Gamespot should switch to a 5-point scoring scale

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

It seems like they're heading there: 8.8 --> 8.5 --> 8 --> ?

No purpose of their 10-point scale as it is.
* 1-5 means crap anyway.
* nearly all aaa's will get 8's
* 10 will be set so unrealistically high that only a mega-hype game like gta iv or mgs iv can reach it. 8 is the new 8.5 and i dont like it.

Basically, re-score all of their old reviews:

1-4 range = 1 star (BAD) --- not recommended at all

5-6 range = 2 stars (MEDIOCRE) --- not particularly recommended

7 range = 3 stars (GOOD) --- recommended with caveats

8 range = 4 stars (GREAT) --- recommended

9 range + 10 = 5 stars (SUPERB) --- strongly recommended

#2 Edited by Ballroompirate (22540 posts) -

They should get better reviewers before they overhaul the point system.

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Or drop the scoring system entirely, GTA scoring 10/10 tells me didly squat about whats so damn good about it.

#4 Edited by superbuuman (2670 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Or drop the scoring system entirely, GTA scoring 10/10 tells me didly squat about whats so damn good about it.

^ this..remove scoring system & write a more in depth review.

#5 Edited by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

They should get better reviewers before they overhaul the point system.

LOL , true

Or drop the scoring system entirely, GTA scoring 10/10 tells me didly squat about whats so damn good about it.

Baby steps. Actually, I think a score can be helpful for recommendations, but there should be less emphasis on it. basically, not an intricate measure of a games worth, but generally a matter of who you recommend it to. 1 star = nobody. 2 star = people with low expectations who find it on sale. 3 star = people who are okay with some flaws. etc.

GS hinted at this with this recent change but were too scared to go the full mile because 10 is a tradition.

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Or drop the scoring system entirely, GTA scoring 10/10 tells me didly squat about whats so damn good about it.

^ this..remove scoring system & write a more in depth review.

i agree with indepth review. we used to have 4-page reviews. now gamespot only has 1-2 page reviews to accomodate low attention span people.

#6 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16293 posts) -

Or just scratch scores alltogether and rate games: Superb, great, good, alright, mediocre, bad, awful, the worst

#7 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

Or just scratch scores alltogether and rate games: Superb, great, good, alright, mediocre, bad, awful, the worst

well, that's the same thing as a scoring system we have now, except without numbers

#8 Posted by Ballroompirate (22540 posts) -

They can just use the 3 word system

Buy, rent, pass

Then just go from there on why they think you should buy the game, rent it or pass it up.

#9 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

They can just use the 3 word system

Buy, rent, pass

Then just go from there on why they think you should buy the game, rent it or pass it up.

well, renting doesn't really exist anymore. yeah, there's gamefly but it's not nearly as pervasive as blockbuster once was.

i know theres lines to draw everywhere, but where do you draw the line with that kind of recommendation.

if there's a laundry list of flaws with mass eff 3 or gta 5 but theyre still recommendable, the score feels kinda wierd.
there needs to be a 4/5 in there somewhere

#10 Posted by Ballroompirate (22540 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@Ballroompirate said:

They can just use the 3 word system

Buy, rent, pass

Then just go from there on why they think you should buy the game, rent it or pass it up.

well, renting doesn't really exist anymore. yeah, there's gamefly but it's not nearly as pervasive as blockbuster once was.

i know theres lines to draw everywhere, but where do you draw the line with that kind of recommendation.

if there's a laundry list of flaws with mass eff 3 or gta 5 but theyre still recommendable, the score feels kinda wierd.

there needs to be a 4/5 in there somewhere

Rent could also be used as "wait for a price drop" or something.

#11 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150261 posts) -

That's why points don't mean much.....just whether it falls into the review site good, bad, or ugly basically. Also the review itself should be read as to what happens with regard to mechanics etc in the game. Don't use one site though.......use multiple....as for GS....as I've often said they seem to be an outlier and not part of the consensus so don't use them as your only review source.

#12 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16293 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

Or just scratch scores alltogether and rate games: Superb, great, good, alright, mediocre, bad, awful, the worst

well, that's the same thing as a scoring system we have now, except without numbers

Well, on a lot of sites the numbers are pretty meaningless.

#13 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

lets not... I hate 5 stars system

#14 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

lets not... I hate 5 stars system

ok.... why

#15 Posted by Boddicker (2486 posts) -

TC is right. 1-6 is basically shit on a 10 point system.

I actually prefer 5 point systems, but only as long as you bring back half points (3.5, 4.5, etc).

#16 Posted by Sushiglutton (5224 posts) -

Yeah I feel like five is the sweet spot in terms of how much precision a score like this can reasonably have and enough wiggle room to convey what you want.

#17 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

Yeah I feel like five is the sweet spot in terms of how much precision a score like this can reasonably have and enough wiggle room to convey what you want.

agreed. there's always a middle ground, but there's the least overlap with 5-point scale

TC is right. 1-6 is basically shit on a 10 point system.

I actually prefer 5 point systems, but only as long as you bring back half points (3.5, 4.5, etc).

Well, isn't that the same thing. It just moves you from a 10-point scale to a 9-point scale.

What is really the difference between a 1.5 and a 2?

#18 Edited by TheEroica (13297 posts) -

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

#19 Posted by donalbane (16189 posts) -

I recently saw a video Adam Sessler made on this topic for Rev3Games. Apparently, Gamespot wants play on metacritic, which gives them a lot of action, but pushes them toward a 100 point scale. You may remember they ditched their old 100 point scale, (seemingly due to the fact that some multiplatform games were getting slightly lower scores than they did on rival hardware) to a 20 point scale which could overlook slight multiplatform differences, but was still metacritic friendly. But metacritic rules the world of game reviews, sadly. Many developers even get bonuses if they meet particular metacritic scores. I'd prefer it if they didn't give a score at all, personally. That whole Caroline debacle could have been avoided entirely, and we still could have read or watched her thoughts on GTA5.

#20 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

Yes and no. I do think the idea of a score is always there. There are always games easier to recommend than others and there are always games that are worth playing more than others. So, even if there is no score, one will still be heavily hinted at.

I think the problem you have is the fact that they have so much significance. Gamespot advertises them next to each game on the front page, and in the review, the score is a big icon. Yes, there are lots of people who get bent out of shape when a game gets an 8 instead of a 9, but I don't think entirely removing the scores (just to quiet down those people) is the best move.

#21 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9473 posts) -

FUCK NO! the 5 point/star system is the worst out of all of them.

The best in the .5 increments

followed by the single digit out of 10

then the 1-100

then no score at all system

#22 Posted by Krelian-co (10340 posts) -

They should get better reviewers before they overhaul the point system.

#23 Posted by TheEroica (13297 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@TheEroica said:

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

Yes and no. I do think the idea of a score is always there. There are always games easier to recommend than others and there are always games that are worth playing more than others. So, even if there is no score, one will still be heavily hinted at.

I think the problem you have is the fact that they have so much significance. Gamespot advertises them next to each game on the front page, and in the review, the score is a big icon. Yes, there are lots of people who get bent out of shape when a game gets an 8 instead of a 9, but I don't think entirely removing the scores (just to quiet down those people) is the best move.

yeah... it's the significance of the score that is saddening. I mean a score can put a bold generalized label on the game, but the extent that people take it, (imagine getting a death threat over a numerical video game score? shits real) is just bananas.

I was thinking more... Bad, Poor, Good, Great, Outstanding.... it's all hypothetical however. No way does a reputed site have the balls to do such a wonderful thing.

#24 Posted by TheEroica (13297 posts) -

FUCK NO! the 5 point/star system is the worst out of all of them.

The best in the .5 increments

followed by the single digit out of 10

then the 1-100

then no score at all system

Just a little devils advocate, and let me assure you, I too like the 10 point by .5 increment scale the best... thing is, don't we only really concern ourselves with 5 points of that scale anyway? I mean its nice to say we have different levels of shit (1-5) but isnt shit... well, shit? I think the move to a 5 point scales is actually accomplishing the same thing as the 10, just that its ok to use the entire scale rather than only paying attention to one half of the scale and calling the rest... shit.

#25 Posted by charizard1605 (55949 posts) -

Gamespot should switch to a no point scale.

#26 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9473 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

FUCK NO! the 5 point/star system is the worst out of all of them.

The best in the .5 increments

followed by the single digit out of 10

then the 1-100

then no score at all system

Just a little devils advocate, and let me assure you, I too like the 10 point by .5 increment scale the best... thing is, don't we only really concern ourselves with 5 points of that scale anyway? I mean its nice to say we have different levels of shit (1-5) but isnt shit... well, shit? I think the move to a 5 point scales is actually accomplishing the same thing as the 10, just that its ok to use the entire scale rather than only paying attention to one half of the scale and calling the rest... shit.

B*tch dont question me.

#27 Posted by Sword-Demon (6959 posts) -

I actually much preferred the 100 point scale.

It allowed reviewers to show minor differences in quality.

5-10 point scales are too generalized and make the metagame uninteresting.

#28 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150261 posts) -

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

No. It's actually a good first look. It gets the garbage out of the way and lets you concentrate on the 7, 8, 9, 10....and read the review based on interest in the game.

#29 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70460 posts) -

@Ballroompirate: I really support that statement. Also they used to have a 100 points scale back in the day. I don't understand why they find it so difficult to rate games...

#30 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Well then in that case,

Intead of writing:

1= Bad

2= Not Badd

3= Decent

4= Good

5= Great

They can just skip the numbers and give the description instead.

Metacritic be Damned !

#31 Posted by lightleggy (15904 posts) -

Gamespot should overhaul the entire reviewing system.

Every reviewer (and future ones) should be given one task: Review gone home.

Reviewers who give the game a score bigger than 7, should be inmediatly fired and publicly disgraced.

Reviewers who give the game a bad score should be hailed, handed a crown, and be promoted to editors immediatly.

#32 Edited by Shewgenja (8425 posts) -

I'd like a 3 point system, because in the end a game is either bad decent or good.

#33 Edited by bforrester420 (1311 posts) -

I rarely visit Gamespot for reviews anyway. Were it not for the forums (I enjoy Feebackula also), I wouldn't even visit Gamespot. I usually go to Metacritic and read a handful of reviews if I'm deciding whether I want to purchase a game. I like IGN better, overall, for content and news. Their site layout is also much better than the crappy GS redesign.

Gamespot really screwed the pooch on the redesign.

#34 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2754 posts) -

/Prefers 10 point scale

#35 Posted by Cobra_nVidia (1434 posts) -

I doubt even removing the point system - and just sticking to the positives and negatives - would improve the quality of GameSpot reviews, but it might be the most important systematic step. It would prevent reviewers from quantitatively judging games based on their sometimes wacky perspectives, without removing the ability of people to get a sense of whether the game is good or not.

#36 Posted by Joedgabe (5109 posts) -

They should get better reviewers before they overhaul the point system.

like that will ever happen. It's cheaper to maintain columnists.

#37 Posted by gameofthering (10124 posts) -

Remove the scores and just have written or video reviews.

#38 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2747 posts) -

I think the problem with Gamespots review staff is that they have very different tastes than the community here. Kevin and Carolyn love artsy fartsy games and anything that empowers women or the LGBT community. Not that there is anything wrong with that. They just seem to beat us over the head with it. Then there is Tom McShea who loves the Vita, Indie games and pissing off Gamespot users with troll review scores. I even question if he really pays attention to the AAA games he plays. He said he thought Joel from TLOU was a drug dealer for crying out loud. I'm still on the fence with Chris and don't know enough about the others yet.

#39 Posted by TheEroica (13297 posts) -

@TheEroica said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

FUCK NO! the 5 point/star system is the worst out of all of them.

The best in the .5 increments

followed by the single digit out of 10

then the 1-100

then no score at all system

Just a little devils advocate, and let me assure you, I too like the 10 point by .5 increment scale the best... thing is, don't we only really concern ourselves with 5 points of that scale anyway? I mean its nice to say we have different levels of shit (1-5) but isnt shit... well, shit? I think the move to a 5 point scales is actually accomplishing the same thing as the 10, just that its ok to use the entire scale rather than only paying attention to one half of the scale and calling the rest... shit.

B*tch dont question me.

c'mon Nengo... You can do better than that. :P

#40 Posted by jsmoke03 (12723 posts) -

i miss the old review system they had in place when greg k was editor in chief

#41 Posted by heretrix (37303 posts) -

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

Sure. I would love that.

Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that there are too many people out there that need a numerical score to validate their opinion. It's why most sites still do it. Telling certain people why a game is good and worth their money (or the opposite) is not enough, they need it to be a 9 or better before it's worth playing. It's the ultimate lazy shortcut.

#42 Edited by Heil68 (43373 posts) -

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

I would like that. kotaku does it like that and it is refreshing.

#43 Edited by glez13 (8662 posts) -

The problem is that the current system is made symmetrically but that is nonsense since people want to know how good a game is not how bad it is. It becomes kinda pointless to have all these grades on the bad side.

Thats why they should just make it asymmetrical in a certain way similar to what the TC suggested while keeping some of their current style. So just keep for example Masterpiece, Superb, Great, Good, then Mediocre in a barely adequate sense and then a Not Recommended/Bad Rating.

#44 Edited by V3rciS (2211 posts) -

I feel sorry for people that determine which game is good and they should buy simply by looking at the scores.

#45 Posted by Nonstop-Madness (9469 posts) -

I would use a 5 star system with half star increments + a pros / cons list + a buy/rent/pass status with reasons on each.

Ex.

Joe's Game - 2.5 stars out of 5.

Pros:

* Addictive gameplay

* Great boss battles

Cons:

* Confusing plot

* Noticeable bugs and glitches

* Ends quickly

Status:

Buy - If you are looking for a fast paced, adrenaline pumping game.

Rent - If you want good gameplay but are willing to give up on presentation.

Pass - If you are looking for a game that will keep you entertained for hours.

#46 Posted by Sword-Demon (6959 posts) -

@Nonstop-Madness: the 10 point scale we currently have is the exact same thing as a 5 point scale with .5 increments.. Why bother changing?

Plus we already have a pros/cons list. And whether you should buy, rent, or pass should be easily figured out from the review itself -that's kind of what they're for.

#47 Posted by TheEroica (13297 posts) -

@heretrix said:

@TheEroica said:

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

Sure. I would love that.

Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that there are too many people out there that need a numerical score to validate their opinion. It's why most sites still do it. Telling certain people why a game is good and worth their money (or the opposite) is not enough, they need it to be a 9 or better before it's worth playing. It's the ultimate lazy shortcut.

I agree... perhaps its not that its "not enough" but rather a case of lazy non-readers just leaning entirely on the score itself.... blah.

#48 Posted by TheEroica (13297 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

@TheEroica said:

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

I would like that. kotaku does it like that and it is refreshing.

Do their scores get counted on Metacritic? Serious question, I do not know

#49 Posted by Nonstop-Madness (9469 posts) -

@Nonstop-Madness: the 10 point scale we currently have is the exact same thing as a 5 point scale with .5 increments.. Why bother changing?

Plus we already have a pros/cons list. And whether you should buy, rent, or pass should be easily figured out from the review itself -that's kind of what they're for.

We don't use the entire 10 point system. What's the difference between a 4/10 vs 5/10? 2/5 vs 2.5/5 make much more sense to me.

I already know GS has a Good / Bad list. I just think it should be present in all reviews if I were to create a standard.

Why not just make things more simple and include a buy/pass/rent? Most people just see the video reviews anyways.

#50 Posted by Heil68 (43373 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

@TheEroica said:

Anyone think that not having a numerical score at all could be a nice trend in this industry?

I would like that. kotaku does it like that and it is refreshing.

Do their scores get counted on Metacritic? Serious question, I do not know

It doesn't appear they do get counted.