Are numerical ratings really that bad?

[MadMummy76]

So this seems to be a trend now, shitting on the concept of numeric scores for games in reviews.

I don't know why is this a thing now, there is no problem with ratings, as long as the person giving the rating can be trusted.

The problems originated with the shill media refusing to give bad ratings to really bad games, to keep the good will of their industry friends. Which resulted in gamers starting to consider 7/10 games as shit. And even the industry adopting the notion that anything below a 9/10 score is a complete failure.

But as usual that is human stupidity at work, not an issue with the concept of numbered scores. I mean why would "skip / pause / buy" be any better? It's still just a rating system but your replaced the numbers with words. It's a very restricted rating system that can't separate OK games from brilliant games. There is no nuance to it. It's basically a rating system that goes from one to three with no fractional values.

I don't believe it is a good solution.. If you want words instead of numbers that's fine. But stuffing all games into three categories is a disservice to games and gamers as well.

I've come up with my own rating system years ago and have been sticking to it ever since. I use a scale of 10, where each score corresponds to the value of the game. You might argue that 10 categories is too much, and I guess it could be condensed into 7 or so. But definitely not 3.

1. Absolute shit, avoid at all cost
2. Really bad game, no redeeming value at all
3. Bad game, that some still might find interesting
4. Worse than average, has some serious flaws, but still can get some enjoyment out of it if you're into the genre
5. Completely average game, it does what it advertises and nothing more.
6. Better than average, good quality game, which shines on a few points but nothing extraordinary
7. Good game, that's well worth playing
8. Very good game, that's a must buy
9. Great game, that is truly awesome
10. Ground breaking, genre defining, mindblowing.

[Ryan]

But it's a personal truth, so really, unless someone agrees with your classification - it's ultimately...nothing. I don't think there is anything much better than "It's pretty great, you should check out" or "it totally sucked, you probably want to skip it". It gets right to the point and doesn't leave much to the imagination.

[PriestTroit]

Midnight_Mogwai Lol what?

[MadMummy76]

Did I ever say you were wrong? I described what type of reviews I'd like to read.
Someone dares to have a dissenting opinion on the internet What has the world come to! LOL

[Midnight_Mogwai]

I typed a long response, but it won't change your mind as you've decided I'm wrong and that is that. I don't see why you've set out to inform me that my perspective is incorrect, but this is an internet forum.

[MadMummy76]

In the current day and age anyone can look up gameplay videos to make up their mind whether a game is for them or not. So a review doing nothing but describing the game itself is not very interesting.

I don't want purist and methodical reviews, that do nothing but dissect the game in a prosy manner.

I always consumed game reviews as entertainment first, going back all the way to 1995. I enjoyed reading game reviews, even of games that I had zero intention of purchasing or playing. Without the "superfluous rhetoric" I wouldn't have enjoyed them at all.

[Baron Baldric]

The numbers are to calculate an average, the average is the mathematical representation of the consensus, the sum of the subjectivities that make up the objectivity, the closest we can arrive to the truth.

[MadMummy76]

Reviewers must objectively apply their subjectivity

[MadMummy76]

Honestly I'd prosecute companies / individuals paying for likes / ratings for fraud. Cause that's what it is.

[Baron Baldric]

That does not work if you have people paid to create accounts, they can simulate user activity. To slow down these people you need higher requirements such as being a "Senior Member".

[PriestTroit]

The only things possibly objective in a review are critiques about bugs.

[aileron]

Only four choices: 1, 3, 7, 10.

[Ryan]

That's the problem with numbers.

A 10 can exist, depending on the values that you're placing on something arbitrary. You're right, something can't, technically, be perfect - which is further reason why numbers are irrelevant. However, objectively, a game that is a 10 can be looked at as the best of the genre. A master example of what can be done in the industry, even if executed with flaws. Even within your own numbers there are flaws. How is innovation a factor at 7 when you list it as a significant factor at 9? Are your numbers only representative of the quality of the code behind it and not the whole package? A game could have bugs out the ass (sounds like a 5 for you) but still offer an incredible story and solid mechanics (an 8?). See my issue with being arbitrary?

[Midnight_Mogwai]

Thanks! I put in an application to write for the site, but I have yet to hear back one way or another. Some of my favorite games are not very good games, like Sonic Adventure. I try to acknowledge subjective/objective dissonance whenever it comes up, and it isn't the most common thing to happen, but it does happen. Thank you for your support Ryan, I appreciate it.

[Baron Baldric]

10 perfect (does not exist)
9 excellent, something never seen
8 very good, something is missing
7 good, not innovative
6 works
5 works poorly
4 the game is broken
3 broken and offensive
2 I asked them for a game and they gave me rum in a plastic bottle
1 I asked them for a game and they gave me the latest ghostbusters movie
0 I asked them for a game and they gave me a documentary by Anita Sarkeesian