Robot Monkey Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 I didn't want to threadjack the "Gamespot is teh bias" thread, so new topic: This isn't a rant against real or perceived biases of the reviewers. Like a lot of people, I have problems with game ratings. No, not a problem with the fact that they are rated at all -- ratings can serve as useful summaries of a well-written review. Unfortunately, the rating systems out there don't seem to accomplish this. The ten point system is particularly odd to me, when a reviewer or editor is (allegedly) busy figuring out scores down to a tenth of a point. Here's what I would like: No numerical rating. The rating would be ,[*]Satisfactory, or [*]Good That's it. No more rating a game 2.3/10 for the humor value. If a game is horrible, it gets an "unsat" -- period. A 2.2 or a 1.8 isn't telling me anything I need to know. This style of rating would help reduce grade-inflation (no, it wouldn't prevent it). Then I want the reviewer to have option of attaching an "X", "I", "M" or "G" to the rating. denotes cross-over appeal, [*]I denotes innovation in one or more areas, [*]M means the reviewer believes the game is missing something critical (like MOO3 lacking a save in multiplayer) and [*]G denotes a game that has special genre appeal (like Steel Battalion or a baseball management sim). There would be a fourth rating of "Excellent" or "Choice". This denotes a "good" title on top of its genre (exceptionally well-crafted) or cross-over appeal and innovation. Depending on a reviewers take, Apex on the Xbox, for example, might earn a Satisfactory-XI, because of its RPG angle. Halo might earn a Good-X, because its elements are put together particularly well. Isn't this more useful than seemingly random numbers? -j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.