3 years later...do you like the new rating system?

Can't believe it's already been a little over 3 years :shock:

Remember the old review system of .1 increments? The way it was all the way until Zelda got an 8.8 and everybody flipped so gamespot changed it. Were you more a fan of the old way of reviewing or the .5 increments we have now?

I still like the .1 increments better...ratings on this site nowadays are so predictable...it's like I already know what the games gonna be rated before I even click the review half the time...

It's only been 3 years... the new system came in 2007 (which is the year after TP was released/reviewed).

That being said, no. I still don't like the new system because it's a large reason why System Wars isn't any fun anymore.

At first I liked the old one. But now I'm not sure anymore. I'm debating with myself on which is better. Been debating this for the past year really lol.

old for sureforza420

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

Definitely the old scoring system.

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

mitu123

[QUOTE="forza420"]old for sureforza420

Join Date: Mar 4, 2010

hmmm....

I prefer the .1

Although im glad they got rid of the rubbish categories (10 graphics 4 gameplay 7 tilt etc).

Old but mainly because it was more entertaining in System Wars before they changed the rating system, especially multiplat comparisons.

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

mitu123

Old.. i see the new rating system as the reason why SW is really boring right now

[QUOTE="forza420"][QUOTE="forza420"]old for sureZiek-AAT

Join Date: Mar 4, 2010

hmmm....

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

forza420

Deserved it's score after playing it though.:P

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

SaltyMeatballs

[QUOTE="Ziek-AAT"]

[QUOTE="forza420"] on a side note: system wars used to be alot more fun back thenforza420

Join Date: Mar 4, 2010

hmmm....

Just messing around, lol.

The old system didnt make any logic cuz wats the difference between 8.5 and 8.6 or 9.1 and 9.2? Also the reviewers back then where pretty horrible and gave random #s aroundRTUUMM

[QUOTE="forza420"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

mitu123

Deserved it's score after playing it though.:P

[QUOTE="forza420"][QUOTE="Ziek-AAT"]

Join Date: Mar 4, 2010

hmmm....

Ziek-AAT

Just messing around, lol.

Well,I personally like the .1 increments more, as it allows more leeway for me. Some games I would think an 8.0 is too much, but a 7.5 is too little, for example.

[QUOTE="RTUUMM"]The old system didnt make any logic cuz wats the difference between 8.5 and 8.6 or 9.1 and 9.2? Also the reviewers back then where pretty horrible and gave random #s aroundtomarlyn

I really wasn´t around here back then but I think this one is better.

In fact,I think the 0.5 increments aren´t even really necessary...

new. 100 increments is way too much for a qualitative scale. any only that knows any statistics will tell you that.

The old system didnt make any logic cuz wats the difference between 8.5 and 8.6 or 9.1 and 9.2? Also the reviewers back then where pretty horrible and gave random #s aroundRTUUMM

At the same time, reviews from editors now are very bland and really give no information outside of a specific fault in a game. Not only that, this new "cut and paste attitude" on multiplatformers is horrendous here. Back then, it seemed editors had more time to spend with a game and could actually make great reading content. Having just 4 editors on staff nowadays and seeing editors come into SW and say "sorry we had no time or I rushed the review" is sad (search Transformers in SW to see Tom Mcshea discussion to members on this).

I actually loved the Sound, graphics, gameplay, etc breakdown on games from those days. There were precise standards/guidelines to follow for each game reviewed here. Now you have no idea what a reviewer is throwing out. Its more a collection of mess in word (video reviews) or text form into a review now. No real standards on how a game is reviewed anymore under this new system. Its way to much grey area.

I didn't think the .1 incremental scale was good nor do I think this .5 does well either. This .5 base system has allowed in this editor culture of laziness in reviews. This gets greatly expounded when looking into reviews on "big name brand games" to other smaller companies. The disparity is intense nowadays on this site.

The old.

Old.. i see the new rating system as the reason why SW is really boring right now

EPaul

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

It's easier for games to flop, like Twilight Princess, so I prefer old.

When that game flopped, System Wars sure was epic back then.

SaltyMeatballs

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="RTUUMM"]The old system didnt make any logic cuz wats the difference between 8.5 and 8.6 or 9.1 and 9.2? Also the reviewers back then where pretty horrible and gave random #s aroundSaltyMeatballs

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="RTUUMM"]The old system didnt make any logic cuz wats the difference between 8.5 and 8.6 or 9.1 and 9.2? Also the reviewers back then where pretty horrible and gave random #s aroundsboyer2

At the same time, reviews from editors now are very bland and really give no information outside of a specific fault in a game. Not only that, this new "cut and paste attitude" on multiplatformers is horrendous here. Back then, it seemed editors had more time to spend with a game and could actually make great reading content. Having just 4 editors on staff nowadays and seeing editors come into SW and say "sorry we had no time or I rushed the review" is sad (search Transformers in SW to see Tom Mcshea discussion to members on this).

I actually loved the Sound, graphics, gameplay, etc breakdown on games from those days. There were precise standards/guidelines to follow for each game reviewed here. Now you have no idea what a reviewer is throwing out. Its more a collection of mess in word (video reviews) or text form into a review now.

I didn't think the .1 incremental scale was good nor do I think this .5 does well either. This .5 has allowed in though this editor culture of laziness in reviews. This gets greatly expounded when looking into reviews on "big name brand games" to other smaller companies. The disparity is intense on gamespot nowadays.

Definitely new, the old system was too specific. Seriously its stupid if anyone thinks there can be a difference between a 9.5 and 9.6 game.tomarlyn

One game has better framerate than the other? theres quite alot of reasons why GS kept the .1 rating system for 11 years.

If you think that then .5 is too small aswell. a 9.5 to a 9, you could make the same case.

I think it has to be on both extremes. Either be very specific with .1 grading, or use a 5 point/star scale. With the latter, putting games in classes.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]Definitely new, the old system was too specific. Seriously its stupid if anyone thinks there can be a difference between a 9.5 and 9.6 game.Oonga

One game has better framerate than the other? theres quite alot of reasons why GS kept the .1 rating system for 11 years

Or something like Red Dead Redemption where it's slightly better on 360 and everybody recognizes this...the review doesn't reflect that at all though

I joined on June 29, 2009 (380 days ago, which equates to...9120 hours. Over 9000?! :o:P), so I didn't have any experience with the old rating system.

That said, I think the new system works better. Seriously, if a game is hyped AA, is a 7.9 really that much of a flop? However, I don't think decimals should be used. The point of decimals is that all ten digits are used. With the new system, the tenths digit can only be 5 or 0.

GS should use a fraction system. It will work the same as the .5 increment system. The rating will be out of 20, like 5/20 or 18/20. It makes a lot more sense than using only a part of a decimal system. Plus, it allows GS to give some 1/20 or even 0/20 ratings :P.

old by far, it actually challenged reviewers and was divided into different categories making it more 'accurate.' thats not to say the new system is bad, its just more mickey mouse-ish and definately has caused system wars to be a lot less interesting than what it used to be, the TP review reactions were priceless as well as the kill zone 1 reactions, also i remember the days when a perfect 10 actually meant something, since then we've had what... like 4 new perfect 10s ? all because the reviewer couldnt give a 9.6-9.9?

I'd say the old one. As nice as these badges are, I liked the old "Gameplay, graphics, sound, replay value and...tilt or something?" system better, gave you the idea they actually played the game through and through. Some reviews using the new systemlead me to believe otherwise...*coughGTAIVcough*

I like the new scale more. It leaves less of this "7.9 is better than 7.8" crap out and it just makes more sense. Its far easier to tell the difference from 8.0 to 8.5 than you can realistically explain in 8.2 to 8.3.

Well...I wasn't a member on the site 3 years ago...but I think I'm going to vote no even so, I really think I would have liked the old one much better, more exact scores of what games really deserved. In fact I have actually several times thought to myself "I hope they go back to the old one" and wondered why they changed...of course its not a huge deal...but I really think .1 increments is more specific and effective and if you are a site that places emphasis on reviews (such as gamespot) it makes sense to have the more precise way of measuring.

On the flip side the .5 reviews do look cleaner and nicer rather than having a 7.8 and a 8.6 and a 9.2 scattered around still I think the diversity makes it more fun...and who knows maybe if the rating was more specific none of the games this gen would have received 10s...which to me would have been a good thing as it seems none of them really deserve that score...anyway I'm digressing.