Concerning the upcoming 10 point scale for GameSpot reviews...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -

So I recently found out the .5 increment will be removed from review scores in the "new" GameSpot. This is fine I guess, I don't like it, but whatever they want to do right? Well, I'm just worried because I don't want this change to affect user scores and reviews. This may sound like a trivial thing to most users on this site, I don't know, but I joined mainly to rate and review games and have all of that organized in one place. I know users had to change their scores after this site went from a 100 point scale to a 20 point scale, which makes me almost certain we'll be forced to make make this change as well.

Again, this likely wouldn't be a big deal for most, but I'm genuinely concerned. People are concerned about unions, levels resetting, etc, here I am worried about not being able to use a 20 point scale to rate games. And speaking of user reviews, I imagine those won't be going anywhere, correct?

#2 Posted by Mikey2K10 (115 posts) -
While I much prefer the 20 point scale and am not particularly enthusiastic about the upcoming 10 point system, I have mostly positive feelings towards this. Though I prefer assigning scores in .5 increments, I believe the new system may force myself (and others) to fully assess every aspect of a game and not "over-score" it in any way (not that I'm assuming people do that). I do think it would be much harder for games to score high on the scale now (even though that was the case anyway).
#3 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -
While I much prefer the 20 point scale and am not particularly enthusiastic about the upcoming 10 point system, I have mostly positive feelings towards this. Though I prefer assigning scores in .5 increments, I believe the new system may force myself (and others) to fully assess every aspect of a game and not "over-score" it in any way (not that I'm assuming people do that). I do think it would be much harder for games to score high on the scale now (even though that was the case anyway).Mikey2K10
People who over-score are still going to over-score. This system gives less options. A 9 and 9.5 significant differences to me, which is why I'm going to hate having to use this system, if that really turns out to be the case. Most 'good" games in this system will probably score an 8 or 9, but as I mentioned, I don't care if GameSpot's reviews do this. I just want to continue having the option to use the rating system currently in place.
#4 Posted by Mikey2K10 (115 posts) -

[QUOTE="Mikey2K10"]While I much prefer the 20 point scale and am not particularly enthusiastic about the upcoming 10 point system, I have mostly positive feelings towards this. Though I prefer assigning scores in .5 increments, I believe the new system may force myself (and others) to fully assess every aspect of a game and not "over-score" it in any way (not that I'm assuming people do that). I do think it would be much harder for games to score high on the scale now (even though that was the case anyway).SoNin360
People who over-score are still going to over-score. This system gives less options. A 9 and 9.5 significant differences to me, which is why I'm going to hate having to use this system, if that really turns out to be the case. Most 'good" games in this system will probably score an 8 or 9, but as I mentioned, I don't care if GameSpot's reviews do this. I just want to continue having the option to use the rating system currently in place.

Yeah I understand that. The 7.5, 8.5, 9.5 etc are important to me too.

#5 Posted by Alucard_Prime (3043 posts) -

I don't think it's a big deal. Reviews should give you a general idea of how good the game is, it's not an exact science. I always find it amusing when people say "oh this game only got 7.5 it deserved an 8 in my book..." Not to mention that overall, the staff reviews at Gamespot are becoming more and more meaningless to me, I find metacritic a much better indicator. On gamespot it's always the same 3-4 people that review games, and Kevin is the one who seems to review most of the high-profile games. I'm not basing my game purchases on the opinions of 1 or 2 people, I always like to get several different opinions. 

#6 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -

I don't think it's a big deal. Reviews should give you a general idea of how good the game is, it's not an exact science. I always find it amusing when people say "oh this game only got 7.5 it deserved an 8 in my book..." Not to mention that overall, the staff reviews at Gamespot are becoming more and more meaningless to me, I find metacritic a much better indicator. On gamespot it's always the same 3-4 people that review games, and Kevin is the one who seems to review most of the high-profile games. I'm not basing my game purchases on the opinions of 1 or 2 people, I always like to get several different opinions. 

Alucard_Prime
Right, once again, I'm not concerned with GameSpots reviews doing this, I just want the option to rate games with the current system. I think you're right with the general point that this will quiet down some of the whining that a game should have received a slightly higher score. I still, however, don't think this is a necessary change. I tend to think quite a bit about scores (on a personal level) and I've really grown to like the 20 point scale. The long ago 100 point scale, not that I was around then, was admittedly overkill and random, but I still think the 20 point scale narrowed it down enough, and bringing it down even lower means much less variety and more rounding.
#7 Posted by EvanescentCrow (73 posts) -

I just want to add my voice in here saying I like, and prefer, the new system. Lowering the scale makes a lot of sense because judging videogame scores will always be subjective, and explaining why a game got a 7.5 rather than an 8 (same as 15 versus 16, basically) is the kind of argument that becomes childish quickly. The smaller the scale, the more concise each value becomes.

The new system gives just what a score should: a quick look at what the review text is going to say.

So, kudos to GameSpot for the decision.

#8 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -

I just want to add my voice in here saying I like, and prefer, the new system. Lowering the scale makes a lot of sense because judging videogame scores will always be subjective, and explaining why a game got a 7.5 rather than an 8 (same as 15 versus 16, basically) is the kind of argument that becomes childish quickly. The smaller the scale, the more concise each value becomes.

The new system gives just what a score should: a quick look at what the review text is going to say.

So, kudos to GameSpot for the decision.

EvanescentCrow
Almost no review directly elaborates on the score itself, the content of the review is always more important than the score. BUT there will always be whining in the comments section along the lines of "Oh this game should have gotten x instead of y". Shrinking the scale isn't going to do anything in that regard. I see no other real reason to round scores even more.
#9 Posted by CrimsonBrute (23597 posts) -

Well there may be chance that you may be able to ask Lark directly in the comments section during the Fireside Chat being held this Wednesday at 12pm PDT. If you decide to do so please keep in mind a couple of rules:

  • Be polite and try using proper spelling and grammar.
  • Keep it short and to the point if at all possible.
  • Right before you post a question, be sure to use Question: so it can be noticed easier.

 

#10 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -
Coming next year, the two point scale. Good or bad.
#11 Posted by EvanescentCrow (73 posts) -

Almost no review directly elaborates on the score itself, the content of the review is always more important than the score.SoNin360

Obviously. The point of the score is to be a quick summary, or a tone setter, not a replacement or a crutch.

BUT there will always be whining in the comments section along the lines of "Oh this game should have gotten x instead of y".SoNin360

That's a problem with the users, not the system. Everything that's popular attracts whiners. GameSpot, Microsoft, Justin Bieber...

Shrinking the scale isn't going to do anything in that regard. I see no other real reason to round scores even more.SoNin360

It's a matter of professionalism, really. I suggest you visit my profile and read my oldest blog entry (I only have two posted, so you can't miss it). It may help you understand the value GameSpot, myself, and others see in the new system.

#12 Posted by The-Apostle (12190 posts) -

It's a matter of professionalism, really. I suggest you visit my profile and read my oldest blog entry (I only have two posted, so you can't miss it). It may help you understand the value GameSpot, myself, and others see in the new system.

EvanescentCrow

I'm sorry but it's a long read and I lack time but I'm interested. Can you give me a shorter version?

#13 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -

Well there may be chance that you may be able to ask Lark directly in the comments section during the Fireside Chat being held this Wednesday at 12pm PDT. If you decide to do so please keep in mind a couple of rules:

  • Be polite and try using proper spelling and grammar.
  • Keep it short and to the point if at all possible.
  • Right before you post a question, be sure to use Question: so it can be noticed easier.

 

F22_King_Raptor
Thank you. I'll reiterate once again that I do not care that the professional reviews written on here will be using a smaller scale. I understand most people seem to be in favor of that or do not care. I'm not going to win any arguments of as to why they shouldn't use the new scale. I JUST want to be able to use the current scale when rating and reviewing games on here. And as I've said, it's a seemingly trivial matter, but it's a significant deal to me. I'll check out the chat if I can. Are questions answered Live, or how does that work? I just know they post the videos on YouTube, but I don't see any back and forth in the comments section.
#14 Posted by CrimsonBrute (23597 posts) -

The questions will be answered live on the GS page setup for the event. I assume it'll be similar the last Fireside Chat. Someone from the GS staff will be looking through the comments and reading them to Lark who will then respond.

#15 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -

The questions will be answered live on the GS page setup for the event. I assume it'll be similar the last Fireside Chat. Someone from the GS staff will be looking through the comments and reading them to Lark who will then respond.

F22_King_Raptor
I see. I don't think I'll be able to make it on time, I'll jump in some 45 minutes to an hour later to see if anything is still going on. Hopefully it's discussed, but it's such an "out there" concern that it probably won't be. But there are more things I want to know for sure so I'll be checking it out anyway. Thanks again.
#16 Posted by EvanescentCrow (73 posts) -

I'm sorry but it's a long read and I lack time but I'm interested. Can you give me a shorter version?

The-Apostle

The shorter version is pretty much what was said in previous posts in this thread, that scores are not a replacement or a crutch, but rather a summary or tone setter. That said, if a score is present, it should find a balance between being too generic and too specific. I can add examples to help clarify, though.

Example of too generic would be a scale of 2, where "1" is bad and "2" is good - similar to YouTube thumbs system. In that scenario, you're breaking the products you're reviewing into black or white, with no tones of gray. That's extreme, and would be unfair to products that stand somewhere in the middle but, for some reason, are forced into one side of the equation. This would not be professional because it schews the value of the product, one way or another.

Example of too specific would be a scale of 100, where 100 is "as good as it could be", while 1 (or 0, if applicable) would be "unplayable". In this scenario, we have the opposite problem, meaning, the middle of the scale will be overcrowded and the reviewer will have to find a way to justify why one game was scored "32" while another one was a "35" - which is difficult, if not impossible, as you'd need to intelectually visualize 100 different degrees of quality and know how to define each one properly in the context of your review. This is also not professional because it's not efficient for the reviewer who should be focusing on informing the reader, not making the reader confused with unnecessary minutia.

As a side note, this also applies to user reviews because it would only cause confusion, especially if GameSpot maintains a comparison between "GameSpot score" and "User score" as they currently do. I'd suggest people simply continue to do what they already do, which is to add their own "personal" scoring system at the end of their reviews - if it's really that important. I've seen people use the school grades system and the 100 system, even though their "official" score on the site was coherent with the rest of the site, so I see no reason to feel threatened by the site's change.

Sorry, but that's as short as I can meke it.

#17 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -
As a side note, this also applies to user reviews because it would only cause confusion, especially if GameSpot maintains a comparison between "GameSpot score" and "User score" as they currently do. I'd suggest people simply continue to do what they already do, which is to add their own "personal" scoring system at the end of their reviews - if it's really that important. I've seen people use the school grades system and the 100 system, even though their "official" score on the site was coherent with the rest of the site, so I see no reason to feel threatened by the site's changeEvanescentCrow
I disagree, keeping the same scale for user scores and having the GameSpot score change wouldn't make a huge difference. I don't think the new scale would throw off the averages that much, if that's what you're trying to say. And people "adding" their own scores just shows that people don't like a narrowed down scale. But I suppose 100 is too specific, I agree with that, but 10 is still too narrow for me. I have dozens, maybe 100 or so games rated on the current scale, and it would jack up comparisons if I had to switch to the new scale. Hell, I wonder if my ratings or even reviews will carry over to the new site. There's still a lot I don't know.
#18 Posted by EvanescentCrow (73 posts) -

Fair enough.

As far as I remember, when GameSpot last changed their ratings from 100 to 20, old reviews kept the old system, so it wouldn't surprise me if they do the same now. I also remember people getting annoyed because they rated a game "8.7" and now they had to round it either to 8.5 or 9, but just a couple of months ago I found a very old user review which used the 100 system, so it's safe to say old reviews weren't updated - only the reviews made in the future (but yes, I'm speculating).

As a simple theoretical exercise, though, let's consider the following scale of 5:

  1. Bad
  2. Below Average
  3. Average
  4. Above Average
  5. Excellent

Let's see the 10 point scale now:

  1. Unplayable
  2. Very Bad
  3. Bad
  4. Below Average
  5. Average
  6. Average
  7. Above Average
  8. Good
  9. Very Good
  10. Exemplary

These are just examples of how I would define them, mind you. And let me reiterate that this is purely academic. What I would like to see is you post a list, from 1 to 20, and define each value like I did above. Please, don't feel like you HAVE to do it, it's just I believe this may help you get your message across.

#19 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -
I don't think one word is enough for a score, hence the review. But I go by GameSpot's descriptions for scores: 1. Abysmal 2. Terrible 3. Bad 4. Poor 5. Mediocre 6. Fair 7. Good 8. Great 9. Superb 10. Prime A score that falls in the middle, such as a 7.5 would be somewhere between "good" and "great". I believe more scoring options (but not too many) can add more comparisons instead of just rounding everything so that more and more games share the same score. Maybe I just like being technical. I think there's a small, yet noticeable difference between a 9 and 9.5 personally. None of this really matters since I now know what I needed to know after viewing the comments on the recent Fireside Chat. Like you said, older scores will carry over, just as they did the last time they changed the scale. But users will have to use the new scale for ratings and reviews. Disappointing to me, but it's what I expected. I suppose I'll have to go elsewhere to re-rate every game I've rated or just keep a document to store all my ratings or something stupid like that. I think it's best to let this one die. I'm not going to convince anyone to not change the scale, and I'm guessing users have to follow the change as well for technical reasons. So there's probably no use in trying to push for not having users use the new scale. Oh well.
#20 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72480 posts) -
I think they should keep a 20 or a 100 point system for user reviews
#21 Posted by harry_james_pot (10947 posts) -
You will have to use the new 10 point system in any user reviews you post on the new site. However all of your old reviews will be imported along with their old system ratings. You won't have to re-score them or anything.
#22 Posted by elessarGObonzo (1107 posts) -

so what happens to all previous scores? they just round up or down from .5 according to their whim?


this site is getting worse and worse every few months: 

almost all game forums are just a link to gamefaqs,

user images are turning soo small we're all going to go blind,

release dates are wrong half of the time,


now where will i go to read dumbasses argue about computer vs console & see fanboy vs troll crying matches?

#23 Posted by harry_james_pot (10947 posts) -
so what happens to all previous scores? they just round up or down from .5 according to their whim?elessarGObonzo
Old scores will just stay the same.
#24 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -
now where will i go to read dumbasses argue about computer vs console & see fanboy vs troll crying matches?elessarGObonzo
Don't worry, I'm sure System Wars will still be around ;) Or you could try literally anywhere else on the Internet where gaming is discussed. But, as has been mentioned before, scores will transfer but we'll have to use the even more limited scale. Kind of lame in my opinion, but what can you do. I said to let this topic die, but it's nice to see a couple of more responses that seem to prefer the current scale I suppose.
#25 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72480 posts) -
[QUOTE="harry_james_pot"]You will have to use the new 10 point system in any user reviews you post on the new site. However all of your old reviews will be imported along with their old system ratings. You won't have to re-score them or anything.

That's unecessary, why not give users that freedom, jeez...
#26 Posted by harry_james_pot (10947 posts) -
[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"][QUOTE="harry_james_pot"]You will have to use the new 10 point system in any user reviews you post on the new site. However all of your old reviews will be imported along with their old system ratings. You won't have to re-score them or anything.

That's unecessary, why not give users that freedom, jeez...

I don't like the new system either. But we'll be able to format our reviews and include images and stuff, so that's good.
#27 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72480 posts) -
[QUOTE="harry_james_pot"][QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"][QUOTE="harry_james_pot"]You will have to use the new 10 point system in any user reviews you post on the new site. However all of your old reviews will be imported along with their old system ratings. You won't have to re-score them or anything.

That's unecessary, why not give users that freedom, jeez...

I don't like the new system either. But we'll be able to format our reviews and include images and stuff, so that's good.

Still think it would be better if they actually asked the community first instead of doing all this stuff
#28 Posted by BranKetra (48783 posts) -

According to moderators and rangers, user reviews will be probably be preserved for the new site, but keeping files for them on your personal computer is a good idea if you have one. My opinion of review scores is that they reflect the written or video/audio content, so if and when a new review format prompts reviewers to change their scores, review content I mentioned might need to be changed.

#29 Posted by harry_james_pot (10947 posts) -

According to moderators and rangers, user reviews will be probably be preserved for the new site, but keeping files for them on your personal computer is a good idea if you have one. My opinion of review scores is that they reflect the written or video/audio content, so if and when a new review format prompts reviewers to change their scores, review content I mentioned might need to be changed.

BranKetra
It won't make us change the scores.
#30 Posted by BranKetra (48783 posts) -

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

According to moderators and rangers, user reviews will be probably be preserved for the new site, but keeping files for them on your personal computer is a good idea if you have one. My opinion of review scores is that they reflect the written or video/audio content, so if and when a new review format prompts reviewers to change their scores, review content I mentioned might need to be changed.

harry_james_pot

It won't make us change the scores.

I know. I said that to voice my opinion for if and when the idea of prompting users to rescore games using a new format is asserted in a discussion about user reviews.

#31 Posted by Justforvisit (5047 posts) -

Coming next year, the two point scale. Good or bad.SolidSnake35


YouTubeSpot xD

#32 Posted by MATI9630 (106 posts) -

Wow, you deleted my post because...? Butthurt much?

Anyway, congratulations on making so many wrong decisions with your new layout. Last.fm's unwanted changes didn't bring them any popularity (just check weekly listeners of e.g. Led Zeppelin 2 years ago and 2 months ago), don't think yours will too.

Anyway, you've promised to keep our old ratings, yet "I've rated Gemini Rue as 8". I'm pretty sure that was 8.5. Hell, I don't even know where I can access all of my past ratings, if someone could help, I'd be glad.

Also, one more thing from your faq. "Why should be something inbetween great (8) and superb(9)?" Good question. But better is: why should NOT there be something inbetween good (7) and great?

But yeah, delete post instead of replying with a valid response, I'd expect too much from you

#33 Posted by Sheoldred (9 posts) -

Looks like they didn't make you change your scores. They just changed them for you. How delightful. So you say a game is 8.5 and they round to 8. Lovely! Personally I use a 100 point scale and refuse to use anything else. Not too many options for me on these new-fangled gaming websites, so I just mostly ignore their rating features now and just use a spreadsheet, where I have control of my scores, not some web designer.

#34 Edited by Diablo-B (4049 posts) -

I see why they made the change. Less intervals on a point scale means that each interval now has more significance. You have to take more time to consider your score.

The problem is that this will lead to even more clustering IMO. Worst yet you will see more trolling because some games aren't quiet a 9 but are better than an 8. Now there's no middle ground. Hard stances will be made. Trolls will arm themselves.

#35 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

This is dreadful to take away the option from users. If anything it should bring back the 100 point scale like IGN for everyone's tastes so that if people want to score .1 then they can but for people who prefer whole numbers they can also. This decision just cuts off choice. Plus where are my game ratings list, and forum post list, and easy-to-see following games and updates? They needn't have done a make-over for the whole site but the main page only. Why does it feel like GS is continually getting worse and blatantly giving everyone a firm middle finger?