Review Inflation

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

Onyxmeth said:

r505Matt said:

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.

A clear cut 1-5 rating is both good and bad. The good, it's clear cut, so it's a very stable way to review something. You can also have as much range as you want (3.45 if you really need it) so thats not an issue either.

The bad thing though, is that if you actually use only signel digits, well, that's kind of silly. To have only 5 degrees is VERY limiting. If you made a list of 20 games you considered as 5s, I'd bet that you would be able to pick out games in that list that are better/worse than others within that list. So they aren't all the SAME 5, they're all different 5s, which makes it VERY hard to trust that sort of system.

The bigger issue though is that it's TOO concrete. Reviewing is all relative, and that should be reflected in the system as well. To say the quality of average games today is the same as the quality of average games 15 years ago is silly. That's why reviews are raising up, since we all remember those games (those of us that aren't new to gaming, or incredibly young), and that influences reviews mildly enough to need the wiggle room that a non-concrete system gives.

 

A 1-5 works perfectly, because to differentiate between what's better or worse out of multiple titles of the same score, you READ THE REVIEW. That is what has gone horribly wrong with scoring games out of 100. It forces reviewers to think too hard about the numbers, which encourages inflation. They'll remember a title they gave a 91 to in graphics and realize this title is better so they give it a 93, so on and so forth. Giving a vague number allows the reviewer to use the numbering system as a generalization of their feelings towards the game, and not a scientific formula that needs to be examined to it's minute decimals.

You're effectively agreeing with the current trend that the review systems continue to go up because the quality of gaming is going up. That's fine and all. However, as games progressively get "better" I hope you enjoy picking apart the average games that get a 90, from the good games that get a 92, to the great games that get a 95, to the excellent games that get a 97, to the classic games that all get 100. That's where we're heading.

A 1-5 rating system is horribly limiting, the same as a 1-10 system.  You'll encounter the same exact fan outcry as you see today, but compounded because various games keep getting '3's while others get '4's.  And then only one game a year gets a '5' (lol GTAIV).

I would agree that sites should drop the rating system.  But they won't, because its what brings the majority of their readers back.  Our very forum being spammed with 'IGN gives [X] a [X.X]'!!!! is testament to this.  Probably 25% of people read the actual review and probably less than that actually take context from it.  And from what I've been reading on these review sites, it kind of looks like that's what they count on.