Alternative Rating Scales?

The problem with out of 10 scale that is abused today is that there it is inconsistent and often accompanied by arbitrary decimal precision (7.2). Also, it is not clear how good a 5/10 is compared to 7/10. Both are pretty bad. But yet the 7 feels okay.

I think journalists should stick to using whole numbers out of 5.

5/5 : Amazing
4/5 : Good
3/5 : Average
2/5 : Meh
1/5 : Bad
0/5 : Awful

Thoughts?

Retard

This.

I wasn't talking about 'out of 5 choices'. But rather the value is capped at 5. Who's the retard now?

Found the nodev.

So use a 100 scale, you fucking dipshit. Stop trying to shrink the sum total of human emotion to HURR THUMB UP and HURR THUMB DOWN.

Here's an alternative


Every game ever created has hours and hours of gameplay videos. Reviews are no longer necessary. I can watch the first level of Cold Steel on the Vita or PS3 right now and find out everything I need to know about the battle system, characters, art style or dubbing.

Why IGN isn't dead already is beyond me.

No need to be angry user. Is it possible for you to communicate without acting like a total retard? Try using English normally.
There is nothing wrong with trying to shrink the sum total of human emotion. It is much more easier and accurate to pin down a rating on a smaller scale than on a larger scale. 100 is excessive and because it is similar to 10, it has the same issues. Particularly that everyone assumes it follows a school sort of grading scheme with 90+ being an A, 80+ being a B, etc. This fucks up the distribution of value along the spectrum and brings the problem with 5/10 and 7/10 that I mentioned first.ga yga y gagya gay gay

Who the fuck are you.

Virtually every game in existence would get a 4/5.

NEXT

All you did was cut the rating scale in half and ripped off Newgrounds. Bit fucking whoop.

Also, the decimal precision is usually because it's an average of individually rated parts of the game. If it gets a 6/10 on gameplay and a 9/10 on graphics and 8/10 on sound/music, for example, it would have a total score of 7.7 points.

you're a casual.

this

I thought this was going to be Holla Forums remakes the age rating system. You disappoint me faggot.

Numbered scales don't work. You need to actually write a concise review, stop padding the fucking thing by writing a god damned story about it, and keep shit objective.

It should boil down to who you're suggesting it to, and there should be two ratings, one for entry level players who are new to the genre/series, and one for fans.

No number scales, just explain why or why not the damn game is good or bad or mediocre.

The age rating system doesn't need a remake so much as it needs to have arbitrator selection practices that aren't "let the first moralizing busybody to come through the door loose on it."

Numbers aren't a useful score for rating things. Those 4 questions tell you more about the game than a fraction.

There only needs to be two ratings, shit and not shit.

EGM and Famitsu had it right early on: get multiple reviewers with well-known preferences to rate the game, then show their reasoning and scores separately. Unfortunately it costs more money to let multiple people play through a game instead of getting the intern to rush through it.

Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent, Never Touch

Or basically:

Not Shit-Somewhat Shit-Complete Shit

1/10: Doesn't run properly. When it does, it's an unplayable, buggy mess. The game itself is absolute dogshit, worse than shitty newsground flash games.
2/10: Sucks so bad you can't get past the first hour no matter how much you force yourself.
3/10: Game is terrible. You might finish it just to say you beat it and complain about how bad it was.
4/10: Game is pretty bad. Might have some good features but they're brought down by a myriad of issues.
5/10: Average game. Maybe it's just meh, maybe it has some good points and bad points to balance out the good.
6/10: Overall decent. Might have some pretty good parts, but still has some issues such as repetitiveness or blandness.
7/10: Pretty good. Lots of good things about it, the bad things are usually still there but muted or drowned out by all the good parts.
8/10: Great. Pretty much everything about it is awesome. If there's anything bad about the game it's usually pretty minor like that one annoying level or enemy.
9/10: Masterpiece. Games on this level are the ones you experience. They don't need hype or marketing, they stand the test of time, they're fun and leave you wanting for more.
10/10: Perfect. The unachievable score. You don't give a game 10/10 because it's an ideal that can't be achieved.

Five categories, 0-2 points each. Graphics, gameplay, sound, etc. Whatever's relevant to the actual game, ie. don't have a plot/writing category if you're reviewing Street Fighter. A zero means that category is garbage, like controls that are sloppy, unresponsive, or just buggy. A one means it's decent/playable, a two means it's fantastic and actually stands out, like a well done graphical style or high quality soundtrack. Something like this would help move reviews back towards objectivity instead of 'did I like this game or not.'

Shit rating system. 0/10.