Top
140°

"The Game Got a 7? LOL, It Must Suck"

Are expectations typically too high, or is the seriously broken 10-point scale to blame? Logically and mathematically, it makes no sense to say a 7 score “sucks.”

The story is too old to be commented.
choujij1622d ago (Edited 1622d ago )

On a normal scale, 1-10 means something. On an IGN scale, it's typically 7-10. I prefer the 0-100 scale myself, as I think it seems to detract from that.

NextLevel1622d ago

It's because IGN handed out 9s and 10s to pretty much any game with hype that didn't suck. IGN are the 'fluffers' of the gaming industry.

Neonridr1622d ago

"any game with hype that didn't suck"

ummm.. well shouldn't it get a good score then if it DIDN'T suck?

TheWackyMan1621d ago

Every single mainstream "professional" gaming review site does this, not just IGN.

Alsybub1621d ago (Edited 1621d ago )

It's been like that ever since I can remember, back to the early 90s. Review scores generally range between 7 and 9. If a publication really hates a game they'll give it 3 or 4, to make a statement.

We've all been conditioned to look at it this way.

In reality anything above a 5 should be considered above average but it is not. It's ridiculous that it's this way. So, 1-5 should be bad to average 6-10 should be good to perfection. The only publication I know of that does it this way is Edge. It causes a lot of arguments from people that are used to the 3 point scale.

I like the way that, in response to people's criticism due to misunderstanding, they now put an explanation of how their review scoring works in every issue, it says something like:

"Our scoring system explained.

1=1
2=2
3=3
4=4
5=5
6=6
7=7
8=8
9=9
10=10"

Can't argue with that.

Cupid_Viper_31621d ago (Edited 1621d ago )

I've been gaming for 22 years now, and I swear on my life that I have never heard of review scores for games until about 2007, which coincides with when I joined N4G. (Surprise, surprise)

I don't know if reviews have always held such weight as they have from 2007 up until now. But from "MY PERSPECTIVE" I only remember a certain "CAMP" harping Metacritics and review scores. I also remember multiplatform releases of the same games getting score lower a specific console due to 7 pixels, and shades of grass.

And after 2008, when Rachet and Clank got scored down for "Too much Variety", it suddenly became clear to me that most game reviews were either bought off, or written with extreme biases.

I will never forget the whole debate between Forza and Grand Turismo. 2 driving games, where you spend the vast majority of the time "DRIVING". Forza was declared the critical success because of things like, Paint, Engine Sounds, etc. GT in the meanwhile, was judged on 2D trees, and 2D bystanders, and for using cars models from the PS2.

The reason that happened it because none of those DRIVING GAMES were judged based on what really mattered, THE DRIVING. And the reasons were quite simple, Forza would lose. The excuse went along those lines: So what if you have Rain/Snow/Dirt/ in GT? So what if you have more cars to drive either? Have you not seen the main Menu in GT5? it renders the game unplayable. And don't even get me started on them 2D trees. Forza has paint mode, enough said.

And the second reason why those games couldn't be compared fairly, which also exposes the most blatant flaw in this industry, is because 99% of the journalists who reviewed either GT5 of Forza could barely complete a lap while keeping the car on off the grass! That's right, they people reviewing A DRIVING SIMULATOR can't do a competitive lap without all assists on, etc. Yet those same guys proceeded to tell the world, which game DRIVES the best....

If you skip this wall of text, here's the short break down. The industry is run by incompetent people. The person who's telling you how good or bad a game is, in fact, probably really suck at playing Games in general.

Go watch any preview or sneak peak of those reviewers player early versions of games, and see how much they suck at it. From shooters, to racers, to platformers, etc. They suck at their jobs, and that renders their opinions USELESS....

choujij1621d ago

@TheWackyMan

"Every single mainstream "professional" gaming review site does this, not just IGN."

Not true. A lot opt not to use a 1/10 scale, such as joystiq or gamesradar:
http://www.gamesradar.com/a...

Not that I necessarily trust their reviews anyway, since there's a reason "professional" reviews are often referred to as "paid reviews".

Personally, I prefer reading the scores and reviews on meta-critic. There you'll see what the average paid review is, but you'll also see how it compares to what Gamers are saying.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1621d ago
kneon1621d ago

I find most rating systems to be broken. I propose a much simpler 1-5 scale

5 - You must play this game, even if you don't own the platform it's on you still need to find a way to play it.
4 - Good game, play it if you can.
3 - OK game, but wait for the price to drop.
2 - Don't bother unless you're really bored and found it in the bargain bin.
1 - Not even under threat of torture, because playing this game is a former of torture.

Not many games will get a 5 on my scale.

speedforce1311621d ago

You were onto something until your very last comment. I've been saying for a long time now that a 1-5 scale is better. I've been saying for a long time that a 5 doesn't necessarily mean perfect. A score is a score, and it should be used if and when it applies.

IGN started the trend that 1's and 10's should never be used, because no game is so bad that it deserves a 1 and no game is perfect so that it deserves a 10. A lot of review scales are bad because they don't know how to define their ratings and why they give such ratings out.

1-10 is a bad rating scale to use these days, b/c they apply 1-5 ratings with slight differences (effectively doubling up on the same rating) and it makes games look worse than they are.

Case in point, Lightning Returns: FFXIII. Kagari of Neogaf gave the game a 5/10 and when I pressed for more info, they revealed their scale, and it showed that 5/10 was actually an average game. If we were to go by 1-5 scale, the game would actually sit at 3/5 and sure enough, check Amazon, it's rating is 3.5/5.

In the old days of IGN, 1-10 scale was actually GOOD because they averaged up scores based on each section of the game (gameplay/graphics/controls/so und, etc) and that scale actually guaranteed that it was fairly judged based on what's in the box.

These days though, they are trying to move it closer to movie reviewing b/c they are often reviewing the subjective portion of the game (story). IGN reviews are worthless because you don't come away from the review knowing what game you're buying, only if the story is worth experiencing or not.

kneon1621d ago

You may have misunderstood my last comment, I'm not saying a 5 is a perfect game, just one that you need to experience.

I deliberately avoided using the word perfect because such a game doesn't exist. As a programmer for about 30 years I know there is no such thing as perfect, bug free software much more complex than hello world.

hkgamer1621d ago

in a sense a 1-5 scale is used in most places however it is just labeled differently. game sites basically use a 1-10 scale but not actually use 1-5. only use 6,7,8,9,10

Prime1571621d ago

I treat the 1-10 scale as a 1-5 with .5's. After all, MOST OF those fractions reduce to more simple terms.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1621d ago
ChickeyCantor1621d ago

0-10 and 0-100 Are the same...

A 7.5 = 75.

xander707691621d ago

Yeah it's a bit convoluted to use decimals or 100 point system. I means what's the difference between a 76 and a 77? Or 7.6 and 7.7? We don't need so many digits to score a game, even 10 points seems like too many.

3-4-51621d ago

So many games in the NES/SNES/N64/PS1 days that we all loved and had great times with that were most likely 5/10, 6/10, 7/10 type of games, but we had fun anyways.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1621d ago
Catoplepas1622d ago

Reviews hold no worth to me. I defer to my own opinions and predilections, rather than those of others.

I'm a grown man. I know what I like.

Neonridr1622d ago

Farce I cry!

you will like what I tell you to like, that's the New World Order..

;)

toocoolgames_141622d ago

Grown men are intelligent enough to know that reviews consist of both opinion and acquired expertise.

But of course, all gamers alive can be critics, and they all know more than any critic, anyway.

mushroomwig1621d ago

Usually I would agree but it does depend on the game. I mean a game like Superman 64 is objectively bad because of it's many problems and I thank the reviewers for making me aware!

Hellsvacancy1621d ago (Edited 1621d ago )

The only times I really pay attention to game reviews is when a game I have zero interest in gets tons of great review scores, that's the reason I bought Demon's Souls, or if a game i'm excited about (Aliens Colonial Marines) gets totally panned by reviews

My brain processes information extremely quick, I only need to see a handful of seconds of gameplay to know if the games is for me or not, sometimes just a simple bit of concept art can overload my brain with excitement, happened with Dead Space 1

SolidGear31621d ago

Yeah remember looking at all the concept art on the website about a year before it came out :D

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1621d ago
BitbyDeath1622d ago

1-6 - Garbage
7 - Check out at your own risk
8 - Good
9 - Must buy
10 - Paid Review

toocoolgames_141622d ago

Anything that gets a 10 is a reviewer who's "paid off?" Oh, that's not insulting at all.

...

It's just so embarrassing to be a gamer these days.

BitbyDeath1622d ago

It was a joke but kinda true how most people react. XD

beerzombie1621d ago (Edited 1621d ago )

The last of us and halo 2 fits right into this scale.
I mostly just watch Twitch now on my X-1 to see how it looks and plays. I can ask questions about the controls, a much better way to see a game in action.

hkgamer1621d ago

thats what most site use, but imo not anyone elses is the worst.

Chard1621d ago

People simply want to know whether or not a game is worth buying. It seems that at some point, it was arbitrarily decided that a 9 or more out of 10 review score = worth buying.
Remember 9/10 is supposed to be for games that are amazing. Consider how rare it is for a film to get 4.5 stars out of 5. Consider how many good films get 4 stars or less. Consider how many 9/10 games came out last gen that were actually crap.

Volkama1621d ago

Always astonishes me the extent to which some people will immediately dismiss a game that doesn't get a sky-high review score. These products of thousands of man hours, creativity and ideas, brushed off so lightly because a reviewer thinks it isn't perfect.

I think it is in large part a problem caused by the $60 retail model though, that price point dooms the majority of games to obscurity.

Show all comments (48)
The story is too old to be commented.