@markml99 The problem is that there still is not a good reason to leave more of the scale open for bad games than good ones.
Rate a game horrible if it's horrible. That's fine. There's room for that no matter how you organize it. But if you tilt the scale so that we can somehow revel in just HOW bad a game is, even to the point of not giving as much room to say how GOOD a game may be, that's negative. It's unbalanced, tilted toward the negative.
To be fair, you'd give a game a fighting chance. You'd begin at a 5 and go from there, balancing the scale.
Again, what we're going to have to keep coming back to is that the Gamespot Review Guidelines are intact, and actually DO agree that an average game is a 5.0. It's just not reflected in practice. That's the problem.
@markml99 Short of a game being completely broken and actually not working, everything about any review - any at all - is subjective. This includes the difference between a game that is "mediocre" and "horrible," because what one reviewer thinks makes a game horrible might not carry as much weight to other reviewers. Case in point: the very review we're commenting on. Tom's experience with limitations of retro gameplay greatly impeded upon his opinion of the game. Other reviewers didn't feel the same way, myself included. Does that make Tom "wrong" and someone else "right?" Nope.
Unless you're talking about technical failures, there are no FACTS when reviewing a game - only opinions. And even then, said technical failures will be weighted differently towards an overall experience from one reviewer to the next.
The problem begins and ends with readers assuming that there's such a thing as a "right" and "wrong" review. There are reviews that are more well-written and better-defended than others, and there are reviews that are "bad" reviews in that they actually get facts wrong. But among fact-checked reviews, it's all opinion, from start to finish. And someone hating a game is no less subjective than someone loving it.
To that effect, the Gamespot Review Guidelines are written as such. Again, my complaint is that the scores themselves often don't follow their own guidelines (ie. reviews that consider 7.0 as "average").
@markml99 I won't argue that Gamespot tends to use 7.0 as their average. However, in my humble opinion, that would be using the 10-point scale improperly, particularly since it's in direct contradiction to their stated guidelines. That said, I can understand WHY Gamespot would use it in that sense, as the decision is a direct result of reader bias to equate a 10-point review scale to a grade school letter-grade scale. It's a reaction to reader interpretation.
I disagree completely in stating that everything under 7.0 should be a level of failure. As the Gamespot Review Guidelines themselves state, everything from 5.0 and under should be considered as multiple levels of failure (well, 4.5 and under IMO, but that's nitpicking). By that same standard, everything 5.5 and above should be considered as multiple levels of success. The Gamespot Review Guidelines state this, but it doesn't come through in practice, hence my claim of misuse. If 5.5 and above aren't considered multiple levels of success, then the entire scale is weighted towards failure for no discernible reason (other than letter-grade bias).
I understand where you're coming from. You'd prefer to go with the flow, while I'd prefer to correct a clear problem. We're having a subjective argument without a "correct" answer. But there ARE sites that make proper use of the entire 10-point scale (Destructoid, Angry Joe Show are a couple of examples). I actually consider Gamespot and IGN to be the biggest offenders in the misuse of the scale. I still come here for critical analysis, though, because the reviews themselves are generally very well-written and argued, even if I don't always jive with the way the narratives are translated to numbers.
Nope. Metacritic is not obligated to treat a "half" score at different weights from site to site. The only scientific way to aggregate data is to do it the same way across the board from all sources. Gamespot, nor any single game site, is responsible for setting the standard. That would be quite non-scientific.
And by the way, Gamespot names a 7.0 as "Good" and a 5 as "merely average" according to their review guidelines. They don't mention letters, so the fact that you did only reinforces the "lettergrade" bias that readers cook up on their own.
@TexasGuy @TomMcShea Reviewers SHOULD use the entire 10 point scale. Otherwise, why have 10 points?
I personally don't like the 10 or 100 point scale because people immediately jump to equate it to letter grades. And that throws the whole thing out of whack across the board.
How? Consider this: On a site that uses a 5 point scale, a 2.5 would be considered an average, middle-of-the-road game. When that gets aggregated to Metacritic, it becomes a 50.
On a site that uses letter grades, a C would be considered an average, middle-of-the-road game. Guess what happens when that gets aggregated to Metacritic. Yep, it's a 50.
If you're going to Metacritic and you see a 50, you assume it was a bad game, a horrible failure. But sites that gave out a 2.5/5, or a C letter grade, they aren't communicating failure at all. Yet they are effectively scoring the 50.
So suddenly if Gamespot gives out a 5/10, it's supposed to mean failure? That's a pretty blatant inconsistency in expectation, don't you think?
Unfortunately, it seems that most of the audience shares that inconsistency. And that's why I dislike the 10- and 100-point scales. They may be well-intentioned, but they're too often misinterpreted. If more reviewers used it properly - that is, used the entire scale - perhaps that could change.
@Albelnox0 @DonRoosevelt @CDR_VIRUS Let's dispense with the notion that there is anything objective about a critical review. It's the opinion of the reviewer, nothing more. And guess what: You're allowed to disagree. It's ok. I know I do, but I'm certainly not about to sign a document petitioning to fire someone. If you don't like his reviews, there are many others you can very easily turn to.
bowlingotter's comments