Onyxmeth said:
I like this method also, and only in single digit increments. 5=Amazing This allows the reviewer to express themselves through the written portion of the review and not use the numbering as a crutch, at least it should help in theory. This way also, 5 doesn't have to mean perfect. It just describes the cream of the crop, or upper echelon of games. |
I quite like the EGSU method my old school used for grading classwork too.
E = Excellent
G = Good
S = Satisfactory
U = Unsatisfactory
(for games an S should be given for games that are worthy for big fans of that kind of thing, so for instance I myself will be buying F1 2009 for the Wii even if it scores as low as 50%, which in most current review scores seems to equate to terrible... of course for international language reasons it's probably best to use 1-4 rather than letters)
Or I do think a 7 tier score works ok as well:
Outstanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Average
Poor
Abyssimal
Whichever way a scoring system is used though, it should encourage the viewer to actually become a reader and check out the review content, because it could always be the case that the reviewer scored low or high because he has a different tolerance of certain flaws... perhaps a bad frame-rate would ruin a game for you but the reviwer doesn't mind as long as the stills are pretty.
Of course in some cases reading the review often leads most people to believe the reviewer is a total wanker... perhaps this is why review inflation is happening? reviewers are simply scoring high because people rarely question high scores so they are not encouraged to read the total drivel that the reviewer wrote?
