We often complain about score inflation from gaming sites and publications. And typically we blame it on poor and biased journalists, and on unreasonable fan expectations. I think a third culprit is the rating system itself. Specifically the ten-point scale with half-point intervals.
This rating system seems to be the most common and most accepted. Until recently IGN used such a system, but then made the bewildering move BACK to a 100-point scale.
I think video game sites and publications should consider a four-star rating system. Not unlike the system on which many film critics rely.
Instead of...
10
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
...you would have:
****
*** 1/2
***
** 1/2
**
* 1/2
*
1/2
ZERO
Of course the list is less nuanced, but it takes away many of those "in-between" scores that tempt reviewers. It's also a much more elegant system, at least to me.
I don't think consumers who read video game reviews in 2013 are interested in scores reduced to the smallest decimal; rather they want to know if a game is good or great, worthy of a rental or a must-buy. A four-star rating system would provide such information, and might even reduce score inflation.
What do you think?
