best rating system for games

Which scale for rating games do you think is the best.  I'll name the pros and cons of each.

The .1 Scale 

Pros: precise, not meant to be taken too seriously and in gamespot's case based on a set algorithim

Cons: difficulty in explaining minor score differences (a 8.3 vs an 8.7)

The .5 Scale

Pros: Sets a balance between some precision, some 8's are better than others.  But still clean and simple

Cons: Is a bit imprecise, and there will be some minor issues such as 8 vs 8.5

The Rounded Scale

Pros: Is the cleanest, simplest, scale, while still being precise

Cons: The numbers 1-4 out of 10 are barely used, resulting in "7 or less is crap"

5 Stars Rounded

Pros: Everything you like about the ten-scale, without the Western "7 or lower is crap" association

Cons: A great game and a groundbreaking revolutionary game get the same score.  Also, hard to decide what gets a 4 and what gets a 5.

5 Stars Half-Intervals

Pros: Has the precision of the 10 scale and the simplicity of the 5 scale

Cons: It's just a ten scale scrunched into 5, really.

Games are entertainment and therefore a matter of personal taste, making ratings entirely subjective.  5/5, 10/10 or 10.0 out of 10, I'll probably still think it's a 7.5.

The five-point scale. Simple, elegant, and universally understood. Plus it's incredibly easy to use, so that's a huge bonus.

I think a rounded 10-point system would work perfectly fine if game reviewers actually used the whole scale. JML897

Yeah, true.  Then again, if you only pay attention to AAA or high-profile games, you won't see many 4's or 5's.  The line between 1's, 2's and 3's is thin though.

The five-point scale. Simple, elegant, and universally understood. Plus it's incredibly easy to use, so that's a huge bonus.

c_rake

Good points.  It makes the lower end of the spectrum easier.  A bad game can get a 1 (instead of having to determine whether it's a 1, 2 or 3) and a medicore game can get a 2 (instead of deciding 5 or 6).

But on the other side of things, it's harder.  Games which are (on the 10 scale) 9's would have to share the stage with truly revolutionary games.

I rarely pay attention to the score. I tend to read the review and base my thoughts on the game on that along with playing a demo or renting it.ZomBViperKing

I do the same. I read the review before I look at the score. That's just that person's opinion. If I played the game I might enjoyed it more than they did or less than they did.

The more possibilities in the scale > the more distinct the number > will reflect with greater accuracy the reviewers intent, it's that simple.

I think a rounded 10-point system would work perfectly fine if game reviewers actually used the whole scale. JML897

I agree and I think that Edge and Eurogamer (to a lesser degree) manage to do it. Hopefully, GameSpot will follow.

I love the .1 scale as well.  It gives the editors choice award more merit and allows the reviewer to place the game just shy of that award if they feel it doesn't quite earn it.  It also helps place games in a tiered category relative to other reviewed products from that person. 

If it a game gets an 8.0 on a 10 point scale, maybe that reviewer gives the game an 8.5 on a 100 point scale, or maybe a 7.5.  Pretty big difference but the reviewer "settles" on the median. 

ideally, there would be no rating system except the text itself. however, i currently use a 1-5 system in my user reviews because i think the "user review" section is the best place for them and putting work there requires some numerical rating. 1-5 provides exactly the amount of bottom line information a video game rating can give (is the game good, bad, or average? if the game is good or bad, is it more so or less so?) without the pretense of doing anything more.

the .1 scale is this nebulous thing where most of the information in the score is completely useless. what exactly is the difference, in video game terms, between 6.6 and 6.7? what do you even compare a 6.7 to? with the relatively small amount of games that can be reviewed in a period of time in which games are most comparable, you aren't likely see a lot of other games with that same score and you have few reference points if you truly believe that every tenth of a point has value. but even more than that, it just gives more fuel for people focused on the score rather than the review itself and all numerical systems suffer from that to varying extents.

don't even get me started on scoring segments of games (graphics, gameplay, sound, etc.) and using those numbers to contribute to an overall score. it's just so backwards. nobody experiences those segments separately as they play a game. it's all happening at once as an overall experience and that's where a critic can say something interesting or useful.

I've always liked using the .5 scale since I joined this site, and I'm going to hate to see it go. I actually wanted to use a .1 scale when I first joined, but I kind of got over that instead of going to IGN to rate games, because I liked using this site much more, and adapted well to the .5 intervals. 

The first one is more precise.

The 5 point scale is probbly the best scale one could use. It's vague and therefore it will promote actually reading the review which is the most important thing.

I think a rounded 10-point system would work perfectly fine if game reviewers actually used the whole scale. JML897

Rounded 10 or five star. [QUOTE="JML897"]I think a rounded 10-point system would work perfectly fine if game reviewers actually used the whole scale. Legolas_Katarn

The 5 point scale is probbly the best scale one could use. It's vague and therefore it will promote actually reading the review which is the most important thing.Pikminmaniac

This guy gets it.

The .1 scale is best. Why on earth GS decide to go backwards over the years is beyond me, now they only have whole numbers which is vague. People may diagree but I find there is a big difference when I see a game getting an 8.9 as opposed to 9.1 despite only 0.2 difference. IGN are better for reviewing

The .1 scale is my favourite. It allows the reviewer to demonstrate their knowledge of the platform, genre and game, to say where they think the game sits compared to others the reader may have played. By getting to know the sorts of games that reviewer likes and dislikes you can try to find one with similar tastes to your own, which makes their review scores far more meaningful to you as an indication of whether you are likely to feel the same way about that game.

The text that goes with the review will help inform you about the game and why the reviewer came to the score they did, but at a glance the score is the headline figure that can grab your interest or put you off unless you are really keen to find out more about the game.

The 5 star option is the worst. It allows reviewers that don't know much about what they are reviewing or comparing it to, to hide behind vague numbers that cover a huge range under a % system. A simple 3/5 could mean anything from 41% (ie better than a 2/5) up to 79% (not quite a 4/5). Since top marks are rarely awarded, being seen as perfect, it means the vast majority of games are going to be clumped together on 3/5 or 4/5. It makes the scores completely useless for the person reading the review to evaluate it against other games in the genre.

If people complain about the score being too low, the reviewer can fall back and say - well it was close to being the next grade up. In a % system if they are significantly off they need to explain why. In a 5 point system the reviewer can fall back on the abiguity of the point system - say it was nearly the next grade up/down.

General publications that merely have a section for games tend to use simple grading systems. It means they don't have to employ someone that really knows their stuff, but so long as they can string a few words together, say it if was half decent or not and put a 3 or 4/5 on it that will do.

Magazines or sites dedicated to gaming, or one particular platform, will tend to have a more in depth score system, allowing them to say with more conviction how good or bad they feel a game is. They have a greater knowledge of games on that platform or genre, are likely to have played a greater range of games to compare it to, and have more to say on why they feel a game deserves the score they give it.

Conan O'Brien

Giving any art form a score is a f**king joke,and I would consider games a form of art given the skill and craft that goes into making them.

Of course I understand why games get given scores but I take no notice of them.I can decide for myself if a game looks worthy of my time.

I enjoy using a 20-point scale myself.Blabadon

Thats what the .5 scale is.

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]I enjoy using a 20-point scale myself.Gargus

Thats what the .5 scale is.

Thanks Cpt. Obvious.

Giving any art form a score is a f**king joke,and I would consider games a form of art given the skill and craft that goes into making them.

Of course I understand why games get given scores but I take no notice of them.I can decide for myself if a game looks worthy of my time.

OneInchMan99

Games may be art but they are also a product. They need to be rated to help people decide if they're worth buying.

[QUOTE="Gargus"]

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]

Thats what the .5 scale is.

INF1DEL

Thanks Cpt. Obvious.

Giving any art form a score is a f**king joke,and I would consider games a form of art given the skill and craft that goes into making them.

Of course I understand why games get given scores but I take no notice of them.I can decide for myself if a game looks worthy of my time.

OneInchMan99

Games may be art but they are also a product. They need to be rated to help people decide if they're worth buying.

I wasnt talking to you. Hence why your name wasnt in the quote.

But, youre very welcome. Im glad I could be of such great help to you! But please, Im Mr. Obvious. Captain obvious was my father.

I prefer a 1-5 scale, and if it has half intervals that's even better, I just find it more precise than the 10 point scales for some reason.

mfw I look at the results