Ziff Davis changes to Letter grading review system

CheapyD

CheapyD

Head Cheap Ass
Staff member
Feedback
14 (100%)
1UP Changes Scoring Policy, Letters To Replace Numbers

the 1UP team (including EGM and Games For Windows) have today announced that they're done with numbers. For good. In their place will be a school-like grading system, with titles ranked between A+ and F.
Click to expand...
I always thought that if we did reviews here on CAG, I would use a letter system or the typical 4-star movie review scale. Seems to make much more sense than a 1-10 system in which you hardly ever see anything under 5.

Your thoughts?
 
I like 1-10 too. It gives you a better idea of how good or bad the game is. A+ to F isn't bad either, but I've always liked a score that's "x/10"

But that's just me.
 
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.
 
I personally think this is better. For example, and 5 point scoring game on a 10 point scale means it's a bad game. Hell, even a 6 nowadays gets the "bad" rating. Truth is, that 5-7 point range is still an "average" game. A game in the 8-9 is an "above average" game and a game that garners a 10 isn't "perfect" but a "great" game or one worth picking up. The main flaw with a point scale is if it garners lower than a 7, it's considered "bad" and if it garners a 10, then it's considered "perfect" and that couldn't be anymore wrong.

With this new system of letter scoring, it gives some games a better chance of fairing. A "C-" to a "C+" would probably be anywhere from a 5-7, with an "F" being anything below that. I like this new approach and embrace it.
 
I'm fine with it, but I know that the two major game review aggregates (Metacritic and Gamerankings) take letter grades differently, which with one of the big three sites switching over to that now, will have a bigger effect on the average scores than the smaller sites do.
 
I dunno if it is done in the academic fashion an F could be anywhere in a 69 point range. (At least how our schools did I hear some schools go as low as a 65 for a d)

IMO 1-10 is my favorite scoring system
 
1-10 scale with decimals. I don't like scores like say 6.3 or some shit but you need the decimals for the half points (effectively making it a 20 point scale)
 
[quote name='DT778']If they do the + and - thing wouldn't it be basically the same as a 10 point scale?[/quote]
Actually it would make it a 13 point scale. Of course, EGM skewed their 10 point rating by using .5 in their scores so, in essence, they're downgrading from 20 point to 13. GfW was using a 10 point scale with no .5 so this is a bad move for GfW, IMO. I think 10 point is the way to go, as long as it's understood that bad games will get scored in the lower tier.

I've never understood why a magazine or website would institute a 5 point/star scale only to then use half points/stars. That's a 10 point scale!:wall: X-Play certainly has it's faults but at least they stick to their 5 points. I assume it's still like that, I haven't seen G4 in over a year.
 
I like the 1-10 scale, maybe with .5 in between. I have always found the 1-4/5 to be too vague giving bad scores to good games like 3/5. But the letter system isn't all that bad in my opinion either.
 
I voted for the letter system, I'm tired of the 1-10 system where most magazine seems to only use 6-10.

*edit. Actually I like the "Text only with no score" more but I know they would never do something like that.
 
I prefer the A-F/1-5 grading scale; It places more emphasis on the written review, you know, the part that actually matters. If you've read Ziff Davis' print publications (EGM is a prime example) or 1UP's online content, you'd realize they just throw around arbitrary numbers; especially, with games that the reviewer thinks are mediocre.

With all that said, this move won't eliminate that completely, however, it does cut down on it because it limits the amount of letters/numbers they can throw around. As people have said above, no decimals. Thus, it eliminates some of the bull and makes the scoring system, arguably, more important. Well, that's only if you thought it was important in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are my preferences (yes, I voted):

1) 10 point, no decimals
2) 5 point
3) letter system

10 point ND is a good middle ground. Not the vagueness of 5 point, like FuziOn pointed out, but not overly complicated like a 20 point scale. Really, why is a 20 point scale (which is what 10 + decimals is) necessary for videogames? There just isn't that much of a difference in games to justify such a large swing in the pendulum.
 
I prefer the letter system more than any other because I feel that reviewers use the whole spectrum of scores more. Maybe it has to do with everyone having to go through school and you know what has to be done to receive F which means pretty much not even playing it while coding it.

I mean seriously though...there is no reason to even have the ranking between 1 and 6 when the scale is between 1 and 10. If it's an F (below a 6) you shouldn't be playing it, and what score it is between there shouldn't matter.

That my friends, is why the letter system is so much better.
 
I don't think the 5 point scale gives enough room. I voted for 10 with decimals, but like someone else said, none of the 3.25 or 6.6 crap. I prefer intervals of .5.
 
I have to go with 1-5. It's nice and general so you can't really start nitpicking that maybe game A was just slightly better than game B, sort of the same philosophy as "buy, rent, skip." Most games would get 3s and 4s. Lazy Wii ports and the like would get 2s, and I don't think they actually make many games that would deserve a 1. Those should really be reserved for games that have no redeeming qualities.

A scale having more than 10 degrees of granularity is really unnecessary. Even 1-10 is pushing it.
 
[quote name='PRMega']I don't think the 5 point scale gives enough room. I voted for 10 with decimals, but like someone else said, none of the 3.25 or 6.6 crap. I prefer intervals of .5.[/quote]

This is exactly what I think as well.
 
No one ever rates games below C, 5, 2.5, etc, so it doesn't really matter. The average games never get the average score while terrible games are always 0-2. So whatever, I don't care.

I voted text only because reviewers aren't obligated to a score and readers aren't distracted by a score. With a substantial text based review you could make your own purchase decision, instead of relying on an arbitrary number.
 
Rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Video Game Journalism. Glacier over yonder.

This doesn't change anything at all. Publishers will just bitch and moan until their games get a nicer letter grade. Perhaps I will be proven wrong and ZD will enforce this well but I doubt it.
 
I like EGM's score system as is. Since no one has complained about it for over a decade now, what's the friggin point in going to a letter system? Isn't it bad enough with their previews page (or lack thereof) that I don't need them ruining the last good thing about the magazine?
 
It really doesn't matter to me what kind scoring system a site uses as long as they use it well (writing a good, descriptive review and scoring it accordingly).
 
I voted 1-5, but the more I think about it, the more I like the letter scale. Basically you can look at it that an A is a must play, a B is a good game, C may be worth your time, D is not a good game and F is broken.
 
I prefer the old old EGM method of 1-10 without decimals. I think the bigger issue is how much price should factor into the score. If a new release is just an 'okay' FPS but has pretty nice graphics and sells for $30 as opposed to $60, should it get graded on a curve?

If I were to start a magazine or website from the ground up, I'd go with something pretty easy like "worth buying" "worth buying if a fan of genre" "worth renting" "not worth your time." That way it pretty much gets right to the point in the mind of most gamers - should I part with $60+ for this or not?
 
Didn't one of ZD's defunct mags, GameNow, review using the letter grading system? If so, it isn't something new to them.

As for what I like. I like the 1-10 scale with only a 0.5 in between. Nothing weird like Game Informer giving a game a 3.75 or 5.25 or IGN's 8.9.
 
I vote for " Review Scores are Ambigious, Arbititary, and Only Matter to PR people who get a bonus from a high metacritic score."

Strange I Didnt see that Option.
 
I like 1-10, but I can see a letter system working if you've got +'s and -'s factored in, as well. Honestly, it's a good move, though, because no matter what 1UP tries to tell us, nobody believes that 5 is average. 12+ years of mandatory education has seen to that.
 
I'd prefer more of an "active" rating system:

For example:
10: Video review of CheapyD fully enjoying playing this game, perhaps there will be a party and cake will be served.
7: Video review of CheapyD playing the game in a "meh" state, maybe a shot of him turning the game off and instead opting to do work.
4: Video review of CheapyD flushing the game down the toilet.
1: Video review of CheapyD taking the game out back, mounting it to a wall, placing a blindfold on it, and shooting it with a shotgun.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']I'd vote for "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't."[/QUOTE]

This. I think that it's easy to recognize the flaws of the system you're currently using and overstate the benefits of the alternatives.

As far as ratings go, I prefer the text of the review, as well as other users' (CAGs) opinions on a title. I probably wouldn't have given CoD4 a second thought, but the people here sold me on it more than any review.

User recommendations and demos have replaced reviews for me. Reviews tend to average on the high (6.5/10 is a "bad" game, when it's over 50% of the scale!) end of things, because reviewers are perpetually afraid of the delicate balance of honesty and keeping advertiser dollars.

One thread on a game can quickly be skimmed over, and a keen eye can overlook the useless posts to see what people think of a game.

Reviews are dead to me, unless I want some lame-ass after-the-fact "quantitative" defense of how my preferred games are better than some other alternative (the "well, metareviews give Twilight Princess a 9.whatever" point).

EDIT: Also, those old screaming "GamePro" review faces make me want to physically harm people.
 
Is it just me, or this this blowback from the Ubisoft/Mortal Kombat pulling their coverage? I thought they pulled out because EGM insists on rating things on their own scale, which is basically a lower version of everyone else's scale, because they use "the whole thing."

Now, their Editor in Chief is gone, and their ratings system changes? Suspicious.
 
[quote name='pete5883']Is it just me, or this this blowback from the Ubisoft/Mortal Kombat pulling their coverage? I thought they pulled out because EGM insists on rating things on their own scale, which is basically a lower version of everyone else's scale, because they use "the whole thing."

Now, their Editor in Chief is gone, and their ratings system changes? Suspicious.[/quote]

Where did the EIC go?
 
I can see why- most gamers are already very familiar with the scoring system.

1up's editors are always complaining when they give a game a "5" they are merely saying it's average; the middle of the range. The industry standard, however, is slightly inflated; if you hear a game got a "5"; you don't think average; you think the title is a stinker and it's got some serious problems.

So, it's ZD's way of 'maintaining their journalistic standards' while not offending their advertisers; Pretty good compromise.

One problem - We all know a "C' is an average grade. For most teachers, it means something scored in the 70-79 percentage range, not 50-59. So, they may be inflating scores. We shall see how it plays out when they translate the score onto Metacritic.
 
I voted for 1-10, no decimals (and ideally, no breakdowns into categories like graphics, sound, etc.). My second choice would be A-F.
 
I've always prefered 10 with decimals.

But in all honesty a letter system has about the same flexibility. Especially since so few games score below a 4 or 5 anyway on 1up or EGM. And that's an F on a grade scale, so same difference.

But kind of moot for me anyway as I don't pay much attention to reviews as I tend to know what I like enough to buy or rent. For something I'm on the fence about I tend to just check gamerankings rather than going by any one review anyway.
 
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.
 
I like 1-10, with no decimals. I prefer to not get all picking and rate a game 0.1 better than the other. I rather just have a general whether a game is 8/10, 9/10, etc.
 
A 1-5 is way to small, ask XPlay. Letter Grading is OKAY, as long as there aren't just 5 straight ratings (A,B,C,D,F). I like the 1-10 Scale with Decimals. Without Decimals is fine too.

It's the writeup that matters the most to me anyway. You shouldn't be able to decide if you are interested in a game by the Numbered (or lettered in this case) score it is given.
 
There's never going to be a good system.

Let's look at something like EGM's Assassin's Creed score. So, Crispin gave it a 4.5, meaning that, IN THEORY, it's a little below average. Most people see that score as terrible, though, and not average. I admit that I see 6-7 as average, and anything below that as pretty bad. Now, my question is... what is a publisher going to be happier seeing, as it pertains to the AC review... a 4.5, or an F?

Overall, I'd like a 0-5 system, with .5 intervals when needed.
 
[quote name='007']

Overall, I'd like a 0-5 system, with .5 intervals when needed.[/quote]

That is the same thing as a 1-10 scale with no decimals, no?
 
I'm surprised so many people like 1-10. Why? Are you going to buy a game given a 4 and not one given a 3? The whole bottom half of the scale is useless.

Anyway, I'm for no scores at all. Make people actually read the text of the review. Especially since in many occasions I find it actually disagrees with its own score. Well I'm actually for not using reviews at all, but if you have to I say drop the score.
 
I'd like to see a move to a 1-5 scale with no decimals.

I see too many people considering any score below a high eight point something as a failure. For the publishers it's not a 1-10 scale or even a 5-10 scale, it's really a 8.5-10 scale. See Kane & Lynch as an example. I think Ubi would be pissed off about EGM's AC review even if it scored a 7.5 from Crispin and not a 4.5.

1-5 seems like it would convey the overall tone a lot better (and yes, I think X-Play pulls this off well). 5 would be a must-play, 4 would be recognized as a quality title (instead of "7.9'd lulz"), 3 would be passable, two would be broken, and 1 would be downright unplayable.
 
1-10 is terrible, but so are letters. It should be a five star review system.


There was actually just a study about how letter-grades are less effective and harder to conceptualize than numbers or stars. They were talking about it on NPR the other day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top