Why do people use the 1 - 10 rating system? It's honestly a retarded system...

Why do people use the 1 - 10 rating system? It's honestly a retarded system, it gets even more retarded once people start using decimals. The best rating system is clearly a scale of 1 - 5

>1 - Horrible game, no one should buy it
>2 - Has flaws, but die hard fans of the genre or genre might like it. Probably a niche title
>3 - Pretty average game, a lot of people will like it, a lot of people won't
>4 - A good game, simple and easy. It's above average.
>5 - As close to perfect as you can get, a game that even if you're not a big fan of the genre you should try picking it up, a great game.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IuIaACG1cKE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I prefer 1 to 100

I'm feeling a strong 3 to light 4 on this thread

>-4 > -9

What?

-4 is indeed greater than -9. You don't need help with your math homework.

1-4 is king.

1 - no
2 - good
3 - great
4 - excellent

-4 > -9

Correct. Any other math questions OP?

the decimal scale fulfills this purpose while also using rounded numbers as more broad estimate of quality

OP's scale is more appropriate though

HAHAHAHAH XD

Came here to post this.
Except it's true, you dumbass. Go back to elementary school.

well its true, isnt it

i prefer to review and rate my games using base16

How can 4 be greater than 9 you retard?

that's a pretty contrived rating system.

5/10 is a perfect average. this game runs without major bugs but is otherwise really generic. neither bad nor good. a lukewarm experience.
from there its a standard bell curve. a 10/10 doesn't mean perfect, it means the game belongs to the top percent of really entertaining game. a 0/10 is the kind of shit that only appears once every fifteen years and has zero appeal. the majority of games fall somewhere between 4/10 and 6/10, while a 7/10 is actually a good score because that means its two standard deviations above average

>highest possible score is an F
>it's better than an A

having 5 ratings is sufficient when you are a newbie

10 wont be enough once you are more experienced and understand that a limited discrete rating just doesn't do it

Scoring systems are inherently dumb because they have no objective value. What a 7 is to one reviewer might not be a 7 to another. Scores are used for retards to quickly determine without reading any content if they should consume something or not. The correct way to review something is to not have a score and have a well written article, but the majority of people who click on garbage aren't interested in that.

I don't think you know what contrived means because a 5 stars rating is everything but.

>mfw i tell my parents i got an a
>in base 16

>turning the rating moot by constraining yourself to a standard distribution

I really like Siskel and Ebert's Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down system. None of this wishy-washy spectrum bullshit. Just:

1) Thumbs Up: It's a good game, and I recommend it heartily.
2) Thumbs Down: It's not good enough for me to recommend it to you.

Anything else is a waste of time.

F is for Fantastic, A is for Alright, any numbers indicate a substandard game

This guy gets it.

Honestly, any kind of number is gonna lead to shitposting.

The best system is a binary thumbsup/thumbsdown one, and leave it to the reviewer to explain his decision.

>moot
who

OP here, I agree completely but rating systems will never die. I'm stating I think that if we're forced to use rating systems we should use 1 - 5 without decimals because it's simple, clean and easy to understand. I recently saw an 8.5 game, and then a few articles later an 8.7 game. A completely useless distinction.

Thumbs up good, thumbs down bad
Gladiator side thumb niche title

so your intellect cant handle anything beyond a binary world view

youtube.com/watch?v=IuIaACG1cKE

Is he right, Sup Forums?

It's like school. 6.5 is passing. 10 means you are really good or cheated.

0-4 GOAT

0 - Nothing redeemable it's an absolute 0

1 - Garbage with 1 redeemable factor that keeps it from being Nothing

2 - Rubbish Mediocre does not stand out

3 - Good number of redeemable factors

4 - Carpe Diem it's a testament to all mankind and must be destroyed lest we give into Idol Worship

This, numbers mean nothing nowadays. Anything below a 70 is trash and anything above it is good, you're better off with a yea-or-nay system.

I don't like number systems at all. It's trying to measure something in a very imprecise way, you're better off reading the words of the review. If a review must be simplified I would prefer a yes or no if it's recomended. It's also nice to get to know the reviewer a little so you can find out who's tastes are similar to your own.

except almost all reviews are shit

theres nothing wrong with rating system, you just need the intelligence to understand how to use them

>babby's first discovery that values are subjective
grow up kiddo

>this fag never played golf

>not rating games based on a one sentence quote or just a full review
>numerically rating experiences that can vary so much in purpose on the same scale
Numerical and ABC grades are much too reductive and are only popular because they can easily be memed without much thought

I've been reading game magazines for a couple years since around 92 (up until early 2000s, of course,) and it seems like it was always like this.

Fuck off ebert you don't even like vidya

also

> 2
> not mediocre

because.

This picture is perfect and accurate.

Same as the school grading system.

Wouldn't it require more intelligence to read multiple paragraphs and break down whether or not you agree with what's presented with critical thinking and compare + contrast it with your own opinions?

ratings dont mean shit without honesty and nobody is honest out of fear of getting blacklisted or what happened with gamespot and kane and lynch. bad number system is only a symptom of the root cause.

I would crank that "2 Deep 4 U" category up to 5 or so after the Rain World debacle.

It should be more like

>Buy it

>Niche, but worth it if you're into it

>Avoid

I prefer the 1-3 system
1=bad
2=eh
3=good

Granted, this is a very old pic.

I think you mean the Rotten/Fresh meter that Siskel and Ebert stole.

>what is a 7 to one reviewer wont be a 7 to another
and what is good to one reviewer wont be good to another
what's your fucking point, moron?

A numerical system used to determine how good a game might be are for people not literate enough to make it through a paragraph.

Those that use a scale to measure games are also guilty of being lazy and not eloquent enough to catch the reader's attention when writing articles and reviews.

Fuck

If used properly, 0-10 is better, because it allows higher precision, even more so with decimals.
Actually, I would rather 0-1 with decimals, because of 1 meaning a total lack of defects, and the /10 is kind of arbitrary.

That if reviewers did proper reviews and used the scoring system properly.

The way things are you could argue that 1-5 is better just because it gives less freedom for them to do bad work.

But then, wouldn't 0-1(without decimals) be even better? "No/Yes" "Bad/Good" "Buggy/Polished".

Or even better: 0. Just don't let reviews give any opinion because they will problably do it wrong.

But if you assume that they CAN do a proper job with estimation of the game's quality, there's no reason for 1-5 be better than 0-10.

1-5 is even worse because the lowest score is "1" wich might imply SOME quality, not the absolute 0. And 0-5 the mediocre would be 2,5, wich has decimals.

Fixed

remove automatic +3 for aaa games
remove automatic +5 for sequel to popular game 1
remove automatic +3.5 for movie games
remove automatic +5 for "system sellers"

I prefer a pineapple ripeness scale.

>5/10 is a perfect average.

End this meme. That's now how "average" works. In school, a 50% is still a failing game. Most games aren't as bad as they are good or vis versa, most games are actually pretty good and have gotten better on average over the years, contrary to what Sup Forums tells you.

7/10 or 7.5/10 being average makes complete sense unless you are automatially adjusting your scale over time to TRY to make it so 5/10 is average, the same way that IQ tests work, like where a 120 IQ from 20 years ago is only equalvent to like a 110 IQ now

1-4 is better than 1-5. in 1-5 a 1 and 2 meld together too much

I like cr1tikal's "Moist Meter"

...

I think you mean the reddit system

Are you being intentionally retarded to get a reply? If you are, congrats. You got a reply. If not, you might need to use a bit more critical thinking and logic. I know that's hard for you, but just try. If you need a nap before going to high school tomorrow, just shut your iphone off and head to bed. What you implied is not comparable. A written review is supposed to break down a game. This involves showing objective things (features, performance) and then saying what they think about the game and its features. It doesn't matter much whether or not a reviewer thinks a feature is good or not because I can determine if I like something. For example, a review may find puzzle minigames annoying, but if I know I enjoy puzzles I can use my own preferences to determine that doesn't apply to me.

Now to consider breaking down every element of a game into an arbitrary number is rather silly because it means nothing. This is especially harmful because Metacritic exists. What's the difference between an 82 game and an 81 scored game besides a single point? Is it 1 point worse or better? What does that mean? Nothing. Thus, it makes more sense to do away with scores and instead read the content of the article and determine what matches to your personal preferences.

What you typed was fucking retarded. Honestly, I'm disappointed I share a board with a dumb subhuman like yourself. If you wish to improve the world, consider suicide.

1-6 I think would be better

>6 being the equivalent of a 10, as close to a perfect game as you can get

>5 being the equivalent of a 9 or 8, a great game held by by made one or two things

>4 being the equivalent of a 7 or 6, a somewhat less than perfect game that's nonetheless worth playing or owning

>3 being the equivalent of a 5 or 4, a mediocre passable title that might be worth a rent

>2 being the equivalent of a 3 or 2, generally a bad game but has some redeeming feature

>1 being the equivalent of a 1, absolutely horrible game that should have never been released

See, I once again don't disagree however for that someone would need a regulated, commonly known way to make a scale based on personal beliefs standardized, which is impossible. Ultimately, I still think 1 - 5 is the absolute best because you post the numerical scale, "This game is a 4. Here is why I believe that."

Regardless of the scale, there should always be an explanation for someone to base their opinions off of, and that review should absolutely be well written.

-4 is closer to zero than -9 on the scale. This is sixth grade math, user.

>have 1-5 rating system
>rating system also includes .5s
>fails to realize this is exactly the same as 1-10.

Why do people do this?

Because people are retarded.

Retards who read it in the first place can only count to 5.

I usually rate 6-10. The reason for that is I don't play total shit games anymore.

>Mfw americunts can't do math

I like using the Fibonacci rating system. The way the numbers spread apart, it forces the rater to really think about the final product since going up the scale is more than just increasing a number by one. You have to determine if it is really worth it.

Obviously listening to a reviewers nuanced opinion must be better than a rigid number.

What the fuck?

I was a private school babby - this is literally the shit they teach in public schools in america?

The common core is pretty new, but it is definitely better than how I learned arithmetic. It reinforces the idea that numbers are a malleable representative.

Is a game a 10/10 because its your favorite or because its actually a game with little to no flaws, like MGS1 is my favorite Metal Gear but I acknowledge that MGS2 and MGS3 are better games and rate them higher for a review.

Looking at that, I don't know. The phrasing is fucking terrible. There's no way that doesn't spread misunderstandings like the pic all over the place.

They should say something more like "Tell a way to get 10, after adding 8+5."

I legitimately don't get this. What do you do with the left over 3? Just ignore it?

What the fuck do you add the 3 to? This makes no sense.

>mfw eurotards assume everyone or everything that doesn't conform to their views or standards must be american