By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Idea for a new scoring system for game reviews

 

What do you think of my idea?

Good 4 21.05%
 
Bad 13 68.42%
 
Would be good with improv... 2 10.53%
 
Total:19
thranx said:
I think reviews would be best with no scores at all. No numbers, no letters nothing. Just a write up of how the game was. If it had any game breaking flaws. The features it had, features it was lacking.


This!

Were all becoming obsessed with the score of a game even to the point where people don't tend to read a review of a game just look at the score and decide if they should get it from that. Reviews are opinion at the end of the day and to justify an opinion with a score seems to devalue the explanation.

As for the system i just can't see it working all games are worth £40 (with the odd exception) with the time, effort and investment that goes into producing them the price is pretty much always justified and to say a game is worth £30 because the sound wasn't great or because the story lack alittle spark seems very unfair on everyone involved in the production of it



Around the Network

I don't like the idea, people like kyliedog will give MGS4 $10 because they claim it only has 2 hours of gameplay!!!!!!!212



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Marks said:
Its a neat idea, but I would still prefer the number system. Plus that wouldn't work worldwide (or would need adjusted) because games are more expensive in Europe/Australia than they are in North America I think.

I would keep the number system but this is how I'd do it:

10 - Absolute perfection. Only games like Pokemon Red/Blue, Ocarina of Time, etc. get 10's.

8-9 - Great games with very minor bugs/glitches that could easily be fixed by a patch. Would be enjoyed by pretty much everyone except haters of the genre/series.

6-7 - Average/Decent games. They might have some annoying bugs/glitches or just aren't all that fun. With this rating the game would only be recommended to fans of the genre or series. Game would be significantly improved by patches.

4-5 - Bad games. Not quite unplayable, but in dire need of post launch support to make it good. These types of games should be avoided until they are patched.

2-3 - Horrible games. Games so bad that no amount of patching/support could make it worthwhile as a purchase. These games would be a rent at absolute best and probably only gamerscore/trophy whores would bother with them.

0-1 - Unplayable.

This is how I view it myself:

10 - Pretty much unattainable. Certainly no game ever released. Not Ocarina. Not Pokemon Red and Blue. Nothing.

9.5 - 9.9 - The absolute pinnacle of gaming brilliance. You should be gaping with amazement, or beaming with joy, pretty much all through the game. It will have minor flaws, but you won't care. You really, really need to play these unless you absolutely despise the genre.

9.0 - 9.4 - A game near the top of its genre. Still incredible. Still among the best games you have played. Just missing that little small something that would put it in the category above.

8.0 - 8.9 - An excellent purchase for people who like the genre. A game that is far above average and a lot of fun to play. I find that a lot of games which are enjoyable but not deep end up here. Towards the lower end of this band, people who don't like the genre will begin to dislike the game.

7.0 - 7.9 - Still a good game, but significant flaws are beginning to exist at this stage. There will be nothing game breaking at this level, and parts of the game may still be great. It is hard to recommend this to anyone who doesn't like the genre.

6.0 - 6.9 - Still decent. A huge fan of the genre or series could actually enjoy this.

5.0 - 5.9 - Mediocre. Dull, not really fun to play. It works, but who cares?

0.0 - 4.9 - Varying degrees of "bad". Really, nobody should buy a game in this range. Obviously there is a fair bit of difference between a 4 and a 1, but neither of them is worth playing except out of morbid curiosity.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Well, unless you don't want to be blacklisted by 2k, the new system should only be variations of A+, A++, or A+++



Double post. My first one for a while



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Kantor said:

Double post. My first one for a while

Bull. Shit.

If that was a TRUE double post, I wouldn't be separating your posts!!! This is just further proof upon the mountain of evidence that you are indeed a sad, pathetic, attention whore.



patapon said:
Kantor said:

Double post. My first one for a while

Bull. Shit.

If that was a TRUE double post, I wouldn't be separating your posts!!! This is just further proof upon the mountain of evidence that you are indeed a sad, pathetic, attention whore.

It's one of those really awful double posts where the site lags so much, someone actually manages to post.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

thranx said:
I think reviews would be best with no scores at all. No numbers, no letters nothing. Just a write up of how the game was. If it had any game breaking flaws. The features it had, features it was lacking.

People want a review at a glance in the score. In an ideal world, everyone would read the review, but if we had no scores, most peopel wouldn't read reviews at all.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

So long you can buy reviews it doesn't matter...



 

Kantor said:
patapon said:
Kantor said:

Double post. My first one for a while

Bull. Shit.

If that was a TRUE double post, I wouldn't be separating your posts!!! This is just further proof upon the mountain of evidence that you are indeed a sad, pathetic, attention whore.

It's one of those really awful double posts where the site lags so much, someone actually manages to post.

LIes as usual. And btw I'm surprised you're not proclaiming this as a triple post... I'll give your sad, pathetic self some creidit for that