By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Fab_GS said:
durbacher said:

And I noticed your rating categories are a bit arbitrary: you combine the top ten (90-100) and next ten (80-89), but the next category is only the next five?! (75-79) and then all of a sudden follow the next 25?! (50-74)?


It's based on MetaCritic ranges.

100-75 = Green
74-50 = Yellow
49-0 = Red

The table mixes the green/yellow/red with clear mathematical ranges.  This is a mistake I'd say.  A table based on 0-100 ranges should normally have even breaks - 80-89,90 to 99.  Just because Metartiic mixes in a colour coding based on a simple bad, okay, good doesn't mean you should mix them.  It's not consistent.

But... this does shed more light on Sceece's odd ranges.  I'd note he's trying to split the colours finer to mix them with the percentage ranges, and this is where I think it doesn't work too well.

Either a table with consistent splits would be better or a table with only three rows, for 75-100, 50-74 and 0-49 colour coded to exactly match Metacritic.

BTW - thanks for pointing this out.  I'd never really noticed this overly before - not using Metacritic much.  I see what they're tyring to do but again it smacks of trying to mix different approaches and oversimplify for the end user.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...