Review scores and perceptions

[Erik_Twice]

While a more equitable coverage of games would be nice, I don't think it's an issue concerning coverage, rather, it's the poor quality of such coverage.

[Xeogred]

I'm basically on the same page as everyone else here. I probably haven't read a review in full since the magazine days (~2004?). I'll consider it when we have a scale that's not just 9-10.

It sucks how the average gamer buys into this though, on both ends. 9+'s are a must buy and if something gets a 5 or around there, the game will probably do horribly and everyone hates it.

[Violent By Design]

1) Out of ten, what score should be given to a good but unspectacular game?

6-7, 8 is kinda the middle point between what I'd consider a solid game and a spectacular game.

2) Out of ten, what score should be given to a really great game but not one of the best of gaming?

I'm a little confused by the wording of this question. A great game, but not one of the best in gaming? Wouldn't that describe what a 9/10 would be?

3) Out of ten, what score should be given to a technically competent but completely uninteresting game?

A 5/10 I suppose, though you've already given it a grade just by virtue of calling it uninteresting.


Ratings out of 10 are always messed up. I think a lot of people kinda think of ratings out of 10 the way they think of school. If something gets like a 6 or a 7, it is pretty bad because a 6 or a 7 on a test isn't very good. I give a lot of games that I would not call bad 5/10s, because to me a 5/10 really is just a an ok game, not bad but not something I'd recommend, but to most people a 5/10 is a disgraceful score.

Most gaming review sites and magazines are to blame for this as well of course, anything below a 7/10 is considered a bad game, and any major title is probably going to get an 8 or better.



I also rate games on how much I enjoy them because well, games are entertainment. I couldn't care less if a game had a high budget or not. If it's not fun, I'm giving it a 5 or less, which is why I'd have no problems calling Ocarina of Time a bad game, because I didn't like it at all.


A game I'd give a 5/10 would be something like Plants vs Zombies or Star Wars Angry Birds, not bad games, but I didn't love anything about them. They were decent ways to burn time, but it was rare I was having a lot of fun.

[PresidentLeever]

Good but unspectacular: 6-7
Really great but not the best: 8-9
Technically competent but uninteresting: ~4-6*
Amazing game, practically better than anything: 9-10**
Flawed game: 4-7-ish (it depends, but I usually consider 'flawed' something that still is mostly playable and engaging, as opposed to 'broken')
Unremarkable game: 0-5-ish
"Average" game: ~5

*This could be something like the Halo series. I've had fun playing them with friends in front of the TV, but I've never been interested enough to buy any of the games for the single player mode/the lore or really learning the mechanics thoroughly. It could also be a well made game from a genre that I just don't like, but I probably wouldn't rate a game like that.

**Sometimes one can see how there's room for improvement, but no real competition for this particular game concept at this point.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the statements accompanying those scores though. A lot of games that I'd rate as 7/10 or lower do have aspects that might be spectacular or unique, but they just don't define the overall experience or hold enough weight to affect the score much. Such as a great soundtrack, art style, one great level among ten average ones, or a good but non-interactive story. Sometimes everything clicks for one segment of an otherwise mediocre game. Sometimes I like the art style of a game so much that it makes an average game seem more fun than it really is, if that makes any sense.