Why can't the industry just stick to this standard? It's not perfect but it's the best we have

Why can't the industry just stick to this standard? It's not perfect but it's the best we have.
>Terrible=
>Bad
>Decent
>Good
>Great
Everyone instantly understands how you feel about the game, there's no arguments over why one game got a 9.3 and another got a 9.4 let alone how you could even calculate these scores.

because journalists are hacks by definition

>Give Game 1 two stars
>Give Game 2 three stars
Now Game 3 gets released and it's more fun than Game 1 but less fun than Game 2. How would you express this this in this rating system?

depends on if game 3 is bad or decent

if you want the full takedown you might have to read the fucking review instead of using review scores to justify your fanboy shitposting

By using words in the article

two stars. you round down

One and a half stars

The words "bad" or "decent" are meaningless on their own. They only have meaning in relation to each other as in all decent games are better than all bad games.

If you have more than 5 games of different qualites but only 5 possible scores to distribute than you're unable to show their true ranking.

>One and a...

>The words "bad" or "decent" are meaningless on their own. They only have meaning in relation to each other as in all decent games are better than all bad games.
Correct. But the review score isn't to pin-point the exact quality of a game, because reality isn't made by an autistic retard so it's impossible to entirely evaluate something like a video game in a single or even a multitude of numbers, which is why we have the actual review. The purpose of the review score is to help you get an overview of the approximate quality of a game without having to read the review, such as if you want to find the best games in a large library of reviews, or if you don't want to read the review (spoilers etc).

Besides, there are approximately 5 million video game titles out there, are you advocating for a 5 million point scale?

>Everyone instantly understands how you feel about the game
>there's no arguments
That never ever happens with any review ever

Any numerical score is just as arbitrary as any other, retard.

It's "one and one half," dumb American.

>one and one half
lmaoooooo

It will never be perfect but why over complicate shit, this works fine for films there's no reason we need 100 point scales and im sure if someone wanted to introduce a 1000 point scale you would reasonably suggest they went too far...unless you were fine with it given all scoring systems are fundamentally the exact same.

Because of autistic fanboys that won't accept game x and game y having the same score because most agree one was better than the other even though it wasn't so much better as to give it a whole extra star.

You miss the point. Numerical scores are stupid and worthless. It doesn't matter if it's out of 5 or out of 5000.

Are there any 6 star games?

The entire industry is built on and around hype. Logical rating systems are not practical.

One and one half star
That doesnt work retard

If you had to choose which one would you pick? that's my point.

A three star rating is more than enough

>Can't recommend
>It's okay
>Definitely recommend

Nobody gives a shit about honest reviews, everyone judt want the number wars shitfest. That's why 8 means "it's just good" here.

assigning complex numeral value to what ultimately boils down to subjective opinion is kind of silly.

People who don't see the utility of a score are idiots. Every review has a rating, even if it's implicit.

>there's no reason we need 100 point scales
There's no "reason" for it but it came about in a perfectly sensible way. People who use 5 stars and want more nuance might give games half-stars which really just means they're on a prettier looking ten point scale. Similarly if you're on a ten point scale and use decimals you're really just on a hundred points scale

Stupid
>This is what it sets out to do
>Does it achieve it?
>No, here's why
Best system. It describes how a game could fail in two ways from the user's perspective, either because it's not what they're looking for, or because it fails to achieve what it set out to do.

I completely disagree, the nuance should come from the review itself, increasing the scale always leads to more problems as it isnt reflecting the overall feels the reviewer has, the amount of shitstorms following 10/10s or 100/100 games absolutely dwarfs issues relating to 5 star ratings because everyone instinctively knows that opinions are far too complex to be translated into a numerical score and that the best ratings systems are simple and have room to reflect the general feeling of the reviewer as no one thinks that 5/5 means total perfection and there are a lot of films that share the 5star rating of varying quality.
>This game was good I give it 7.75
>b-but you gave this other game 7.76 wtf!?