Ka-pi96 said:
HoloDust said:
Not really - it's 0-5 with halfsteps. In the sense that 3.5 is still 3, but with that extra half. If you convert that to 0-10 it would not be 6 with extra 1, but 7 - not sure if I'm making sense here. For me, i.e. 0-5 star system always implied that if something is, say, 3.8, it will be rated as 4 - so there is sort of a range in star system - 4 star game would translate into 75-84 range, which I like more then "this game is 80/100".
Personal preference really.
|
... what's the difference between 6+1 and 7? 
And comparing it to 3.8 isn't really fair. If you're including decimals then it's really a 100 point rating system, rather than just a 10 point one. On another 10 point rating system (using numbers instead of stars) a 4 star game would just translate to a simple 8. No difference at all to just rating it an 8 on numbered 0-10 scale. If you're comparing it to a 100 point scale then obviously it's different and less precise (hence why you can see it translating as a range of figures). I can see why some people may prefer a less precise system, but it's still just as precise as the standard 0-10 with no decimals.
|
Just like I said, 7 is a 7, not 6 with an extra 1.
3 and a half stars is still 3 and that extra half - it's not quite as good to be 4, but it's better than 3 - I hope you're getting what I'm saying.
Like I said, matter of perception, for me seeing something as 3 and half stars is much better than 7/10 and 70/100.
Anyway, it's not really that important in the end what system is used, if reviewers start misusing it - even Adventuregamers I mentioned earlier, which is probably best review site for P&C adventures, have started giving high scores left and right in past few years devaluating the whole scale.
