What score means 'average'?

[Nick]

Right, time for your input:

When you're reading a review, what score on a game says 'average' to you?

[Fraz]

I'd say out of ten:

1 to 5 = Dire through to below par.

5, 6 = Average.

7, 8 = Good.

9, 10 = Excellent

[menthel]

Half way for me. Too many places treat 70% as average and don't give themselves some room for manouvre when something better appears!

[kalniel]

Other.

7-8.5 out of ten gives me the 'average' level of enjoyment more of playing a game compared to not playing one.

[Nick]

Added 'Other' option to the poll.

[directhex]

because the games review score curve is broken, i find myself usually restricting myself to only buying 9 or 9.5/10 games. i felt let down by the gamecube because it had too many big-name games worth "only" 8/10 in my mind, whereas they were reviewing up higher than that

there's not enough room at the top, with the current model

there's 75% to work with when saying how ****e unreal 2 was, but only 25% to work with when trying to order bioshock, okami, we love katamari, and zelda ocarina of time

[schmunk]

I'd like to see it as 50%, but I am aware that the cynical games journalism industry expects it to be around 70%

[Fraz]

Surely if you explain briefly what your scores mean at the end of the review (in say a small bullet-pointed box), then it doesn't matter how you do it.

Regardless, your readership will learn to understand your scoring system.

I'm a bit sick of 85% being "probably not worth my time" whilst 95% is "amazing - definitely buy it". This certainly seems to be the case on some review sites I've looked at.

Go your own way, I say

[Nick]

Hehe, we'll do our own thing as always but I want to get an idea of how YOU guys and girls perceive scores.

All will become clear.... one day.

[beanbandit]

Out of 10, then 5 is average. Everything lower than this is below average, everything higher is above average.

If you want to have a look at debates, then Edge magazine has had this ongoing thing with review scores. Even going so far as to not actually post the review score at the end of the review. They put the numbers in a different part of the magazine. I liked what they were trying to do, but they only did it for one issue.

So if your looking at the scoring system, how about getting rid of it all together. Most people look at the score before reading the full article, if it doesn't get 7 (most people seem to think that this is average, idiots) then they don't read it. Having no score will mean that they have to read the entire article, and make their own minds up. Go on, give it a go

[UltraMagnus]

50%... it just makes sense that average is half way between dire and fantastic

[nichomach]

What it SHOULD be is 50-60%. What it all too often is (as noted above) is 80% or so. I have no objection to a score being there, but when you wade through a review and the comments are along the lines of "it CTD'ed here...jaggies there...plot not very gripping...levels not very original" and the like, and then it gets 85% whanged on it (apparently just for arriving), it not only devalues the score, but to my mind casts doubt on the quality of the rest of the review.

[dave87]

50-60% is average
60-70% good, worth buying
70-80% very good, definitely worth buying
80-100% how on earth can you miss this one?


But, being a cynic, add 20% to those scores when looking at game reviews - 50-60 becomes 70-80 etc.

[Steven W]

With today's scoring system (the general ratings that most of the industry seem to use) I would have given Football Manager approximately 85% and Champ Manager approx 70%.

When I read a review I generally take 60-70% as being average, because this seems to be how many of the sites score them.

However, if an average score was actually 50%:

I would have probably given Football Manager 75% and Champ Manager 60%.


These latter scores tie in with Dave's scoring system and I agree that 60% for Champ Man should mean it's good, worth buying and 75% for Footy Manager means it's definitely worth buying, but certainly not worth a 'How on earth can I miss that one' tag.

[Dreaming]

pc gamer did it a few years ago i think

90+ were must buys
80+ were great games that you'd like a lot
70+ were good games, but maybe missing certain aspects that would have made them great (maybe really flawed control interface)
60+ are ok but missing more or several aspects
less than 60... probably not worth it

They did tend to have quite a wide spread, all the games that scored more than 90% were truly must haves, and 80 - 90 were awesome games. But maybe the spectrum should have been spread out more...

[directhex]

pc gamer did it a few years ago i think

90+ were must buys
80+ were great games that you'd like a lot
70+ were good games, but maybe missing certain aspects that would have made them great (maybe really flawed control interface)
60+ are ok but missing more or several aspects
less than 60... probably not worth it

They did tend to have quite a wide spread, all the games that scored more than 90% were truly must haves, and 80 - 90 were awesome games. But maybe the spectrum should have been spread out more...

it always seemed to me pc gamer had a quota to fill - each month they seemed to have a 95%, an 85%, X number of 60%, etc scores. even for games that seemed phoned in