If a game that bad is worth 3 out of 10, what are 1 and 2 there for?

For games that don't work. 

Can't say I agree with this notion at all. I haven't played this WWE game but I did play Cyberpunk at launch and while it was certainly glitchy, it was still a far more enjoyable and worthwhile experience than Superman 64 could ever be. I mean, honestly it wasn't even too much glitchier than Skyrim at launch, yet it got all the hate. But anyways. The game has a lot of merits, the soundtrack is good, the story is interesting and told in an immersive and awesome way, it looks absolutely stunning, it has fun (even if generic) gameplay mechanics and combat, it's an impressively built open world and has some fantastic worldbuilding. Rating it any less than a 4 is simply ridiculous for the quality it has, unless you were reviewing specifically the PS4/XBO versions at launch.

If any game can get a 3/10 just for "working" properly, the scoring system is just flawed. Scores are too high across the board anyways, because people give too much value to a game's basic functionality and aren't nearly critical enough of a game's actual identity. So if a game is technically acceptable, that on its own guarantees it a 5/10 at least? It's just... ugh. Not a fan.

For me, 3/10 means bad. Not terrible, just bad. Like, that's the highest 'bad' score, whereas a 4/10 is already closer to 'average'. At least that's how it should be, numerically, it's just what makes sense if your scale goes from 1 to 10. A game like Superman 64, which has absolutely nothing enjoyable or interesting or creative or worthwhile in any way, should never score higher than a 1.

Edit: I mean, really, what's the point of having all those numbers down at the bottom of the scale otherwise? Is it that important to make a distinction between "absolutely terrible" and "slightly more terrible"? I ask what the 1 and 2 are for, you say it's for games that don't work... well even with that notion, why even have two different scores for the same thing? It really makes no sense. I think there should be more distinction between works that are "high" or "higher" quality, yet in gaming we just get showered with 8's and 9's everywhere as long as a game is... fine. And there goes all critical discerning right out the window. Good scores should start at 6, not 8.

Can't say I agree with this notion at all. I haven't played this WWE game but I did play Cyberpunk at launch and while it was certainly glitchy, it was still a far more enjoyable and worthwhile experience than Superman 64 could ever be. I mean, honestly it wasn't even too much glitchier than Skyrim at launch, yet it got all the hate. But anyways. The game has a lot of merits, the soundtrack is good, the story is interesting and told in an immersive and awesome way, it looks absolutely stunning, it has fun (even if generic) gameplay mechanics and combat, it's an impressively built open world and has some fantastic worldbuilding. Rating it any less than a 4 is simply ridiculous for the quality it has, unless you were reviewing specifically the PS4/XBO versions at launch.

If any game can get a 3/10 just for "working" properly, the scoring system is just flawed. Scores are too high across the board anyways, because people give too much value to a game's basic functionality and aren't nearly critical enough of a game's actual identity. So if a game is technically acceptable, that on its own guarantees it a 5/10 at least? It's just... ugh. Not a fan.

For me, 3/10 means bad. Not terrible, just bad. Like, that's the highest 'bad' score, whereas a 4/10 is already closer to 'average'. At least that's how it should be, numerically, it's just what makes sense if your scale goes from 1 to 10. A game like Superman 64, which has absolutely nothing enjoyable or interesting or creative or worthwhile in any way, should never score higher than a 1.

Edit: I mean, really, what's the point of having all those numbers down at the bottom of the scale otherwise? Is it that important to make a distinction between "absolutely terrible" and "slightly more terrible"? I ask what the 1 and 2 are for, you say it's for games that don't work... well even with that notion, why even have two different scores for the same thing? It really makes no sense. I think there should be more distinction between works that are "high" or "higher" quality, yet in gaming we just get showered with 8's and 9's everywhere as long as a game is... fine. And there goes all critical discerning right out the window. Good scores should start at 6, not 8.

I think I lowkey agree with you people think anything that runs deserve to get a 5, that's why the scores are so high. In most industries, a movie can score mid 50 and being "mixed", while in gaming mixed review is closer to 70. A very bad movie probably would score something under 30, but a very bad game would hardly score anything lower than 50

Bad would be something from 4 to 5 to me, but I can't remember many games that I've scored lower than a 4. That's because to get a 3 the game must be so annoying that I would probably dropped it before thinking I could fairly score it. Recently I tried Subject 13, I dropped it after 40 to 50 because the controls made no sense and the screen doesn't give you clues of how to progress on it. That's a exemple of a game I would score 2 or 3, if I have the patience to push myself for some hour

If a game that bad is worth 3 out of 10, what are 1 and 2 there for?