NintendoPie said:
I don't think it's boring. You don't need an elaborate grading scale for your own review. Though, it's different if you are IGN/GI. You need something like a 10 Point Scale. |
No, that's the opposite of what is needed.
One person can grade or rate on any scale they want to, a simple 2 or 3 point scale is generally indicating the person is not interested in thinking about it, as long as they can recognise the games they like and those they don't. Other people can go into as much detail as they want to grade their own games because they are only in comparison to other games in that person's collection, so it's actually possible to be "accurate" about which games fit where.
If all reviews were always done by the same person (per publication) then huge 10 point or 100 point scales are perfectly reasonable, and aggregate systems like GameRankings and Metacritic actually make sense. Unfortunately that is not possible, big sites like IGN are naturally going to have multiple reviewers that get swapped and changed.... as such any 100 point score system is meaningless at comparing any one game to another. If the system is simplified then it can negate a lot of the bias of opinion between two people, and then if all review scores were similarly simplified aggregate systems can create mean averages that mean something. (Ideally I would say a score system works best with 3-5 options, 7 is pushing it, and an 10 point scale is too much unless all reviews matched that)
Also at least half of any point scale system should be for the good games, though I think most people already agree there has been too much score inflation.
