Cheapy check this out:

Why not have the 3 basic review labels of something like buy it, rent it, or avoid it and have numbers assigned to that. Such as a 5/5 buy-it rating, would mean you NEED to buy this game. Or a 3/5 rent-it would mean "Check it out sometime when you're in-between the really good games". Avoid it wouldn't really need a rating on that category, but you see what I'm sayin here?

Would give a general opinion AND avoid the whole 70% average thing (I think) with just how strong everyone feels with the game on a we-need-this-now or I'll-get-it-later.

(If this idea's been posted already, my bad)

I also like the dollar-value given by cags. That's not too bad either.

I'll move my post over here:

I'm going to go ahead and go with the 5 point scale. I say either 3 or 5. anything more than a 5 point scale is pointless. It detracts from the purpose of the scale. With a 100 point scale reviewers complain that no one reads the article but with 100 points I shouldn't have to. With a 5 point scale it's ideal. You have a review scale that tells me which way the article leans. 3 is average. 4 is good. 5 is highly recommend/must buy (not necessarily perfect b/c nothing is perfect). 2 and 1 will hardly be used but that's a small issue because noone cares if the latest Petz game is unplayable or merely bad. The benefit of the 5 point scale is that most games hopefully fall within the 3-4 range and what makes that difference b/w average and good.. read the article. The 5 of course denotes a game that will generally be used for 'must buys'. This way we end up using the entire scale instead of having that impossible 10.

Originally Posted by Phryo88 You could always go with a 1-5 system 1- So bad I'd rather play the Aquaman game. 2- Hardcore fans of genre/IP only. 3- 100% average. 4- Very good, near perfect. 5- Portal good.

I agree that there shouldn't be numbers because then it will become a victim of metacritic and most of the readers won't even read the text.

A Buy it, Rent it, and Avoid it system would work great because it gives you an overall idea of the quality of the game and ideally it encourages the readers to read the text of the review.

buying and renting games are such a varied dynamic that I don't think it works as a rating system. The BRP (Buy,Rent,Pass) system works more in real life where I could ask my friend who knows me how I should approach a game. As a formal rating system it can't hold up games you buy and games you rent are not exclusive enough categories to making it work for CAG. Something as simple as an okay RPG breaks the system. The game is mediocre. Not good enough to be a must buy but it's too long of a game to rent.

as much as I don't have a problem with Wombat and CheapyD making judgment on a BRP system it's far too informal for the site.

The problem with the rating system is not metacritic. Metacritic shouldn't be a factor in this at all because no matter what scale/system you use they're going to plot it on their 100point scale. X-Play rates games on a 10 point scale (1-5 with .5 increments) but metacritic still scales it up to 100. They do/would do the same with 3 and 5 point scales. Which is why Metacritic scores are inane and don't have half the value they claim.

Originally Posted by MSUHitman How about a 5-level scale like the following: Buy It Full ($60) Buy It Used/Sale ($25-$50) Buy It Clearance ($9-$20) Rent It Avoid It

In general, I don't really like rating systems because they are opinion based and are subject to debate on an individual's taste. I totally agree with EGM's thoughts on the 10 point number scale; it doesn't work. If you feel that you must use a ratings system, then I agree with this type of system because it's basic with a value scale which is logical for CAGers. Also, a displayed percentage from fellow voters would help make buying decisions easier.

For example, if I can see that a large percentage of CAGers vote to wait until it's a "greatest hit", then that would help with my buying decision.

Whatever you decide, keep it simple and realistic for us cheap asses. Incorporate the CAG community and you will have success!

Don't forget about downloadable content. If you use a dollar amount, this would up the scale.
A simple download it , wait for a discount, or don't download it would have to be implemented.

Wow Cheapy, this looks like this is becoming a huge pain in the ass for you.

VGPRO has the system mentioned on the show " Buy it, rent it, trash it"

example: http://www.vgpro.com/games/pc/hello_kitty_cutie_world

Right hand side, So its a pretty decent system..

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

With the increasingly lowering quality of reviews all around (imo) I'd really like to see the CAG 2.0 reviews succeed. Here's my thoughts:

1. The basic review scale, as long as its clearly explained, It doens't necisarily matter what style is used, as long as its more than just buy it, rent it or avoid it. That opinion of the reviewer should be expressed within a review, but should not be the entire scale. I am partial to the old EGM number system and they dumped it, so it’s ripe for stealing. Of course any letter, number or ect that can clearly classify games from superb to average to crap and everything in btwn will work equally well as long as the review backs its up and explains.

2. The CAG $$$ rating - This one could be approached several ways, but perhaps a % of msrp would be best, that way, different priced games across different platforms would be directly comparable. Additionally note some games, being shit, are worth no money and should receive a zero.

3. I would also suggest a third rating: a time factor rating. Many CAGs have huge backlogs, just not enough time to play all the games out there. This rating would reflect if the game fully deserves the time required to put into it. For example blue dragon is a long, average rpg. It would get a low time value rating, because time can be better used player other games. Portal is short and amazing - it’s easy to have time to play and the experience is incredible, so it would receive a high time rating. Don't misunderstand, some long games are incredible all the way though, but it’s not the norm. My time to game is just too short to spend it on average games, if I'm going to play a long game; it needs to remain a fun, refreshing experience throughout.

Yes, I'm suggesting a 3 rating system. Even though a $$$ rating is new, it’s still fairly often referred to in reviews, so not entirely unique. A time rating is rarely hinted at in reviews, and yet I find it very important factor in determining what game to play, and others <hopefully> would find it important as well.

Regarding the money scale. There are so many ways this scale can get too complex I suggest as a means of simplifying just you a few values. For instance a game could be rated as: I'd buy this game at $60+; $40-50; $20-30; $20-. Maybe you 'd want more groupings but an idea like that rather than (as I interpreted it) people simply entering a price value they think is worthy.

Originally Posted by legendoffanboy 3. I would also suggest a third rating: a time factor rating.

first I would say this 'time factor' rating could simply be called 'value'. It could be argued that this is the primary factor in measuring the value of a game. That said I don't think that should be seperated from a primary review score. If you want to rate game and then break down the ratings (into Value, Graphics, Sound, etc...) that's one thing but value isn't such an esoteric concept as ot require a separate scale.