50%, 5/10, Grade C. These rankings fill out the middle of the reviewing spectrum, and yet the universally accepted benchmark for a game is a 7. This fact gets on a fair few people's nerves, after all what is the point in having all those numbers that never get used?
Of course opinions vary on whether or not a game is good, no review will ever been seen as perfect in everyone's eyes, and even a site that tallies up all the results can be accused of bias. If a review was perfect, would a 5/10 signify that 50% of all games where better than the reviewed title? It seems like a logical conclusion, and yet I doubt that a reviewer can possible be comparing a game to every other game, past or present.
Perhaps that middle score means that the game is a perfect balance of bad and good, and that for every minute of enjoyment you have you will in turn suffer a minute of bordom or frustration. Yet again it's hard to believe that any game would be so finely balanced, and even if it was, if there was a game that was bad 1/2 the time, I doubt it would recieve a rating as high as 50%.
If a reviewer is trying to provide help and advice as to whether a game is worth playing or purchasing, is a 5/10 more likely to imply "not good" or "not bad"? Of course the numbers will most likely be accompanied by some sort of description of the game, and it is here that the real merit of a review is to be found.
The numbers are necessary and yet very imprecise, good reviewers strive to be objective and yet they will never fully succeed. 5/10 should mean average, but average almost always means bad, why settle for average when there are good games out there, even the cliches that surround a 50% review reveal the truth. For example "it's worth a rent if you like the genre" means it's not worth buying.
This then in turn affects the scores and reviews found higher up, a game might be above average in total, but average in a lot of respects, this happens a lot with FPSs, the 7/10 almost seems too generous, but if you score it lower you are effectively saying it's not really worth a person's time. This means the difference between average but fun, and perfection is a mere 3 points, 30% or a couple of grades. In turn, a slight difference in the personal taste of a review can lead to a few dropped marks, essentailly meaning that great games are marked at a 7 or an 8 (both Halo 3 and Killzone 2 have received 7/10 ratings)
When a game costs $60, the recommendation needs to be firmer, average is never going to be good enough, that is why we find ourselves stuck at the 7/10 benchmark, and i doubt we will see a move from this anytime soon.
The Switch 2 might be the fastest selling console of all time. But Jump Dash Roll argues that the new hardware has some serious caveats to consider before buying.
Shaz from Pixel Swish: "Despite its bloated open world, ridiculous number of mini-games, and questionable narrative sensibilities that can oftentimes be at odds with itself in regards to tone, there's no denying the amount of love Square Enix has injected into Final Fantasy VII Rebirth. A love that, though at times can lead to unnecessary padding, manages to keep a sense of wonder."
Take to the pitch in Super Mario Strikers.
Yeah 7/10 is still a decent score. I thought your 5/10 description was funny and right all at once :)
I have said it before. If I were to have a review site I would rate every game on a $ scale. If Street fighter 4 cost 65$ I would judge it based on if it is worth the money. Then I accomplish 2 things.
1. Everyone that cries about 10/10 being "Nothing is perfect, No game is 100%, wah wah wah" then I could say "Street Fighter 4 is worth 100/65$" meaning that if the game cost 100$ I would buy it. and technically thats much more then 10/10 and yet still not saying it's perfect. just saying it's worth more then it costs which is a deal =D
2. I would show value. Maybe taking into account DLC lost and the damned or Flower and rating it on a 10 or 20 dollar scale. Is it worth it yes or no =D Depending on what a gamer thinks.
hows that for an idea?
I don't like the that reviews are all top heavy nowadays because if a game get's say 6.9 out of 10 the reviewer may have thought thought it was good but not grade A but people see that as a "buy if it's on sale" indicator. Many games have suffered for this.
Taking cost into account is difficult. Most games come out at around the same sort of price level, and with DLC do you take into account the cost of the original game?
A while back, I proposed a variable, curved star system. You are required to give scores in whole stars, which leaves room for interpretation and personal preference. But if you give it a 5, you are saying there is very little room for discussion and 90% of gamers would agree with it. If you give it a 3, there is a wider gulf for people to disagree up and down, and thereby give you a little more credit for your opinion.
5 stars - top 5%
4 stars - next lower 10%
3 stars - next lower 15%
2 stars - next lower 20%
1 star - nextlower 25%
No stars - Bottom 25%
(High)54433322221111100000(Lo w)
Alternately:
5 stars - top 10%
4 stars - next 15%
3 stars - next 20%
2 stars - next 25%
1 star - bottom 30%
(High)55444333322222111111(Lo w)