Numerical rating systems

Doesn't destructoid have something of the same system?
Say what you will about destructoid, but I though that system works okay.

I think numbers are fine as long as people remember that on a 10 point scale, 5 is okay. I'm sick of people treating the 10 point scale like it starts at 6.

With that said though, the numerical scale does have one flaw- It doesn't really account for differences in preferred genre. A game that's relatively amazing and 10/10 in a genre I hate wouldn't be nearly as much fun to me as a 5/10 in a genre I love, so people shouldn't expect that every game of the same rating/10 would be equally as enjoyable to them specifically.

Finally, as a really nitpicky point, on a scale of 1 through 10, the true middle is 5.5. So if you want a true middle neutral rating, go with a scale of 1 through 9, in that case 5 really is the middle.

Number scales imply Bioshock can be directly compared to Persona 4 when, in reality, both games are in no way comparable (unless you go by objective "enjoyment factor" or things like graphics/music)

They also imply an upper and lower limit, so it's tedious to give a game a 10 because you're saying it's better than every other game, and there is nothing better than it.

I just recommend or not recommend. It's always implied that you pirate initially, doing anything else is idiotic.
And I always list the reasons why I recommend, and warn of the downsides you might encounter (which might be fine for some and dealbreakers for others). I also usually recommend other games which do certain aspects better or are similar enough in gameplay.
Of course, I do have favorite games, but I wouldn't rank any of them in a "x is better than y" fashion.

If you really wanted to numerically rank games, it would be a factor of average time to beat, what percentage of that is "fun time", replayability, how logically sound the game mechanics are, DLC and other jewery, and how well it runs. This number would have no upper bounds, maybe even no lower bounds (it could go into negatives, 0 would be the "ultimate mediocre game")
I imagine the graph of this rank would be like a bell curve; there is no upper or lower limit, but there is a logical range about which the games fall.
And like I said above, a numerical system implies you saying something is statistically better or worse than something else, which isn't ideal for reviews.

I have a 3 tiered system.

Any more then that is unnecessary bullshit.

Ten point scale, two points per category: music, graphics, replayability, etc, etc. A game gets two points in a category if that part really, really shines, ie. a mediocre JRPG with fantastic music might get a five total, but two of those points are for the soundtrack. They get one point if the category is present and passable, and zero if that category is just awful.

This lets you rate each game as its own item, and how it stands by itself, rather than on a scale next to every other game. This way you know that an 8 or a 9 by these measurements is a fantastic game overall, not just THE BEST JRPG or BEST FIGHTING GAME.

So if a JRPG has amazing graphics and music, so good they really, really sets it apart from the rest, so good they still look amazing 7 years later, what would it get?

Damn, that's a good question. I guess we'll have to figure that out when it happens.

No numbers, simply list the things that are good and bad about it and let the person reading decided if it's worth getting

This is actually how professional critics work.

t. actual journalist

I agree. I'm more for a cons and pros system detailing what the reviewer thought was good or bad on a game rather than some guy attempting to be funny for a bunch of paragraphs with the rare complaint or praise before going 9/10 IT'S SHIT AND BUGGY

I've always wondered, what does the "t." stand for? I know it's supposed to mean signed or something similar but what's the exact meaning?

what make you so sure that the thing you find navigate about a game is not a positive thing for someone else ??

That's why you don't put in simply good or bad terms. Have different categories of Gameplay, Controls, Graphics, Sound Design, etc. and let people decide what's good, bad, mediocre and what's important or unimportant.

I don't actually know. I just see it around and want to fit in.

time to educate you autistic faggots
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terveisin

what is wrong in the current 10/10 rating system ?
it is working pretty well

What's the name of the song in this webm?

Too complicated and no one uses it properly (ie 7 means okay, 6 means bad, 5< is abysmal).
I think 5/5 works better.

I mean, I guess it could still be misused, but the current 10/10 system is essentially used as a 5/5 system anyway. Why not just simplify it?

It does imply this, but it would be ridiculous in practice. You would be insane to compare weeaboo waifu sim against time travel waifu sim. But people still do. You'd have to mention that the scale is entirely objective and not a comparison to other games.

This is the best way to do it. Tell everyone what's objectively bad or good about the media and leave out scores. If it's a well written review, then you'd actually end up with the information that let's you figure it out.
Of course, then people would have to READ the reviews instead of just looking at the score, but whatever…

integers ONLY
up to a range of 6/7 units.
note that 0 - 5 scale is 6 units

boolean only nigga

I rate everything I like a 7-8 out of 10. Doesn't really have a meaning.

at this point you might as well throw the integers, floats and booleans for fucking strings