Review Inflation

[Reasonable]

Onyxmeth said:

TWRoO said:
I was diheartened when the community here chose the 100 point scale for this website's reviews.... although the poll did I think have 2 different ones that are essentially the same scoring system (0.0, 0.1, 0.3 through to 9.9, 10.0.... and out of 100 are the same thing)

Out of 5 or less if a score is somehow vitally needed.

I like this method also, and only in single digit increments.

5=Amazing
4=Great
3=Good/Average
2=Bad
1=Unplayable

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 agree.  The more the score can be fine grained the more difficult it becomes to be consistent, and you get all the 'how could that be 4.6 if that's 4.2' type arguements.

I hate the score mentality but understand its growth and focus today - but really, something is either:

a - absolutely amazing and top notch

b - very good

c - good

d - average

e - below average

And so a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 works.  The text then should make the difference.  I'd prefer stars to scores because scores imply numbers and add the temptation to fine grain them (the "if we have 4 then why not 4.2" syndrome) and letters are too algined to A, B, C with C feeling poor immediately.  Any great game is four stars, the tiny percentage of amazing titles get five stars, three stars means good if you like that genre and anything below three stars is average to bad (unless you really love the genre or feel forgiving).