Gaming reviews - recommending the mediocre?

[directhex]

You're right, we don't. I think they're measuring different things, like I stated above

would you watch a 6/10 movie?
examples: Ice Age, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Rush Hour, Godfather 3

would you play a 6/10 game?
examples: BMX XXX, World Championship Pool 2004, Rayman Arena, Goldeneye: Rogue Agent

we're not measuring different things - in the end, the 6/10 rated movies are fun and often worth owning, whereas due to the broken review curve, the 6/10 games are a pile of ****e

[kalniel]

I think the movie rating should be done like games

[directhex]

I think the movie rating should be done like games

herein lies the problem:

by bunching all the "good" things at the top, you completely remove the opportunity for wiggle room. you can't be *critical* in any way, since people will call out you giving 10/10 to something with (valid) criticisms

zelda: ocarina of time has an average score of 99% across reviewers. best game ever, statistically. is it completely free of criticism? no. but if you knock off, say, 3% as punishment, suddenly it's not as good as nfl 2001 on the dreamcast was.

movies rate lower because movie critics aren't afraid to voice criticism and mark critically.

[kalniel]

Perhaps that's because I have a different need then. I want reviews to help me guess how much I'll enjoy something.

I think there's plenty of wiggle room if it's needed at the top - as you mention movies are often rated on a 5 star system - 5 or 10 at most points is hardly wiggle room - there are 49 points of wiggle room to describe all games that are more enjoyable than not playing them at all.

[directhex]

Perhaps that's because I have a different need then. I want reviews to help me guess how much I'll enjoy something.

I think there's plenty of wiggle room if it's needed at the top - as you mention movies are often rated on a 5 star system - 5 or 10 at most points is hardly wiggle room - there are 49 points of wiggle room to describe all games that are more enjoyable than not playing them at all.

but in a sea of games, your suggested 85% average leaves a tiny 15% mark for "games better than the rest"

[kalniel]

but in a sea of games, your suggested 85% average leaves a tiny 15% mark for "games better than the rest"

It leaves plenty - a whole 15 points of differentiation on top of the most enjoyment I would get out of most games. As there are only ever one or two games a year that I would enjoy more than most good games that seems just fine.

[acrobat]

When reading a review, what score do you interpret as representative of an average game?

To me, its 50-60 percent. (or 5 to 6 out of 10).

Which leaves games in their 60's to be barely struggling above mediocrity, games in their 70's to be a better than average, and games in their 80's to be "good", and then games in their 90's to be "excellent".

p.s. And nobody should ever review games with an out-of-10 system, imo. Because 10/10 means 100% perfect which isn't right. No game should ever be 100% perfect. There is always atleast something you can do to improve something. Even Angelina Jolie ;p So with just a 10 point system, it leaves you with 9/10 being the highest mark, which doesn't leave room for stuff being a wee bit better or a wee bit worse. In other words, if you play something absolutely amazing, and give it 9/10, and then you play another game that is even better, you don't really have anywhere higher to go. Or if you play something else which is amazing too, but not quite as good... then it means you can only really give it an 8, which isn't very good. So theres just not enough fine tune-age. (Unless you use decimal points, in which case, you mayaswell just use percentages).