What I mean by this are reviews for games that are whole numbers such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. 10 is the exception as it is the limit on the scale on how good a game could be.

I feel these are half assed scores that are simply thrown out into the open so the reviewer can say he/she did their job. This kind of score I feel tells me nothing of the intracacies in the game. Games are filled with detail(or lack there of) and a whole number review does not represent that accurately.

Over the last few weeks I have been cruising N4G for reviews, mainly for Valkyria Chronicles and Resistance2(NOT RFOM2 as I hear many say, the game has no subtitle so please stop!rant). I read these reviews and tally their scores not to decide a purchase but to see if their are any aspects of the game I do not already know about. Yet for both of these games the reviews have been pretty half assed. They all say 8,8.5,9. Excusing the fact I think these reviews are completely off base, I feel they lack what I need from them as well. The reviews with the 8 and 9s have nothing really revolutionary to say, just sly gentle praise or dismay with this or that that is phrases so vaguely that you have no idea what they are talking about. I am beginning to think that reviews with whole numbers are not even reviews of the whole game. I think they might just be quick glances at whether a game is good or bad and are just laid out according to what other, better reviewers have already said about the game.

Has no one else noticed the lack of detail put into reviews with a whole number?

See, I hate scores that 8.3, 9.6, 7.4, ect. That's not exact enough for me, I want an even more exact arbitrary number!

Like 8.364, not some half-assed 8.4. The reviewers are just being lazy in that case.

Speaking seriously, I wish they would get rid of scores altogether.

Try to pretend you're real journalists and critics, guys! For me?

I personally hate it when the reviewers use anything more than a 10 point scale. What's the difference between a 3.6 and a 3.7? Nothing. You can't give every point on a 100 point scale any meaning.

I think people rating games with a score like 8.7 are kiding themselves with those .1 increases. You can't and mustn't be precise with a global score. If much prefer the letter system (A+ to F), it's not precise but it gives you a general idea of the quality of the game. Whether you purchase it or not can then be based on your personal taste.

I accept the five-point scale and the letter grade scale (no + or -). That is all I accept! It is more like a tier system.

Yeah, I hope this thread is satire.

A number like 9.314 tells you no more about the game than a 4 of 5.

The reason it might seem like a 100 point scale is better is because they barely use most of the scores anyways. Here, I'll reduce the 100 point scale to a more reasonable 10 for you:

10.0 = 10 (pressure from advertisers)
9.9 = 9 (nearly perfect game)
9.5 = 8
9.0 = 7
8.9 = 6
8.0 = 5 (basically an average game)
7.9 = 4 ("casual" game cap score)
7.0 = 3
6.9 = 2
6.0 = 1
Under 6 = 0 (Seriously, there's no difference between a 1.7 and a 5.2.)

Do they use other scores on the 100 point scale anyways?

That's one of the reasons why 1up change their ratings to vocals,but at the end is the same thing.

It's hard to qualify a game with objectivity,many times the bias factor or just personal opinions mess with the rating.
And the number rate doesn't help either.

Rating scales should be universal and they should just be 0, .5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 .. etc etc etc up to 10.

Much easier to comprehend.

I would prefer a smaller set myself, like 5 point..... or in fact just take out points alltogether and replace with words to avoid confusion.

The basis of how good one game is compared to another cannot be put onto some accurate scale, it depends on preference.... a smaller point scale I think would encourage gamers to actually read the reviews rather than just assume the better score must mean Halo 3 is better than Resistance (or insert your own pair of games here)