I like EGM's new letter grade system. It allows us to get a better handling on what a game is like. There's three lengthy reviews and only a single letter to evaluate the game's quality for each. Since it's by letter grades, we're all instantly familiar with the meaning from our school days.

However, that is only a system. It's the reviewers that need to change, and that I have no answer for. My advice to everyone is to use whichever publication you're most comfortable with. My two are EGM and IGN. 

Oh I'm not defending shovelware here. Everybody gets it every generation, and the market leader gets the most, particularly when it's the cheapest to develop for and is creating new markets that everybody's trying to sucker and milk dry of their new "casual dollars."

I was just talking about graphical scores when comparing Wii to HD consoles, which seems unfair since Wii owners are fully aware that they bought a non-HD system and non-HD games. I have to get reminded in every review I read that I was stupid enough to buy a gimped system. It's like the reviewers have a personal vendetta against gamers who don't care about graphical horse power.

what reviews are talking about, when do the reviews compare wii to the other consoles. All i usually see is 360 vs ps3, which looks better.

In my opinion the best solution is to have people review a game based on a non-numeric 5 point scale that can be summarized as:

Awful
Poor
Average
Good
Great

And then the aggregate score would just be the percentage of people who thought that a game deserved that particular grade.

 Averages of 88 and 90% on Gamerankaings are considered low? (they are the 5th and 6th best rated PS3 games there)

@psrock, you're not coming up with ideas. You're being contentious, and it's not helpful to what is trying to be accomplished here.

@OP,

The problem with the popular review systems lies in quantifying fun, enjoyment, and appreciation. We have to ask ourselves if fun/enjoyment/appreciation can be quantified accurately and meaningfully. My assessment is that it can be, but not consistently with the current model. The current model uses a ton of different reviewers because video games are time consuming. Individual reviewers will use different methods for their quantification.

Because consistency cannot be realistically attained, a more qualitative model needs to be implemented.

My advice is to look at how we recommend games to friends. By playing a game, the gamer is reviewing it in some capacity. If the gamer has a lot of fun with it, enjoys it thoroughly, and really appreciates the outcome of the games development there is a good chance that gamer is going to talk about it and recommend it to friends.

The gamer will tell you what made it so fun, why it was so enjoyable, and what he really appreciated about the quality of different aspects of the game. If anything didn't work and bothered the gamer, you'll hear about that too.

In a person to person verbal conversation, you're probably not going to hear somebody say, "The game was about a 9.3."

The content of reviews themselves contain most of what I've talked about. The question I can't answer is: How do we create a visual aid/tool to concisely relay the qualitative information in a written review?

I'll think more about it.

Games should be judged for what they are, not for what they are not.


Shooters and party games shouldn't be judged on story, but it would be a huge bonus if it did have a good one.

JRPGs shouldn't be knocked for having a turn based battle system.

i'm sorry, How about keeping graphic and add fun facter as qualifier. I sometimes hate the way they score presentation.

1up already has a new gradig system.

from F to A+

^ The grading system might not be the answer. It doesn't represent a different system than 0-10. It's an improvement though because it is more restricted.

Hmm, tough question.

Let's face it, reviewing is a tough job, and our mainstream media is especially awful at it. My own thoughts:

(1) Reviewers must know their media history and media culture. This means more than Hollywood -- you should know about the major works of Bollywood, Nollywood, all the major EU film cultures, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Brazil and Mexico.

(2) You should know some of the major literary traditions -- especially Third World and postcolonial novels and fiction. Being well-read gives you the necessary tools to formulate your critique.

(3) Playability trumps watchability or listenability. You should know and respect the limits of each game genre.