TWRoO said:
goddog said:
TWRoO said:
Hear hear.... 5 point scale at the most is best, and 2, 3 or 4 would work just as well. |
Ill have to say even that appears to be too much.... with the current review market being what it is subjective review and not objective reviews would help the industry
|
Well you need a balance.... Having no rating at all (whether star/number/letter or word based) can discourage people to read the review in the first place if they were borderline on the game anyway. I know it is the wrong way to go about it, but if I have already committed myself to buying a game (ie the next Zelda) I am far more likely to read a review for it than a game I am on the fence for.
On the other hand, the higher the number of points in the rating scale the more it can be used as a (to coin a phrase) dick-measuring contest... which also discourages many from reading the content of the reviews because they assume (wrongly) that they can get all they need to know just by looking at the percentage.
The rating is only there (in my opinion) to encourage the reader to look at the whole review, and as such a balance is needed between no score, and scores that are too complex.
With a 4 or 5 point scale (preferably in words rather than numbers or stars because it's easier to understand what each means) you would be encouraged to read the review for that game that you were on the fence about if it was graded "Good"... wheras with no grade you might not bother, and with a 100% scoring (say the "good" game might get 65%) you would then immediately be comparing it to other games you already hae the score for and may discount it purely because it is now considered less than "AAA".
|
you are most likely right in this respect. My years of going through critiques have gotten the better of me.... never really cared about the grade... but the process of the critique in deciding flaws/success should be that which games are held up to as a member of the field of arts
