pearljammer said: I prefer a two-point system: Good and Not Good. Not that dissimilar to TruckOSaurus Everything inbetween should be elucidated through writing/audio.

I can understand a vague system in order to articulate the intricate details through text rather than some number. But surely a two-point system is on the extreme side.

I understand that numbers can be too definitive and arbitrary when it comes to expressing the complex & subtle differences that some titles may have. And that sometimes it's impossible to declare that one game deserves a higher score than another and instead, you should focus on the text to explain a game's true identity.

. But wouldn't it be okay to give different scores to a game that was GoTY and a game that was just fun while it lasted? Using your rule, they would get the same score. I think you can be a little more specific without the need for more specific details. I think it would be safe to call one game as definitively better than another. In that case, wouldn't a three or four point system be acceptable?

10. Amazing unique experience, technically flawed or not, it has something that makes you feel a joy that only videogames can provide. (ex: Zelda series, Super Mario world, Mario 64, Metroid Prime series)

9. Great gameplay + good use of hw, overall well done software that can provide countless hours of entertainment. (ex: Goldeneye, Perfect dark, Turok 2, Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Mario Kart, Mario tennis, Pokemon, Kid Icarus: Uprising, Resident evil series, Silent hill, GT, Colin McRae, Jrpgs like FF, DQ, Suikoden, Chrono trigger, Paper Mario, Xenoblade...etc, Tekken, Street fighter, KOF, old school Sonic)

7-8. Good games, very well done, with some gameplay issues that make me think twice before buying them. (ex: Uncharted, CoD, MGS series, Splinter cell series, Metroid: Other M, No more heroes, Arc rise fantasia, the Conduit, Red Steel, Silent hill 3,4, Eternal darkness, Starfox adventures, GoW, GoW)

5-6. Decent games, boring games or poorly executed or short lasting but still fun for a while, give them a try, rent or buy if cheap. (ex: RE5, Most Wrpgs, Dinasty Warriors, Killzone 3, Max Payne, Sonic Generations, Ridge racer, Ass Creed series, Lego games)

Below 5. Games not worth the money, maybe a rent if interesting theme, broken gameplay combined with bad graphics and lack of content (ex: Most movie based games, Wiis shovelware, N64/PSXs mediocre games...you know what i mean)

0. Games that you should buy just because are awful in every way (ex: Superman 64, Power rangers 64, Jet ion GP, Barbie, Bratz and that kind of shit)

$ 500 - Worth the price I paid for my PS3 (Console seller)
$ 60 - Worth the full price of admission of a day one buy (Got my 60 dollars worth)
$ 20 - Worth the wait for a price drop
$ 10 - It was a random game I probably wouldn't buy, but was worth the 10 dollars I spent.

$ Refund - POS wasn't even worth 10 dollars and I want my money back.

Jay520 said: I can understand a vague system in order to articulate the intricate details through text rather than some number. But surely a two-point system is on the extreme side. I understand that numbers can be too definitive and arbitrary when it comes to expressing the complex & subtle differences that some titles may have. And that sometimes it's impossible to declare that one game deserves a higher score than another and instead, you should focus on the text to explain a game's true identity. . But wouldn't it be okay to give different scores to a game that was GoTY and a game that was just fun while it lasted? Using your rule, they would get the same score. I think you can be a little more specific without the need for more specific details. I think it would be safe to call one game as definitively better than another. In that case, wouldn't a three or four point system be acceptable?

But that's just it. I really don't care how they compare against one another. Simply knowing whether or not they were enjoyable is most valuable to me. I would not have any particualr grievances with a four point system either.

pearljammer said: Jay520 said: I can understand a vague system in order to articulate the intricate details through text rather than some number. But surely a two-point system is on the extreme side. I understand that numbers can be too definitive and arbitrary when it comes to expressing the complex & subtle differences that some titles may have. And that sometimes it's impossible to declare that one game deserves a higher score than another and instead, you should focus on the text to explain a game's true identity. . But wouldn't it be okay to give different scores to a game that was GoTY and a game that was just fun while it lasted? Using your rule, they would get the same score. I think you can be a little more specific without the need for more specific details. I think it would be safe to call one game as definitively better than another. In that case, wouldn't a three or four point system be acceptable? But that's just it. I really don't care how they compare against one another. Simply knowing whether or not they were enjoyable is most valuable to me. I would not have any particualr grievances with a four point system either.

That makes sense I guess. I guess you just don't care about ratings in general.

Masterpiece(100-95): Pretty much all the games of the Zelda series, Metroid Prime, Portal 2, Paper Mario TYD, Mass Effect 2

Amazing(95-90): Bioshock, Portal, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, No More Heroes, Final Fantasy VI, Rayman Origins

Great(90-80): Darksiders, Golden Sun, Donkey Kong 64, Conker's Bad Fur Day

Good(80-70): Metroid Other M, Super Paper Mario, Bioshock 2, Star-Fox 64, Assassins Creed Series

OK(70-60): Need for Speed: Most Wanted, GTA San Andreas, Final Fantasy X, Mario Kart Wii

Bad(60-50): Yoshi's Story, Tony Hawk: DownHill Jam, Star-Fox Adventures

Terrible(below 50): The GodFather 2, Ninja Gaiden 3, Need for Speed: The Run, and a lot more that I can't remember 

I use the modern review scale.

1-85 (shit)
86-90 (ok)
91+ (paid reviews)

Chris Hu said: I keep it simple Anything less then 5 isn't worth playing 5 is barely worth playing 6 is almost decent 7 decent 8 good 9 very good 10 outstanding and almost perfect

You bring up a good point. There are too many numbers in the rating system!

I prefer a grading system, such as A, B, C.

F - Garbage
D - Tolerable
C - Good
B - Very Good
A - Awesome

With that system we don't debate how crappy is a crap game. Nor are we debating what games are true perfection which is subjective.

8 - Awesome
7 - Great
6 - Good
5 - Okay
4 - Meh
3 - Bad
2 - Crap
1 - Kill it with fire!

Basically I take the words that I use to describe games and put them next to a scale.

Jay520 said: KungKras said: This scale seem reasonable? I find it a little unreasonable that you appear to give 10s only to multiplayer games, while limiting single-player games to 9. You can't enjoy single-player games as much as multiplayer games, I assume?

I always have more fun when I'm playing with other people. Gaming socially not only makes my time spent with the game feel more meaningful, it's also where I get moments where a bunch of people are roaring at their monitors at the same time, because something awesome and unexpected happened, like when I was playing a one on one Brood War game on a LAN, where everyone else observed, and my Dragoons were severly outnumbered by his, but I managed to do some godly (lucky) micro with a shuttle and reaver, and somehow come out on top of the battle. Or when we played footman wars on Warcraft III and trash talked like crazy in the game lobby, and then dominated almost every enemy team because we used skype and could synergize well.

Those are joys that single player games will never ever be able to replicate, and thus, the best games ever have to be multiplayer.