We often complain about score inflation from gaming sites and publications. And typically we blame it on poor and biased journalists, and on unreasonable fan expectations. I think a third culprit is the rating system itself. Specifically the ten-point scale with half-point intervals.

This rating system seems to be the most common and most accepted. Until recently IGN used such a system, but then made the bewildering move BACK to a 100-point scale.

I think video game sites and publications should consider a four-star rating system. Not unlike the system on which many film critics rely.

Instead of...

10
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

...you would have:

****
*** 1/2
***
** 1/2
**
* 1/2
*
1/2
ZERO

Of course the list is less nuanced, but it takes away many of those "in-between" scores that tempt reviewers. It's also a much more elegant system, at least to me.

I don't think consumers who read video game reviews in 2013 are interested in scores reduced to the smallest decimal; rather they want to know if a game is good or great, worthy of a rental or a must-buy. A four-star rating system would provide such information, and might even reduce score inflation.

What do you think?

I disagree.

I disagree. Going by your logic in the last paragraph, games should not have scores at all and instead have a meter for: Must buy - Don't buy, with more inbetween.

What bugs me the most is some of you guys buy a game based off its review, How many times you played a game that has a 80 or a 75 on a metacritic and enjoyed it more than a game that got a 90 i did ALOT, So to me reviews are Crap.

Firstly, why on earth is there a game called "lower your score"? Is it about golf?

Secondly, I don't agree. It wouldn't reduce score inflation, because everything would still be concentrated at the top - most games are decent or better. 90% of games would get 3 stars or 4 stars and nobody benefits at all.

Sure, you could start using the lower ratings, but that's just dishonest. A game getting a 7/10 is NOT a bad game. It shouldn't be getting 1-2 stars.

Moreover, "buy it" is a very subjective instruction. I would recommend fans of Star Wars and action games to pick up The Force Unleashed II, which I gave a 7.8. I would not recommend haters of God of War or the hack and slash genre to pick up God of War III, which I gave a 9.4.

A review is an objective description of a game with some justified personal opinion thrown in, not a buyer's guide.

I generally don't give a shit about reviews. I just ask gamers I trust how they thoght it was, based on that information I'll buy the game.

Which is why I only trust community reviews from players who have played the game, IGN is just bad at reviewing.

No scores at all isn't a bad idea. That's what the New York Times film critics do. It forces you the read the entire review.

This is how games should be rated

Haha, I have no idea what that game is. Seemed appropriate though.

I disagree about most games being decent or better. The games we're exposed to are decent or better, but think of the hundreds of games that release each year that are mostly garbage. It's just that no one advertises them, and very few reviewers bother to rate them.

I'm not arguing that reviewers should insist upon lower scores even when higher scores are deserved. All I'm saying is that all these decimal points don't really provide that much more information that a four-star system; and, in many cases, they are counter-productive because the entire scale is rarely used.

If it works for movies, why shouldn't it work for games?

Four stars is great; 3.5 is excellent; 3 is good; 2.5 is fair; 2 is poor, etc. Combine those scores with a well-researched and nuanced review and you have a recipe for success. I just don't think we need a game to be scored 7.3 or 8.9.