Explain how you rate games and your reasoning behind the scoring.

[Veknoid_Outcast]

HoloDust said:

Zkuq said:

I don't recall seeing many star reviews for games, but those I have seen seem to have used 3 stars for a fairly average game, which doesn't seem to be true for 50-point games or 60-point games (or equivalent on a 10-point scale). It also matches my intuition fairly well. I wouldn't be particularly hesitant, albeit not very eager either, to get a 3-star game, but I would certainly not get a 50-point game and be very hesitant to get a 60-point game, even if it was seemingly something I would be particularly interested in. It just feels like an accurate representation of how ratings are actually handed out based on my limited perception. I agree it doesn't make sense, but until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume it's a fair assessment of reality. Note that it doesn't mean I'm going to claim it is, only assume so (in my mind, mostly).

Yeah, technically 5 star with halfsteps and X/10 are completely interchangeable, but star systems not only has tiers of a sort (with each star representing one), but to me it also feels more intuitive. I've played lot of P&C adventure games rated 3 stars on Adventure Gamers (back in days when those scores meant something, and 4^1/2 and 5 stars were not handed out as lightly as these days) and even occasional 2^1/2 game, if I saw something interesting in review about it. Can't say I'd play many 50/100 and 60/100 games.

So, is it fair to say that the allure of the star system is more that it represents a time when score inflation wasn't such a problem? Because then it starts to make sense. Otherwise, I remain very confused.

LegitHyperbole said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:

I'm confused by this. Why is a scale from 0-10 more biased toward the upper end than a five-star system with half stars? They use the same increments. 

And why would a three-star game (which converts to a 6/10) be average, but a 5/10 be trash? They're only one point apart.

They are not the same. By shortening it you have given more power to each increment. 3 stars is 60 but each of those stars has more power in a way, 3 stars feels more impactful and weighty than a 60 or a 6. I suppose it's the way we are conditioned. People in America thought that the third pounder burger was smaller than a quarter pounder and so it failed. 3 and a half stars has a completely different weight than a 7 outta 10.  

I feel like I'm Picard and you're asking me how lights there are   3.5 stars out of 5 is 7 points out of 10. It just is.

If, again, this is more about nostalgia for the five-star system, I start to understand.