My first user review in years (since the feature was gone on VGC):

http://gamewise.co/brainwaves/219/Jungle-Fever

It's about Far Cry 3.

Gamewise is a place for people to explore, share and contribute to the games they love.

Maybe in the 80s range less, but in the 90s range 92 to 94 can be excellent, 95, 96, 97 not only excellent, but all time classics. So yes, the problem is smaller in lower ranges and sits mostly at the highest end. But fifths is really coarse, basically, if linear, it puts together 20 different percent ratings in just one, and I can tell the difference between, say, 61 and 79. If not linear, with just 0 and 1 for the insufficient ratings, the problem can be smaller for the best games, but it's still coarse grained. And there can be also different degrees of failure for a game. Also, fine grained rating allows to sort groups of games we find, for example, all decent, all good or all excellent, but that we don't consider deserving exactly the same rating. For example I consider Thief I and II both excellent and true classics, but I still find Thief II the best of the series, while Thief III manages to be excellent despite its flaws, but these flaws prevent it from reaching the previous two.
But to cut it short, basically my favourite rating system was PCZone's one, so I obviously liked also the old VGC one.
Anyway, fifths can be useful for a quick first evaluation, but I find it more suitable to rate movies than games. Also, I see that ratings on VGC remained, at least up until now, in tenths with decimal, so, if it stays this way and it's simply translated into fifths on Gamewise, it can be fine for me, I understand that for a more casual public fifths can be quicker and better, but I'll keep on using the VGC system to rate my games.

I have, I just forgot about it. Yeah, I'm really interested in it and it seems to have evolved a bit since my last visit. It really is a stand alone site, but having you and the associated realm of sites involved as well as an already established community here on VGC there is some clash. Obviously gathering VGC users over to gamewise is to its benefit, which makes me wonder why it wasn't an integrated site. Gamewise isn't a forum and I don't know if you want to give it one, it seems "wall" based, but the forum is why VGC users are VGC users.

We look at sales and we talk in threads. The added aspects to that, messagings, profile walls, badges, points, etc. could be done through Gamewise, which seems to be lacking some basic profile aspects like profile walls, friends (I followed someone and can not find a location to view who I'm following), and messaging. VGC wouldn't need all that if it had a superior social interface (gamewise) built into it.

Essentially, keep the forums and thread on VGChartz but have us log in with Gamewise profiles. Our avatars, profile info, games, etc will all link us over to our Gamewise profiles, where we can also view tabs on what threads and posts they have made on the VGChartz forums. That way forums don't alter what Gamewise alone is, but still allows VGChartz users to interact and do what they want on the seperate forum page.

If that means keeping a mimiced profile on VGChartz that can list created threads and recent posts instead of cluttering up Gamewise site profiles,fine. Just have a link to the VGC forum profile on Gamewise users profiles who are on VGC. That way they can switch between and see that Gamewise people chat in threads.

So really Gamewise needs to have more social features like friends, user walls, and messaging; while being the account we use for VGChartz instead of having two distinct sites with different accounts and their own social features. It would bridge the gap between Gamewise not being a forum/sales site and VGChartz needing their own social media interface. Or atleast just tie the accounts, I'm no expert on exactly what I'm suggesting.

well, when I rate one game 9.5 and the other one 10, both have a 5/5 rating on gamewise...but there is obviously a huge difference between a 9.5 and a 10.

I mean sure, I would give those two games a 5/5 because they are both masterpieces but this system doesn't show that I still like the one game much more than the other.

This is so true.

Simply because the standards are higher.

In school you would not get the grade in the middle (depending on the grading system, C in the US, 3.5 in Germany) if you have 50% correct. You are expected to do better than that.

The difference between 8.3 and 8.4 might not be big, but you can't even differentiate between 85 and 95 and that is basically the difference between GOTY and one of many great games of the year. And especially if you own a lot of games, you can easily say which one you liked more and set them in 0.1 or 0.2 steps apart.

As of now I have no idea where I should put Hitman Absolution. 4/5 seems too low to me, 4.5/5 too high.

I don't necessarily demand a 100 scale (though I would prefer that) but I think we should at least be able to rate them in 0.25 steps (out of 5).

The question is why do you want to start a revolution of the system if most of the people that are going to rate games are used to the current rating system ?

I could understand if gamrreview does it, since all scores would be unified that way, but you're taking away the choices for those who don't want to use such a system. At the end those people will rate 90% of their games 4/5 or 4.5/5 and that wouldn't satisfy them.

I'm just saying there are ways to let the users decide what rating system they want to use. A 100 scale doesn't mean that you cannot give an average (or ok) game 40/100 (which would be the 2/5 you were talking about).

Well, this is good news in the bad news, not my fav system, but better than out of 5.

Will Gamewise have a game library?