Are numerical ratings really that bad?

[Ryan]

Oh I like you -- finally, someone that openly acknowledges a review can (and should) be both subjective and objective. I always felt alone in this world with that notion. :P

[Midnight_Mogwai]

When I review games, I try to determine if the product is of a good value to its target consumer. A 1-10 number scale would add unnecessary complications to my process. I've tried numerous variations of a number scale, and I even spent a bit of time trying to come up with a grading rubric. I still see no reason to provide an overly complicated answer to a simple question. I find myself increasingly irritated at game reviews that are written filled to the brim with esoteric details and superfluous rhetoric. I read reviews to be informed, and listen to reviews to be entertained and informed.

I think it is important to acknowledge that the enjoyment of a video game is completely subjective, while the quality of the game can be considered more objectively. I couldn't put a numerical value on a game I didn't enjoy, no matter how good the game might be. It would be impossible for me to do so with any validity. I prevent this issue from arising by not playing games in genres I don't enjoy, and by avoiding arbitrary numerical scores.

[Ryan]

Numbers are completely arbitrary. What does 3.3/10 mean? The world may never know, because it's pulled out of someone's ass and contains no real value. And who honestly talks in numbers? If your friend asks "hey man, do you recommend seeing this?" Do you say "yeah, it was pretty great - definitely worth checking out" or do you say "see it! It was a 7.5 out of 10 for me". What does a 7.5 mean, and does that same 7.5 mean the same thing for food or anything else in your life?

I've always hated the number system, especially the ones like IGN that scale... "oooh, this was pretty great, I give it an 8.3". That 8.3 literally has no meaning. Is it an average? Average of what? What does the .3 signify? What does your emotions look like with a 9?

[MadMummy76]

The numerical ratings are a double-edged sword, look at the amount of fake accounts that Sony created to position GOW as the best game of the generation over TW3.

That's why free for all rating doesn't work. If exlusively games would get an user rating system, I'd recommend that only active users who had been registered for at least a month could rate games.

[Baron Baldric]

The numerical ratings are a double-edged sword, look at the amount of fake accounts that Sony created to position GOW as the best game of the generation over TW3.

[PriestTroit]

The absolute truth is that a 10-point rating system is more likely to accurately portray the quality of video games than the stoplight system. The 10-point system allows games to be distinguished from on another beyond simply they're "good, okay, or sucks." Using the stoplight method, there's no way to adequately show how, say, Mass Effect or Skyrim, were genre-defining games which were so good they set standards for a decade. They would merely be rated as "good" along with a heap of other good quality games.

Of course, it's foolish to use only the score as the basis of your purchasing decision because it's impossible to quantify how good or bad a game really is. That's why you require a long-form and in-depth review which talks about each aspect of the game.... but you still need a way to boil all of it down into a single rating. The 10-point scale is best because it has a middle score representing a purely average game and two extreme ends representing a complete fail or the absolute cream of the crop. The 3-point scale doesn't have that capability.

[monnef]

I know it is not popular, but I really like structured reviews format - granular scores (0-10 or %) within many categories (graphics, aesthetics, sound, music, gameplay, controls, ...) where a sub-score for every category is accompanied with a comment and a final score is some aggregation of these sub-scores.

[isturbo1984]

I 100% agree. There is nothing wrong with the rating system. Games websites bought and paid for by their sponsors have created this insane mess. and it doesn't help that stupid people see a game below a 9.0 and think its a bad game. I gave God of War 2018 a 8.0. It was a good game. I, however, get so much shit for saying most of the time because people are retarded. The system isn't broken. the people who use the system are.

[MadMummy76]

By buying and playing the game! Then it's up to YOU to decide which game you consider to be the best. The reviewer is just giving you a guideline as to whether the game is worth buying, that's all.

As an example, let's say two games get reviewed with a scoring system. One game gets rated a 9, and the other gets rated a 7. So based on that, you run out and buy the 9 game. After playing it, you find it pretty decent, but nothing spectacular and in your opinion not worth a 9.
Then you go and buy the 7 game. You find it really good, and you enjoy it much better than the 9 game. Both games were worth buying, but you find your opinion doesn't quite correlate with the reviewers opinion. So how are you going to trust their scores in future?

This is why I personally don't place any importance on exact scores for games or even movies. There have been many times I've really enjoyed a movie and it's had a really bad score on IMDB, and conversely some movies I've absolutely hated get a really high score. You really can't trust anyone's opinion but your own!

Nobody has time to buy every game that has a better than average rating, definitely not me. I played a total of 4 games in 2018. That actually released in 2018.

Since reviews are inherently subjective I don't expect to agree with every score. That doesn't mean a score is worthless to separate the cream from the crop.

The only way a reviewer looses my trust is if they showcase negligence by being factually wrong about a game. Everything else is opinions. But of course the point is to read reviews from those people whose preferences are best aligned with your own. And by giving the game an actual score on a scale, I know how much the reviewer actually liked the game. That doesn't mean I'll like the game exactly the same amount, that's unrealistic. And perhaps a reason while scores were often misunderstood in the past. When fanboys started wars over a 7/10 score.

[zeorhymer]

Review scores have shifted over the years. Back then a 7/10 was a very good game. Now it seems that a 7/10 is *only* average. The difference between a 9 and a 9.5? Someone's whims. There was an example that Horizon reviewed as a 9, but the player definitely thought it was a 7. Under the rating system here, it would be marked as *Play* for sure and it would be you to decide how "good" it is. All reviews are subjective and having the simplified categories allows people to wade through the in-between numbers and come up with their own conclusions.

[skywalker0957]

I never had an issue with review scores, its just with so many places having just strange ways of reviewing things it almost becomes pointless. For example IGN very rarely reviews a game below 5 and has a #.# system, and it gets to the point where I am like who cares if its 7.1 or 7.3 is there really even a difference? Also many places don't have any sort of key or legend identifying what each score means. Ultimately though, reviews and scores are highly subject and are dependent on who is reviewing them so I like to read a bunch of different reviews before making any decisions. I don't find any harm in having review scores, I just think the meaning of scores needs to be clear and avoid getting way to menial with them such as having #.# i.e 7.5 since it doesn't offer much.

[Saskia]

Yeah I seem to remember him mentioning that too, so we'll only know once the site is up. Besides they might even end up changing the system later on if they decide it's not helpful enough.

[Saskia]

If everything that I'd consider 6-10 would just get a "play" badge, how would I know which game is the best?

By buying and playing the game! Then it's up to YOU to decide which game you consider to be the best. The reviewer is just giving you a guideline as to whether the game is worth buying, that's all.

As an example, let's say two games get reviewed with a scoring system. One game gets rated a 9, and the other gets rated a 7. So based on that, you run out and buy the 9 game. After playing it, you find it pretty decent, but nothing spectacular and in your opinion not worth a 9.
Then you go and buy the 7 game. You find it really good, and you enjoy it much better than the 9 game. Both games were worth buying, but you find your opinion doesn't quite correlate with the reviewers opinion. So how are you going to trust their scores in future?

This is why I personally don't place any importance on exact scores for games or even movies. There have been many times I've really enjoyed a movie and it's had a really bad score on IMDB, and conversely some movies I've absolutely hated get a really high score. You really can't trust anyone's opinion but your own!

[Saonyx]

I prefer the 3 point rating system. I have an anime profile on Kitsu.io, they use a 4 point rating system, which I like better than the 10 point 5 stars one MAL has. (Bad, Meh, Good, Great) However, a 3 point system is all you really need. Play, Pause, Pass. Simple and easy to discern instead of looking at what each of the 10 points means. Easier to remember, and something you can do on the fly. When deciding what to buy. However if you want more information, you can always go read reviews or watch Let's Plays.

[Skromulator]

I don't really care for numerical rating systems but they're not terrible. I do think that the play/ pause/ pass system is pretty good because it's direct and to the point and I think that most people apply those words to the different numbers in a numerical system anyway. I think the steam thumbs up or thumbs down system is bad because you need that third option for games that might not be worth your time right now but could be improved with future patches or updates.