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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Perfect Review System

platformmaster918 on 21 January 2015

Don't think it should have an overly specific score. I actually prefer the Xplay scale of 5 stars.

5/5 is pretty much for everyone who has any interest in the genre.

4/5 is for everyone except maybe if you have specific tastes in that genre (so basically it gets a mode wrong like SP or MP)

3/5 is average and probably isn't earth-shattering for most but will entertain for its length

2/5 is only going to be liked by very few who really love specific things that the game does

1/5 basically no one will like




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Around the Network
Cleary397 on 21 January 2015
Soma said:
Faxanadu said:
Value is measured in hours? Since when?


Agree. Value should be "How much fun you had with the game", not measured in time.

BTW, I've never played Faxanadu but just recently got very interested in it and I'll be buying it soon on Wii VC =D

Agree.

Id rather spend 5 hours of amazing fun in a game (Bastion) than 30 hours of repitive boring stuff 



Current Game Machines: 3DS, Wii U, PC.

Currently Playing: X-Com(PC), Smash Bros(WiiU), Banner Saga(PC), Guild Wars 2(PC), Project X Zone(3DS), Luigis Mansion 2(3DS), DayZ(PC)

Aeolus451 on 21 January 2015
Faxanadu said:
Value is measured in hours? Since when?

Playtime matters. I don't like games that I can beat in 10 hours. Not worth 60 of my dollars.



JOKA_ on 21 January 2015
vivster said:
Shouldn't the perfect review system not have points at all?

I'm with you. I think games should get either a 'play it', 'it's ok', or a 'skip it' and that's it. Then metacritic can choke and die 



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

Mythmaker1 on 21 January 2015
Intrinsic said:

I was doing a lot of thinking about game reviews and how to make the perfect review system that would be accurate and transparent and I came up with this. 

Every game starts off with 10 points. And these 10 points are divided into 5 categories.Each category is worth 2 points and is measured in 0.5 point units. 

The 5 categories should be;

 

  1. GAMEPLAY how does the game actually play and how are its game mechanics. Is it fun, does it have depth, is it difficult, does it do anything innovative? These are the things this section should cover and 0.5 points can be knocked off for every thing it gets wrong in the this department. 
  2. PRESENTATION graphical quality and artistic design. how good a looker is the game? What resolution does it run at, how is the frame rate? locked or all over the place? 
  3. EMOTION this part will cover the games story and music/sound design. A game will only be penalized for trying to do something and failing at it. So a game that doesn't even try to have a story won't get points knocked off for not having one. A game that puts one in but its bad will get points knocked off.
  4. QUALITY Is the game well designed? is it broken? Does it feel cheap and rushed? Does it require a day one patch?
  5. VALUE How many hours does the game last. The ideal marker should be 20hrs of gameplay for a full 2 points, so as long as a game in normal/ normal + multiplayer mode gives you 20hrs of gameplay it gets full points. 
Now whats important is that for every point taken off in any category, the review will indicate why that point was taken off. It will be clear for all to see exactly what or why points were shaved off and people can decide of the categories that lost or has the least points matter to them. 
What do you guys think?

 

"The Perfect Review System?" No such thing.

There is not, and never will be, a one-size-fits-all system for reviewing. Everyone has different standards, interests, and priorities with games, and the rigidity of this system in particular makes it unlikely to be of use to someone without the same priorities. And the fact is that the individual categories leave so much room for subjectivity that it defeats the purpose of adopting such an inflexible system in the first place.

It's not a bad system, of course. But it's not much better than most systems I've seen.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Around the Network
Faxanadu on 21 January 2015
Soma said:
Faxanadu said:
Value is measured in hours? Since when?


Agree. Value should be "How much fun you had with the game", not measured in time.

BTW, I've never played Faxanadu but just recently got very interested in it and I'll be buying it soon on Wii VC =D


I am on Wii VC? Better get that white sexy beast fired up again.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Faxanadu on 21 January 2015
Aeolus451 said:
Faxanadu said:
Value is measured in hours? Since when?

Playtime matters. I don't like games that I can beat in 10 hours. Not worth 60 of my dollars.


See, my time is precious to me. Id rather be well entertained for 5 hours than spend 60 hours on a grindfest. Therefore, length does not equal value of a video game for me.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Intrinsic on 21 January 2015
Mythmaker1 said:

"The Perfect Review System?" No such thing.

There is not, and never will be, a one-size-fits-all system for reviewing. Everyone has different standards, interests, and priorities with games, and the rigidity of this system in particular makes it unlikely to be of use to someone without the same priorities. And the fact is that the individual categories leave so much room for subjectivity that it defeats the purpose of adopting such an inflexible system in the first place.

It's not a bad system, of course. But it's not much better than most systems I've seen.

Standards and categories are good. its the only way to minimize subjectivity. If everyone has a specific measure by which a product is criticized, then not only would it make it hard for reviewers to bullshit or over hype a game review it would also make it easier for developers to fine tune their games. Its like the review becomes a contextual benchmark.

If people find numbers so uncomfortable, another way to do this would simply to use letters for each category. Using grades  A through C. That way when reading the review you only concentrate on the areas that interest you as a gamer. If the gameplay gets an A, the emotion gets a C, and everything else gets a B, you could still buy it is the reasons the other areas got a B don't apply to you. 



Mythmaker1 on 21 January 2015
Intrinsic said:
Mythmaker1 said:

"The Perfect Review System?" No such thing.

There is not, and never will be, a one-size-fits-all system for reviewing. Everyone has different standards, interests, and priorities with games, and the rigidity of this system in particular makes it unlikely to be of use to someone without the same priorities. And the fact is that the individual categories leave so much room for subjectivity that it defeats the purpose of adopting such an inflexible system in the first place.

It's not a bad system, of course. But it's not much better than most systems I've seen.

Standards and categories are good. its the only way to minimize subjectivity. If everyone has a specific measure by which a product is criticized, then not only would it make it hard for reviewers to bullshit or over hype a game review it would also make it easier for developers to fine tune their games. Its like the review becomes a contextual benchmark.

If people find numbers so uncomfortable, another way to do this would simply to use letters for each category. Using grades  A through C. That way when reading the review you only concentrate on the areas that interest you as a gamer. If the gameplay gets an A, the emotion gets a C, and everything else gets a B, you could still buy it is the reasons the other areas got a B don't apply to you. 

Today's common review system is an average-based 1-10 scale. 5 and under is below average and 6 or higher is above average. If I tell you the game got a score of 6, then, you'll understand what that means.

Using you're system, what does a 6 mean? The scale is not average-based, and the points for that total could have come from anywhere. Was it a 22200, a 11112, a 20202, or a 10212? The fact it scored a 6 means nothing. So why even try boiling it down to a single metric?

That's just the concept behind the rating. I haven't even delved into the issues with the individual categories (firstly, that it has basically the same problem as the overall rating). It's straddling an unhappy medium between too much and too little stratification, and the result is the sum of its weaknesses, rather than its strengths.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Intrinsic on 21 January 2015
Mythmaker1 said:

Today's common review system is an average-based 1-10 scale. 5 and under is below average and 6 or higher is above average. If I tell you the game got a score of 6, then, you'll understand what that means.

Using you're system, what does a 6 mean? The scale is not average-based, and the points for that total could have come from anywhere. Was it a 22200, a 11112, a 20202, or a 10212? The fact it scored a 6 means nothing. So why even try boiling it down to a single metric?

That's just the concept behind the rating. I haven't even delved into the issues with the individual categories (firstly, that it has basically the same problem as the overall rating). It's straddling an unhappy medium between too much and too little stratification, and the result is the sum of its weaknesses, rather than its strengths.

First off, a 5 doesn't ,mean average in today's review system. being that reviewers just toss around unnecessarily high scores these days.

With my system, if really fine tuned, there wouldn't even need to be a total aggregated score. But rather, scores on different categories that make up the game and which also happens to cover all aspects of a game either directly or indirectly. So under the gameplay section, the game mechanics for that specific title will be reviewed and scored. Then under emotion (it could be called anything), which covers story and music/sound design, the game will be accessed too, with considerations made to what kinda game it is, like a story focus won't be heavy on a game like Mario or a racing game unlike say an RPG or something. Basically, if a game tries to take itself seriously and waste gamers time weaving a story, then it better be a good one.

Basically, my system would mean that every game fundamentally gets scores for all the different categories. As opposed to one purely opinionated total score. This way, if a reviewer complains about spotty multiplayer, then we already know exactly how many points it would lose, if he further complains of sporadic broken frame rates, we know what the cost will be...etc