Ziff Davis changes to Letter grading review system

A-F is the way to go. It's a review scale almost everyone immediately is familiar with, and a C+ means much more than a 5.5 does to anybody.

Decimal systems are fucking stupid. Can you please differentiate to me the quality difference between a 6.8 and a 7.2? Gamespot does that crap. And nobody likes them.

A-F is hopefully just another step towards removing review scores altogether. But then people would have to read and comprehend something! OH NO!
 
[quote name='jer7583']A-F is hopefully just another step towards removing review scores altogether. But then people would have to read and comprehend something! OH NO![/QUOTE]
But then complete dumbasses on podcasts wouldn't be able to pile together aggregate review scores to defend their own fanboyism!
 
[quote name='mrelusive']I prefer: "Buy at MSRP", "Buy from the bargin bin", "Rent", "Pirate if you actually want to play this PoS".[/quote]

Basically thats what a 1-5 scale is. With 5 def buy at msrp, 4 if you like genre buy at msrp, 3 but at bargain, 2 rent, 1 pirate. I voted 1-5 scale. In 1-10 the bottom half of the scale is usless.
 
[quote name='lilboo']See, I look at the decimal system as a way of knowing exactly how good or bad a game is.

When you have a game that's a 7/10, you can compare it to another 7/10 game and determine what you think is better by comparison. With the decimals, you can determine that a game is indeed a 7, but how much of a 7? Is it ALMOST an 8? Is it just a little but more then a 7? This way, you can see differences between 2 games that would be normally 7/10.[/QUOTE]
Or you could just PLAY THE fuckING GAME.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Any review scale that is based on less than 10 points is not nearly defined enough. End of story.[/QUOTE]

qft
 
[quote name='jer7583']
Decimal systems are fucking stupid. Can you please differentiate to me the quality difference between a 6.8 and a 7.2? Gamespot does that crap. And nobody likes them.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it's pretty much the difference between a C and a C+ or whatever (guess would be D+ to C- in school letter grades).

But there's not objective difference here. I usually rate games myself on a 10 point scale with .5 intervals. It just gives me a bit more leeway if I play two games and like both a lot but like one a little more than I can give one a 9.0 and one a 9.5.

In the letter system it would be A and A-. Point being decimals are no different really than having +/- in a letter grade system.

One could go just to strict letter grades, or a 5 star system. But then you lose the ability to differentiate games that are close in quality, but one is clearly a little better to the reviewer.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Or you could just PLAY THE fuckING GAME.[/QUOTE]

Not everyone has the time to try everything that looks interesting. I don't even have time to keep up with all the AAA games myself, much less delve into the next tier down of games very often.

So reviews (mainly the aggregate sites like gamerankings) are helpful in narrowing down which games I want to check out for myself.

They're never the end all of course, but reviews are useful in helping me not waste limited gaming time playing stuff I end up hating.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']They're never the end all of course, but reviews are useful in helping me not waste limited gaming time playing stuff I end up hating.[/quote]

I think you then miss out on the 2600-era practice of realizing a game with awesome box art actually sucks out loud, followed by trying in vain to convince yourself that it's not so bad. Hell, that experience bled over into the NES days. Remember the kid on your block that got Fester's Quest for his 12th birthday? Even better, the kid that got suckered into buying a Power Glove?

Granted, nowadays I limit this practice to XBLA and demos. The reviews are helpful in keeping me from spending money on a promising game that went horribly, horribly wrong.

[quote name='PyroGamer']But then complete dumbasses on podcasts wouldn't be able to pile together aggregate review scores to defend their own fanboyism![/quote]

Bingo.
 
When it comes to switching grading I sort of have to default to what Roger Ebert used to say about the star system for ranking movies. While the numbers, grades, and stars are somewhat useful for glancing at something you are interested in and getting a general idea about its quality, the real deal lies in the review itself. Which elements detracted from the game or movie? Why isn't it as good as one would hope? Would I get more enjoyment out of it if I'm one of those SHMUP nuts?

So...as long as the reviews themselves are insightful and mention the positives and negatives I don't care how they are "graded" overall.
 
I like the letter grade scale. I feel that there are very rarely scores of under 4.0 with the current EGM scale and that a reviewer would be more inclined to give an awful game an F than say a 3.5.
I also think in the middle a B- is easier to interpret as a mediocre/wait for a price drop game than a 6.5 or 7.0 which could be construed as a good score.
 
I like the letter grade scale. Most games should be in the B, C, D range, with A or A+ reserved for truly special, nearly perfect games and F for truly unplayable, unenjoyable messes.

It's the scale used by www.videogamecritic.net (link in my signature).
 
I like the letter grade too. The number system from 1-10 is too vague for me at times because if I game gets a 7 or lower, I tend to not pick up the game. It just means the game is average. I rarely see games rated a 1-5. Now that its going to be a letter grade, I think its going to be alot better and clear.
 
After reading other people's arguments for the letter system I have to agree. I'm changing from 10 point scale to letter system.
 
I think there are too many increments using a letter scale .

Example ,

A+ A A- ______ 3
B+ B B- ______ 3
C+ C C- ______ 3
D+ D D- ______ 3
E ___________ 1
F ___________ 1

Total ________14

14 points or 16 if they use E+ & E- .

That's pretty uneven that's why I like a hundred point or 10 plus decimal scale .
 
Traditionally the letter D should not have a plus or minus variant, also E doesn't exist (that is, if we're talking about an academic scale).
 
The numbers/letters mean nothing to me. If a surprise hit gets a 6 or 7, but offers a unique experience (Katamari, Power Pros, etc) I will buy into it better if the review is in depth and tells me it is an extremely unique game that needs to be looked at. Sure execution may have been lacking and the graphics aren't top notch so the score is dropped.

This is the type of thing that can't really be conveyed in a number, people are quick to ask "What score did _____ get?" But I like to ask different questions and look beyond the score. A number can only tell you so much, while actually reading gives you so much more, I really wish there would be no scores, but everyone is so focused on numbers, letters, etc.

Assassin's Creed for example got good scores, mostly 8s I would say, but what the score fails to tell you is that its really Spiderman 2 in disguise. But once again everyone is focused on the number, so it must be a really good game despite being about 10 minutes of fun then 8 hours of the same thing over and over. Lets get some substance in these reviews and skip scores entirely.
 
[quote name='hankmecrankme']I don't mind 1-10. I hate all of the in betweens, like IGN and Gamespot use. "This game is an 8.8. This game is a 7.9." WTF? How do you arrive at a 7.9 for a game?

I want a 1-10 system with no decimal points. Or a 1-5.[/quote]

Yeah they fixed that on GameSpot, now it can either be .5.

I prefer the 1-10 system, I'm just so accustomed to it. Even though like you said it's kind of pointless because anything under a 6.0 I'm going to usually ignore anyway.
 
1-5 is IDIOTIC.

Because if a game is decent it automatically gets a 3. So watch Xplay and EVERY game gets a 3. DMC4 got a 3 and then some really shitty RPG that Xplay didn't even like got a 3.

It doesn't work.

I'd have to say I would like letter grade. With pluses or minuses.
But 10 scale with decimals is also good.
 
1-10 is best. This is probably retaliation by the company (Ziff Davis) against Shu so that they can get Ubisoft and the other publishers that defected/stopped sending games to be reviewed. There was no reason to switch from a proper 1-10 grading scale to this method. Why not just go with a thumbs up or a thumbs down, popcorn buckets, video game cases, etc. This will only lose my readership. First EGM regains my trust and my readership, now this bullshit. Oh, and this is also probably against what happened at GameSpot.
 
I prefer Cheapy heads. This thread gets a
rating_3.gif
out of
rating_5.gif
for me. Every thread with 5 Cheapy heads that crops up, you know it's worth reading. If that very same thread were a 9.5 thread, would you feel the same enthusiasm you get from a Cheapy head?

No. You would not.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']1-5 is IDIOTIC.

Because if a game is decent it automatically gets a 3. So watch Xplay and EVERY game gets a 3. DMC4 got a 3 and then some really shitty RPG that Xplay didn't even like got a 3.

It doesn't work.

I'd have to say I would like letter grade. With pluses or minuses.
But 10 scale with decimals is also good.[/quote]

Yeah I just started watching Xplay last week and at least for that week you're absolutely right ... everything got a 3/5 if it was good with flaws (DMC4) or whether it was bad (Culdcept Saga).
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']1-5 is IDIOTIC.

Because if a game is decent it automatically gets a 3. So watch Xplay and EVERY game gets a 3. DMC4 got a 3 and then some really shitty RPG that Xplay didn't even like got a 3.

It doesn't work.

I'd have to say I would like letter grade. With pluses or minuses.
But 10 scale with decimals is also good.[/QUOTE]

If they didn't like it, it should get a 2.

1 = hated
2 = didn't like
3 = liked
4 = really liked
5 = loved
 
That's the way it should be, but reviewers tend to avoid the 1's and 2's just like they seldom go below a 5 or 6 in a 10 point scale.
 
any scale that requires conversion of numbers into meaning something for someone is inherently flawed.

The letter grading is instantly familiar to anyone who, say, completed grade school, and is therefore superior.
 
I prefer the 1-10 scale with no decimals.

[quote name='PyroGamer']If they didn't like it, it should get a 2.

1 = hated
2 = didn't like
3 = liked
4 = really liked
5 = loved[/quote]A rating shouldn't be on if you love or hate it, but rather the quality of the game on different aspects (playability, story/writing, graphics, originality, bug-free, value & replay value, et cetera). There are plenty of crappy games which I love and plenty of technically great games which I have zero interest in.

Some folks 'hate' a game because the game is too difficult for them, others 'love' a game because they're into the emo storyline & character design when the actual gameplay is garbage.
 
I actually like a love hate scale, because I couldn't give a shit less about the technical merits etc.

Games are entertainment. I either have fun with it, or I don't. End of story.

It still works for reviews to IMO. If a game is in a genre I like, and a majority of reviewers loved it, then it's probably something I should check out.

Love/Hate scoring is fine. Let the text of the review point on the reasons why which will include all the technical merit stuff.
 
I disagree, dmaul. Loving or Hating something is purely subjective, and we all have different tastes. The Score ought be straight up on whatever aspects are deemed most important, and the review mention the reasons why a player would love or hate the game.

Just my opinion.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']I disagree, dmaul. Loving or Hating something is purely subjective, and we all have different tastes. The Score ought be straight up on whatever aspects are deemed most important, and the review mention the reasons why a player would love or hate the game.

Just my opinion.[/quote]

In a way he does have a point. Sometimes reviews seem so focused on "great graphics" or "captivating magic system" they forget the central question - "will it be fun?"
 
[quote name='guinaevere']I prefer the 1-10 scale with no decimals.

A rating shouldn't be on if you love or hate it, but rather the quality of the game on different aspects (playability, story/writing, graphics, originality, bug-free, value & replay value, et cetera). There are plenty of crappy games which I love and plenty of technically great games which I have zero interest in.

Some folks 'hate' a game because the game is too difficult for them, others 'love' a game because they're into the emo storyline & character design when the actual gameplay is garbage.[/quote]

Exactly.

Because you can like DMC4 and that crappy RPG but the both offer different experiences.

1/5 = 0/10-3/10
2/5 = 4/10-5/10
3/5 = 6/10-7/10
4/5 = 8/10-9/10
5/5 = 10/10

I don't think a 6/10 is the same as a 7/10. A 10 scale just offers double the options. Can't argue with that.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']I disagree, dmaul. Loving or Hating something is purely subjective, and we all have different tastes. The Score ought be straight up on whatever aspects are deemed most important, and the review mention the reasons why a player would love or hate the game.

Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Opinions on games, movies and music are entirely subjective. Period.

There's just no way any review is going to be 100% objective and unbiased. That's why I pay zero attention to any one review.

Another person's opinion is completely useless to me on things like this. The only way I'll know for sure if I like a game or movie is to watch it myself.

At the aggregate level, reviews are useful in helping narrow down what to see/play. If a movie/game is 80% or above on GameRankings or Rottentomatoes and is in a genre I like, from a developer/director I tend to like, then I can be pretty sure I'll end up enjoying it.

But I never pay much attention to individual reviews, as they are just one person's opinion...and you know what they say about opinions.

Same with impressions threads here at CAG. I pay no heed to any one poster's take on a game, but will read through the whole thread to get the general feeling of how the game is received.
 
My favorite system was the one used by Game Players magazine. It scored every catagory possible and gave you a good aspect of that feature and a bad aspect.

I'm actually very disappointed in the new format for EGM, but oh well.
 
fuck them all.

The reviewer should do what they are paid to do, write a review. They then can give a final thought on whether it is worthy to buy, rent, wait until a price drop, or pass type of suggestion based on what they thought if they want to give the game a rating.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']1-10 is best. This is probably retaliation by the company (Ziff Davis) against Shu so that they can get Ubisoft and the other publishers that defected/stopped sending games to be reviewed. There was no reason to switch from a proper 1-10 grading scale to this method. Why not just go with a thumbs up or a thumbs down, popcorn buckets, video game cases, etc. This will only lose my readership. First EGM regains my trust and my readership, now this bullshit. Oh, and this is also probably against what happened at GameSpot.[/quote]
How so? The reviews will still count on the aggregate sites that publishers value so much and it's not like their readers won't wait for their reviews to come out. If they were that worried about the issue, they'd have done something when it first happened years ago.

Against what happened at GameSpot? What? How does changing their review system prevent shitty management?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top