with all the DLC for like $20 after waiting long enough

no, no scores.
only +/- with a %.
like steam/rotten tomatoes.

so people will find positive and negative reviews, read why, and make their own idea.

rating games is just stupid, unless you rate them tecnically. but it looks like they want to rate "the fun", so it is pointless.

>Reasons to buy
>Reasons not to buy
>Is it worth it (reviewers' opinion)
Best rating scale

Reviews are objectively neither good nor bad because they are subjective pieces. They cannot be factually correct therefore the entire concept of there being a numerical grading system is at it's very premise a fallacy.

Only reason anyone becomes a reviewer on youtube is to get free shit. Its an entitely corrupt and disingenuous system of trading favors.

Do it if you wish to get into politics, its good practice for lobbyists.

Okay then, instead of "good" reviews I'll change it to "reviews people actually care about".

This is a good system.
In a perfect world, multiple reviewers should rate the game, giving an average in stars and graph should give you a pretty good view on what's the game like.

>game "reviewers"
how about we just pirate the games to demo them or screech at the devs to get demos

No, they shouldn't. The arbitrary point scale is so stupid it hurts.

The overall quality of a video game is by definition not quantitative. As long as things like originality and direction matter, assigning a number value tells people nothing and it's stupid to try. What if a game is innovative but fails to competently do some things? What if a game is solidly made but just bland? What if it's good but you have to be a long time fan of the genre or series to really enjoy it? Are all of these games are sub-tens to different people for different reasons, it's fucking arrogant to try to boil them down to a simple number.

>On a scale from Not Good at All to Really Good, this game is Halfway Good.
That tells nobody anything
>This game's art styles clash and it breaks down in the end due to repetition, so I found it hard to enjoy.
This is actual analysis (the game is this quality for these reasons) and completely obfuscates the need for assigning a number

Anybody can say "this thing sucks/is good" it's the in-depth explanation why that matters. The number system is totally unsubstantiated without that to begin with.

It's more like I don't want next year's GOTY to be a cut-and-paste fucking brownfilter copy of the previous year's GOTY.

Which is what grading systems are doing anyway. NOT THAT THE FUCKERS HERE SEEM TO REALIZE THIS.

no. ratings don't signify anything except bias.
if you want to convey your thoughts about something to other people, write a fucking essay, otherwise it's not important enough.

I love SRPGs as a genre and I have played and enjoyed a number of objectively bad SRPGs that I could not comfortably rate to others as higher than a 4.

You're letting your own personal tastes be dictated to you by the whims of others whom are at least 50% likely to be unworthy of that level of consideration.

You should make your own scale. Clearly you are in a league of your own.

I've been reading a lot of reviews and while many of them have numbers that doesn't preclude them from also discussing why they were given ratings

you can give a game a rating and discuss in detail why you enjoy a game or not.

That's a personal reviewer problem, completely separate from any of the issues here. If a reviewer has shit taste they'll rate a shit game high.

the x/5 stars is supposed to be the reviewer's enjoyment.

everything contains bias

This.
By function of using words alone you're biased.

However you are not they. You have adopted their grading criteria as if it were your own without having first decided how you would go about analyzing your own enjoyment to someone who would appreciate your way of looking at things.

Stop living according to the expectations of others, user. Your heart should be free.

Wrong. By function of having a cognitive brain you are automatically bias.

You CANNOT avoid being bias.

i rate this question a solid 8.5

>Moste people do it so it must be the best way!
This is the same retarded logic used by religious people.

That's repeating the same thing I just said. Not to mention multiple levels of bias exist.

Yes. If a game ever gets less than 8/10, people assume it's shit, even though a game with a score with 5/10 would still be "good"

You'll just be ignored if you try to go against the grain

The point of writing reviews it to be noticed and have people read about your opinions on whether a game is worth buying or playing.

No one paid attention to me before I used numbers.

You used words as a medium of expressing Bias. I would argue that we are bias even without words. Which we are.

> go against the grain.

m8 i'm not even that guy and if going against the grain is the right thing to do you can fucking bet that's what i'll do.

I expect nothing less from any person I meet.

That isn't an argument so much as it is herald as truth. But that isn't the only bias that applies.
Things like words hold bias in them too, on top of personal experiences and perception altering your views on something, on top of whatever is "socially acceptable"

Why do you think any scientific paper needs peer review?

Ironically (maybe) the Siskel & Ebert thumbs scale is probably the best system, especially if done with two people with different tastes.