equalsign wrote:I agree that on a 10 point rating scale 5 does no have to mean average. When we see 7, we know it's average and can pretty easily scale other reviews off of that. There is no need for it to be otherwise. It makes the game makers happier too. Also, in the U.S. for the most part in school 70% is passing/average. A 50% in school is a failure.
Yes, but in the UK, 40% is a pass and 70% is bloody brilliant. If you're reliably getting over 60% in school in UK, you're a swot. In UK we have this thing were we purposely challenge everyone, so much so that if someone gets 100% in a test here they're investigated for cheating. I used to get on average 78-82% when I was in school, and I had the third highest grades IN MY YEAR! I've heard the phrase "a perfect score on the SATs" far too often in US TV shows. If these people are getting perfect scores then the SATs are not hard enough because by their standards, I was perfect and if you're perfect you have no reason to try to improve yourself. So yeah, the USA 70% = UK 40% (oh and just in case there's an idiot watching, our tests are HARDER, that's why 40% is a pass, not because our standards are lower, the fact that I feel the need to explain this is not a good sign America).
To get back onto the rating system. I'm sorry but you're wrong. 7 as Average is simply stupid. FACT. I shall now prove this.
I want to buy a game, let's assume all three are 3D Hack n Slash Brawlers. Let's say there are 3 games out there called:
The Adventure Of Frank Jules
Yarg The Pirate
Knifey Stabby Death
I can only afford one of these games. Under this system, all of these games got a positive review, but because none of them are Halo, Mario or Zelda they didn't get perfect scores obviously. So as 7 is average, and 9 is reserved for corporations who can afford the dick-sucking charge so all three games are rated 8/10... really don't believe me. Go onto GameRankings now, I'll wait... 700 of there 2000 games are rated 8/10, a further 660 are rated 7/10. That's 1360 out of 2000 games. What is the point in a rating if you give EVERY SINGLE GAME the same rating ajusting slightly for how much of a bribe the publisher sent you.
Under my system, they get rated based on their merits.
The Adventure Of Frank Jules gets a 6/10 for being a genuinely funny game set in USA suburbia invaded by aliens, but it has rather repetitive gameplay.
Yarg The Pirate gets an 8/10 in this system which is more valuable because not everyone gets this rating now, because it's a great game with varied innovative gameplay, interesting characters and a good pirate theme.
Knifey Stabby Death gets a 7/10 as it's a great game set in 11th century middle east, but it borrows heavily from games like Metal Gear Solid and God Of War trying to mix steath and combat so it feels a little redundant.
With my system all 3 games are given positive reviews as they're still good games but you can see that they're ranked, a person can see at a glance that Yarg the Pirate is a better overall game, but perhaps the pirate theme is something the person doesn't really like, therefore Knifey Stabby Death is the better choice. Perhaps the person really likes the aliens in suburbia concept, knowing the game is inferior may help them decide if the good concept is worth sacrificing better gameplay on from the other games.
This is the entire point of reviews. To give the consumer a way of deciding if the game is worth buying over another game, it's not a set in stone indication of it's artistic value to the medium and a game getting a 5 out of 10 means it's average.
If on average you enjoy most of the games you play, even if you enjoy 2/3 of the games you play, that doesn't mean they're not average, it just means that on average games are pretty damn good. It means you enjoy a 4/10 game, that's OK I do too. I liked the X-Men game on PS2 and I'd happily rate it a 4/10 because that's what it is, a below average game that I happened to enjoy. This isn't the definitive list of all games, we're not trying to place these games on a line between Superman 64 and Shadow Of The Colossus here.
The fact is, if a game is below average then we're not going to buy it. If anything skewing the average makes more sense the other way. Make the average 3/10, at least that would be usefull.
1/10 = Game is unplayable
2/10 = Game is awful do not play it
3/10 = Game is average, not great but not bad. Worth renting.
And now we have 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to give a detailed and varied analysis to consumers on why this great game is a 5... how it earned those 2 additional points from average, and how incredible the game that got an 8 was. It allows us to focus on the good parts and explain in detail why you should buy the game.
Putting 7 as the average basically makes the entire process of reviewing bloody pointless. You may as well not bother...
"Oh look it got an 8/10 that means the game... exists"
Sure, you could claim I'm over-exaggerating but I'm not. Remember Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot, the second biggest game reviewer on the internet after IGN for giving Kane & Lynch, a game developed by Gamespots advertising partner at the time...
....a 6 out of 10....
I've played Kane & Lynch... I'd have given it a 3/10 at most. His review got him fired... he was expected to give that pile of shit a 7 out of 10 or better and it's crap, so what do we give the good games. Do we need to start including decimal points all the time Does the 8.5/10 really mean 5/10 and the 8.3/10 really means 3/10... because if that's what's happening, that's really sad.
I figured I'd probably upset someone with my comment. You obviously see much more in the game than I do and it's great that the game struck a chord with you. I have very little experience with Genesis platformers and I tried to get into it but the game just failed to elicit any excitement out of me. I'm sure there are definitely games that I would consider average before Ristar, but I just haven't played them. I never said it was the most average game and I know there's something about it people love, but I just can't see it.
