Printable View
I've always looked at the 100 point scale like test scores. 88 is almost great, 81 is pretty good, 70 is ok etc etc. And I think the difference between a 4.4 and 2.1 is that the 4.4 is just unremarkable while the 2.3 is remarkably bad.
's how I would interpret those kinds of scores. Though I would usually ignore the ones place in gamefan scores.
I agree. However, I would like to point out how weird it is to hear Americans refer to 80s as Bs (up here, 80-90 = A-; Bs are 70s).Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
Thus, if a game received a 70 or 7 (a la, Shinobi), I wouldn't mind purchasing it if the flaws weren't gamebreaking, and I were really interested in the game.
Just thought I'd mention that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
:lol: Damn , I need to go to school up in Canada. that 50 I got on my last Calc 2 test would be what a C+ ?
Ha,ha.
No. It'd be just as shitty as down there.
Oh come on, how many threads do I start around here? I'd contribute to it, depending on how well I liked it, but I doubt I'd start it.Quote:
I predict that someone on TNL, probably Jeremy or James, will buy this game, make a thread about how its "worth the $15",
That was a pretty harsh review of Choro-Q there, and though I'm expecting to disagree with it it's not worth getting up in arms about. To me it read like one of those reviews where the game was sent to exactly the wrong person.
As for ratings- 5 stars, no half stars. Simple.
James
Man, where were you people when GameSpy changed to this some time back? All we got was a massive wailing and gnashing of teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Now we have a watered-down half-star system which is not worth using as an example of something good. But I'll still take it over any 100-point system ...
Tell you what, though. People cannot understand a movie-like five stars system in the context of games. Their thought process goes 3 stars -> 60% -> teh suck. Every time. Of course, GameRankings' insistence on breaking every system down this way doesn't help.
By the way, what little I played of ChoroQ (CQHG4) left me thinking it was garbage. I quickly passed the review to a freelancer.
I'm a big fan of Road Trip (CQHG2).
Just so people understand, a 5 star system is dumb. It should be 4 star, unless you totally rule out the possibilities of a game scoring 0 or 1/2 a star. The five star scale is essentially a scale of 6 points. The 4 star scale is the best one devised by a human.
I hear the 50 point scale does wonders for seals, though.
The four star system just seems odd to me, because I can't imagine giving a game zero stars unless it is absolutely horrific. And whenever you take surveys or whatnot, they are always "one to five" or "one to ten," having no zero for the lowest opinion. Thus, in the five star system, five is the highest you can go, one is the lowest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Ya but it's still true. ChoroQ got a 2? And it's no different than a 0 aside from IGN pussy footing around giving a designed a score of nothing for their crap. ChoroQ was absolutely terrible, according to that review, and not a single pro was brought up. So what did they earn the 2.2 for?
A scale from 1 - 10 doesn't mattet about the .5 because, like you said, who's going to give them that? But on a star scale it matters more because of the condensed, vaguer scoring system. It's not a big deal, but 5 stars is kind of dumb, considering you have 6 points on the scale.
The only reason reviewers don't use the typical 4 star scale is because they're afraid to mark down the big fat goose egg. It's lame. Mark that sucked down.
Couldn't this all be easily solved by whoever is writing the reviews (IGN, GamePro, TNL, Got-Next, Gamespy, etc...) to have a simple table to define what their scores mean?
Is it that fucking hard to come up with something like this:
96-100 Instant Classic
90-95 Great game, better than much or most of it's competition
86-90 Very good in its genre. Minor issues.
80-85 Above average, minor flaws detract from the title
76-80 Average to above average, a decent effort with multiple minor flaws or inconsistencies
70-75 Average. Rental defined.
66-70 Below Average - game needs improvement in certain areas that should've taken place before it was released.
60-65 Well Below Average - Major issues with control, camera or other elements of the game.
40-60 Awful. As in DO NOT BUY or RENT.
1-40 Steaming pile of horse manure. The lower the score, the higher the amount steam coming off that pile. This as an arbitrary number, 1-40, that let's the writer use his imagination as to how strongly he/she feels about how truly bad the software is.
I typed this up in about 7 minutes. Think IGN could hammer this out and make it clear and concise for their writers to follow? It's not rocket science. Doing descriptions for 1-10 scores, 1-5 scores, or even 1-3 scores is even easier.