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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is a 3/10 for a game like Resident Evil 6 justifiable?

Tagged games:

happydolphin on 02 October 2012

TruckOSaurus said:

Yeah I agree that my logic didn't work there, half the point scale shouldn't equal half the games but I still think that defining anything below 5 as unplayable crams too much games in the upper echelons. Especially, if a person is rating a game mainly by how much they enjoyed it.

Makes sense. Unplayable is one category. Then you have cheap games. You know what I mean by that, games that are made with low production value and B teams with lesser talent. It's kinda mean to say, but it's a fact of life. They may work, but they're not really quality games. 5 or less is also good for those. the 3 to 8 range can be reserved for games that are either of low quality but that the reviewer likes (so preference can bump it up), but games that are of high quality that the reviewer didn't like shouldn't be lower than 6 imho.



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi on 02 October 2012

Below is an example of how to break down the meaning behind a 10 point rating system.

10/10: Get this game even if you don't like the genre. It's one of the best games of the year, not just in the it's genre.
9/10: If you've ever enjoyed a game in this genre you'll like this.
8/10: A great game, fans of the genre will have fun.
7/10: Fun game with a few flaws. If you're not a fan of the genre this won't change your mind.
6/10: An above average game with some flaws, but worth checking out.
5/10: Moderate to hardcore fans of the genre will find enjoyment, casual fans of the genre may want to rent first.
4/10: Only the most hardcore fans will want to try it, casual fans shouldn't bother.
3/10: Lots of flaws, don't bother unless you're really dying for new game in the genre.
2/10: So flawed that even the most hardcore fan won't be able to find any enjoyment.
1/10: Unplayable garbage.

When you look at the full spectrum of a 10 point system Resident Evil may in fact deserve 3/10.



Mr Khan on 02 October 2012

We're just reflecting on the current 5-10 scale, where any score under 5 is just hyperbole for how egregiously said game sucks ass.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

kitler53 on 02 October 2012
TruckOSaurus said:

Rest assured, I'm not here to whine about the Destructoid  score. I haven't read the full review and I'll probably get the game before the end of the year no matter what. But reading the reactions on here to some of RE6 reviews, I found myself stuck between two points of view.

On one hand, there's the notion that a score of 3 out of 10 should be reserved for an unplayable mess of a game, with important game design flaws, with little to no redeeming quality whatsoever. On the other hand, there's the whole "games are art" business. If you're someone who's buying into that theory then why not score games like other art forms like movies and music?

Reviews of those two types of enternainment are much more swingy than those for games (reviews span a greater range even for highly acclaimed movies/CDs) but it's my understanding that in those reviews the "enjoyment factor" weights a whole lot more than any other factor. So why should games be any different? Shouldn't a reviewer who didn't get any enjoyment out of a game like say, Resident Evil 6, be allowed to give it a score that reflects that fact?

Edit: I've used Resident Evil 6 as an example here since it's what sparked my reflexion, but I'm not necessarily looking for opinions on that particular game. I'm more interested in talking about how you feel about scoring games on how much you enjoy them (rather than technical virtues).

imo, because the other forms of art don't have the whole "bug" issue to deal with.  you'd never hear a music review discuss scratches that cause the CD to skip and become unplayable.

..personally, i like the really low scores (less than 5) being reserved for unplayable glitchy messes and the art portion being on a 5 point (5-10) scale.  ..but maybe that's just me.



mjo011 on 02 October 2012

So far I am really enjoying Leon's campaign. It's plays much like RE4 and 5. I realize a lot of people were hoping that the game would be a survival horror title, but even if it is not, it's still a good game. Grow up, people.

8/10 this far (where 5 is average).



Around the Network
Dgc1808 on 02 October 2012

'' a score of 3 out of 10 should be reserved for an unplayable mess of a game, with important game design flaws, with little to no redeeming quality whatsoever.'

That's being too nice. A game i would give that description would be a 1/10.



4 ≈ One

darkknightkryta on 02 October 2012
Heavenly_King said:
darkknightkryta said:
Heavenly_King said:
darkknightkryta said:
I think any less than a 5 means the game is unplayable.

That depends on the reviewer preferences.  I have played games rated 3/10, 4/10; and I have had a really enjoyable time with them.  God Hand was amazing and yet it was treated like crap, that is why I dont care about reviews, and you should try to do the same.

And those games should never have gotten lower than a 5 =D.

lol.   Well, as I said it depends on the reviewer, if you were the reviewer you would have rate it higher; but if the dude, that reviewed it was the customer, he would have still hated the game, even though it is a 7.5-8/10 according to you. XD.    I just pay attention to demos and gameplay trailers in order to buy a game.  Reviews are always doing to be biased toward the reviewer likings, so in the end the only person who can determine if a game is enjoyable for you is yourself.   For example, a similar case of "player perspective" is Uncharted.  Uncharted 2 has more perfect scores than Uncharted 3, but for me Uncharted 3 is better in every possible way. 

The sad thing is that people listens to reviews like they were so kind of irrefutable truth, and that makes sometimes a game to sell like crap, when it deserves better :(

I never played those games, but I don't think they're unplayable.  Worst game I've played was Star Ocean 3 and despite my hatred for it I'd probably wouldn't give the game less than a 7/10 because 70 percent of the game was good and etertaining.  The second disk of the game made me really hate it but I don't think it would be less.  Most review score are opinion based as well, but I still think that a game has to be really bad to get less than a 5 and be unplayable, kinda like Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde for nes, that game is unplayable for instance.  Superman 64, the game is essentially unplayable (From what the nerd showed me anyways).  Problem with the review system is that they'll rate perfectly playable decent games 3/4s just because.  For instance, Golden Axe: Beast Rider.  Sits at 44 on Metacritic.  I've played and beaten that game.  Is it bad?  No.  Is it Amazing?  No.  Does it deserve the 44 metacritic?  Depends if we start thinking 5/10 games are average and not "bad".  Current score system in place ranks 5 as a "bad" game.

TruckOSaurus said:
darkknightkryta said:
I think any less than a 5 means the game is unplayable.

There are very few unplayable games out there, certainly not enough to reserve half the point scale for them.

I guess I should say that 5 being an average game at its lowest.



yum123 on 02 October 2012

the review system is built and a number given entirely on expectation. reviewers almost never look at a game objectively.



mjo011 on 02 October 2012
Dgc1808 said:
'' a score of 3 out of 10 should be reserved for an unplayable mess of a game, with important game design flaws, with little to no redeeming quality whatsoever.'

That's being too nice. A game i would give that description would be a 1/10.

Absolutely. I would prefer a 5 star rating though. 

5- Excellent (~90-100%)

4 - Very good (~80-90%)

3 - Good (~70-80%)

2 - Poor (~50-70%)

1 - Terrible (~0-50%)



FrancisNobleman on 02 October 2012

scales should be banned.

Just a opinion about the game and let people decide whether it is for them or not.

Videogame journalism is laughable.