SeductiveReasoning said:
| TWRoO said:
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.
|
There used to be a video game magazine that had a panel of reviewers. Each reviewer had a small listing of games they liked (one liked RPGs, another liked adventure games, etc). They would all rate each game and, though they would come out with different scores, you could look at the reviewer whose taste most closely matched yours to see if it was a game you might enjoy. I always thought that system was very cool because you could get that "someone like me" perspective which you don't see much of in today's reviews unless you stumble on that one reviewer who just happens to have tastes just like yours.
|
That does sound like a great system... I would guess most would not consider it "cost effective" enough though, it's cheaper to have each reviewer on a different game.
I guess Famitsu does have something a little like that with 4 reviewers contributing to the total score... How many different reviewers were involved in the magazine you are talking about?
