I say ratings should be based in three basic groups: Recommended, Not Recommended, and Maybe. Based on most modern ratings, the "Recommended" group would equate to games rated today in the 80-100 range. The "Not Recommended" group would equate to games rated today in the 0-59 range. And the "Maybe" group would equate to games rated today in the 60-79 range.
The Recommended and Not Recommended groups are self-explanatory. Games placed in the Maybe group (equal to 60-79 group of games rated today) are games that may or may not be enjoyable to certain people. These games require further investigation by the reader to decide whether they're worth the purchase. It's one of those games where it's perfectly reasonable to like or dislike the game.
The reason I prefer this method is because it gets rid of unnecessary increments. For example, what's really the difference between an 80 and a 90? Both were obviously enjoyed by the writer and I'm sure he recommends both. The difference in quality is this tiny that it should be explained intricately through text imo.
Also, a lot of times, a person's opinion can change slightly as times go by. For example, at one point, a person may rate Game A at 90 and Game B at 80. Then a few months later, the scores switch. These slight changes in scores happen to games I rate too. I don't think scores should draw differences between games when they're so subtle that they can change so freely.
Contrast that to my system and it's unlikely that any game would ever cross into different categories. If a person recommends a game, it's unlikely that he's not going to recommend it in a few months.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
