The Official Skyward Sword Thread!!

[Cobretti2]

TWRoO said:

Lostplanet22 said:

Conegamer said:

Don't forget about some strange conversion ratings (B+ is 84, 4/5 is 80 etc.)

The weighting is good for the most part, however. 

That should be 90? 

I assume you are questioning Conegamers maths, and not correcting (4/5 of 100 is 80)

The problem isn't with the maths, but the fact that converting a 6 point scoring system (0-5) to a 101 point (0-100) is only going to work if the reviewers using the 6 point system follow similar rules to those who use 101 point systems..... ie if 75/100, or 7.5 is generally considered an average game score... then the 6 point system has only 2 possible scores for above average games, but 4 for below average. This is clearly ridiculous, especially given that ganerally a lot of rubbish games don't actually get reviewed... so most of the publications reviews would then fall under just 2 scores.

I would say reviewers that use a 5 or 6 point system will at minimum assume 3 to be the benchmark for 'average' (which is what I hope is what reviewers think of a game that you can enjoy, but may not be worth your money unless you are a fan of the series/genre or whatever) Personally it would make more sense to me to use 2 as 'average'... that way you can use 1 to call a game dull or poor, and 0 to say 'stay away, don't even look at the game box'.

As such, 6 point systems don't gel with the 100 point systems, and shouldn't be combined.

what would solve this problem of weighting is for metacric to allow those publications to specify the weightings themselves as a conversion to the 101point system.

e.g a star system out of 5 sstars may not even be the same as a points system out of 5. Then you got the alphabet system. we really don't know what each of these values mean. It may be a linear relationship or not, only those publications can specify their true worth.

not tomention, then you got those odd sites out there which rank out of 3 or 4 stars.