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.
|
I was gonna reply to the above post, but you did so far better than I could, and said pretty much what I was going to.
Congratualtions.
