Why is it such a common meme that the rating scale for video games is "wrong"...

Why is it such a common meme that the rating scale for video games is "wrong"? I often read complaints that on a scale from 0-10 scores from 0-4 would almost never get used and I was wondering what the reasoning behind this is. Why is this a problem? It sounds like you people think that all ratings should be used equally often which is bullshit. The current system actually makes perfect sense. A game which does everything perfect should be a 10 and a game which does absolutely everything wrong should be a 0. A game which does everything about "half right" gets a 5, but it is still a pretty bad game and is not representative of the average game as obviously nobody is trying to make a terrible game. Explain.

Other urls found in this thread:

somethingawful.com/news/movie-game-review/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because it's impossible for a game to be either utterly perfect or utterly wrong in every way, so a 0 or 10 score could never realistically happen. Besides, all ratings are inherently subjective based on the views of those reviewing it, so I don't get why anyone would take them so seriously to begin with.

Some games are perfect.

I disagree

name some

they still have flaws
that's why no games have a perfect 100 score

>subjective based on the views of those reviewing it, so I don't get why anyone would take them so seriously to begin with
True, but I'm just talking about the scale here. This is a problem no matter what. You also didn't explain why it is a problem that a potential score exists that doesn't get used all that often in practice.

Name three.

Name one (1)

>a potential score exists that doesn't get used all that often in practice.
it's not that it 'doesn't get used all that often', it's that it doesn't get used at all and will never get used ever if this perspective persists. The result is your rating scale actually goes from 1 to 9.

MGS5,

Big Rigs has a 8/100 which would translate to a 0.8 on a 0-10 scale. I can also name numerous other examples that have a score between 0 and 5.

Why do you need games to be rated anyway?
Do you often hop on a review site, click 'sort by score' and just buy what ever game is on top?

It's 2017. With a few exceptions, almost all games have tons of information out there even months for release. Hop on youtube. Check out some gameplay. Decide for yourself if you think the game looks fun or not. You don't need a fucking number. You've played video games before. You know what would be fun or not.

Ratings are subjective as there is no objective way to judge a video game. A game's rating is literally worthless unless you have identical tastes of the reviewer. The only thing ratings are good for is shitposting on the internet. They are utterly and completely worthless otherwise.

but no actual 0's, also OP was talking about a 0-10 scale rather than a 0-100 scale.

I don't think it's too far off.
>80-100
Game which I will most likely love
>79-70
A game with some flaws but generally does what it promises
>69-50
A game that can be considered for a very small niche. Is probably loaded with issues but might still be playable if it does something you really like.
49-0
Officially more trouble than it's worth.

Rain world sits at 66 and I really love it. I also think it deserves that score.

Yes, tetris.
/thread

Whole point system needs to die. It might work in movies but for games it's totally retarded.
Literally anything that is 1-7 is considered trash by some, even though over 90% of 8-10 rated games should be in that group.

The Median would be a zero though so most critics have individually rated the game a 0 so what's your point? And you still haven't explained why it's a problem. What if a game gets released that is actually worse than Big Rigs? I don't see why it matters if it is 0-10 or 0-100 either.

Because thanks to numerous known instances of developers and publishers giving money and favors for higher scores, you cannot take reviews seriously

>Whole point system needs to die.
Yes, I can agree with that, but I am asking specifically those people that think a point rating is fine, but the scale is "wrong".

>because it's impossible for a game to be either utterly perfect or utterly wrong in every way, so a 0 or 10 score could never realistically happen.

That's not what 10 on a discrete scale means. All it means it that it's closer to 10 than to 9.

>And you still haven't explained why it's a problem
but I already did here , I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that.
>What if a game gets released that is actually worse than Big Rigs?
that'd always be subjective anyway

>because it's impossible for a game to be either utterly perfect or utterly wrong in every way

That's a load of shit user.

But I just showed that these scores actually do get used? Even if very rarely.

it's true, at least from an objective standpoint.

>The result is your rating scale actually goes from 1 to 9.
Which is still better than the current scale, which goes from seven to ten.

>0.8
Effectively 1, not 0

you are arguing in defense of this.

then that's fine then, I was initially responding to OP's post and his viewpoint, though, where he stated that a 0 should be "a game which does absolutely everything wrong", and a 10 "a game which does everything perfect"

...

>directions indicate to turn left in 0.8 miles
>decide to turn left in a mile because clearly numbers mean little

How was flunking math, brainlette?

>User Scores are even more skewed than Critic scores.

that's a direct result of the mentality that a 10 should be complete perfection and a 0 should be a complete disaster, though - as what happens is people desire games with a score as close to the idealised 10/10 rating of perfection so much that the whole thing gets skewed.

>directions indicate to turn left in 0.8 miles
>decide to turn left immediately because clearly numbers mean little
Okay

>Game doesn't even launch under any conditions or work as intended at all
That game is obviously perfect.

For a game that is perfect I just have to give Tetris for the gameboy as an example. A portable way to play the game with perfect rules and controls without any real bugs or technical limitations that impacted the experience.

Did you happen to fail English as well or did you just skip the days explaining sarcasm and metaphors?

So instead of the scale getting used properly it's a natural result that 7 is the new 0.
Or you could just call a spade a spade and say it's because the reviewers are being paid to advertise a product. That seems more realistic.

Tetris on the gameboy is far from perfect, for one thing the graphics suck even for the time and the sound isn't much better. It's also extremely repetitive and lacks an actual end goal.

Why do you think this is the case with games, but not movies? Is it because video games are more time consuming and people are therefore more invested into games and the desire for this is greater?

I put zero stock in scales using numbers. If you want reliable information, read an in-depth review of the game. I don't give a shit if two people gave the same game a same score if their reasons are different.

>8/10 story sucked
>8/10 gameplay was trash
For all I know it's shit at doing both which is why I read.

reviewers don't get paid, it's not legal to do that. However, many reviewers feel obliged to give a higher score than they otherwise may have since the publisher will simply cut ties with them if they're not happy with receiving low scores.

No user, I just know how rounding works

>A 4 in action movies is just explotions without any message at all. Still fun to see when you are bored
>A 4 in videos is a peace of shit without any content, full of bugs and shitty graphics. Probably you will not even play for more than 10 minutes.
Am I the only one who wants movie critics in videogames?

>Why do you think this is the case with games, but not movies?
but I don't, I feel the exact same way about ratings for movies. I have no idea why you'd assume otherwise.

Oh, I'm sorry. That was a wrong assumption from me then.

The problem is your average game review site writes 1000 words of meaningless blabber. User reviews are mostly fine lenght-wise but lack any depth more than often

somethingawful.com/news/movie-game-review/

Well 0.8 is a bit different than 1.0 in most applications.

Yes, but 8/100 is also incorrect because we all know the real score is 82432/1000000 , so rounding to percent hides a ton of information

Not if you have an X/10 score

0 - Doesn't work
1 - You can start the game but that's about it.
2 - Bad game plagued with all kinds of deep flaws.
3 - Very few redeeming features.
4 - Well below average. Buyer beware.
5 - Average, nothing especially good or bad.
6 - Above average. Has some flaws.
7 - All around good game.
8 - Very good game with good value.
9 - Great game. If there are any flaws they are buried beneath a mountain of greatness.
10 - Some of the best the medium and the industry have to offer. Must play!

Problem is, most big outlets only use the scale from 5 upwards.

I used to like Gamespot's old ranking system.
>1 - Abysmal
>2 - Terrible
>3 - Bad
>4 - Poor
>5 - Mediocre
>6 - Fair
>7 - Good
>8 - Great
>9 - Superb
>10 - Perfect
In the early-mid 2000s, there were plenty of games that I enjoyed that were 6-7, and a few truly greats that were 8s. Now anything less than 8.5 is "bad".

Here's what we actually get:

>0 - NA
>1 - NA
>2 - NA
>3 - NA
>4 - NA
>5 - A bad game we feel comfortable giving this score because it's by a company with whom we will never be affiliated with
>6 - Number 5 but the game has some merit
>7 - It's bad but the publisher gives us ad revenue
>8 - Mediocre but our website is littered with ads for the game and they sent us some mugs and t shirts
>9 - We give this score to games we're supposed to like but don't fully understand why
>10 - High production value shooter with nothing ambitious enough to mess up