| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 9:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Might have to pick up a copy =x
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 9:59PM Sub said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PC Gamer reviews games like that too. I personally would rather they stuck with the "60 - 100" range that most sites use. I don't think it matters that all the numbers aren't used, the only thing that does matter is that it's understood by the majority of the population since this is how grades worked in school.
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hrm, for the most part I see a game score of 6 and lower to be a waste of time, 7 to be an ok game, 8 to be decent and 9 being the credential to consider purchase before rental if its a genre I like.

I am sure quite a few of you also have a similer heavy tilt against scores. If GFW's 5 is worth a 7 in my books, thats going to cause a lot of confusion. Would other readers share a similar sense of confusion?

Seriously, a %50 is barely passing in any other context. %60-74% isn't much better in terms of something I want to drop $60+ on.
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I received my copy in the mail a few days ago. I do not like the decision to ignore Apple and Linux games, but everything else in the magazine seems pretty normal. The review for Defcon made me drool, so I'll be picking up that game ASAP.
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That scoring system is stupid. Our entire lives to adulthood we work on a scale where 90+ = A, 80+ = B, 70+ = C, 60+ = D, and below is a failure. Not going with that just to be different just seems stupid.
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If its "Games for Windows" then why isn't it "Top 10 Windows Games"
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I actually prefer rating systems that DO use the full scale. If a game is horrible, why not give it a 1, 2, or 3? Why give it a 5 or 6? What would be worth a 1 in such a universe? A game where monsters actually came off the screen and ate your firstborn?

Personally, when people ask me to rate X on a scale of 1-10 (whether it be a game, book, or a guy's body), I always explain that I'm using 5 as the average and that I feel free to use any number within the bounds set by the scale.

I also have a complaint about people who refuse to give games a 10, but instead insist on giving 9.9s (or 9s if no fractions of points are used in the ratings). If you're never going to give out a 10, then in reality your 9.9 is your 10.

To get even more off topic,... You shouldn't go just by the scores anyway. For example, I'd personally give almost every single title in the Grand Theft Auto series a 5 or lower, but if I wrote a very thorough review giving my reasons for the score, you'd know whether you agreed with my fundamental ideas concerning gaming and thus whether or not to ignore my take on the game.

OK, enough about ratings for now. Bottom line is that I like this kind of rating system better and even those who don't shouldn't be too upset because it's the content of the review, not the score, to which you should be paying the most attention.
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
THis is gonna screw up press averages...
Reply

Posted: Nov 18th 2006 10:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"THis is gonna screw up press averages..."

Good! Maybe then people will start paying attention to things like the content of the review, the credibility of the critic, past reviews the critic has authored, etc.
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 12:12AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You people saying "we're all sed to grades being 60% bad" don't realize that this isn't being set up as a grade. It's a scale of 1-10! I don't know what sort of school youu went to, but I certainly wasn't graded on a 10 point scale.

The 10 point scale is just an extension of the 5-star system with a little more leeway. Do you guys think of 3/5 stars as equivalent to a 60% grade? I didn't think so.
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 2:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I totally agree with Paul P. The 1-10 scale (usually a misnomer since most groups use a single decimal, making it truly 1-100) is already confusing because it is easy to compare it to the A-F school grade system (which, itself, has plenty of interpretations), and this latest re-interpretation only adds to the confusion. Personally, I'm a fan of less precision when using a score system. You make the number small, and you disassociate it with the grade scale. Not that hard really. Ideally I think a true 1-5 scale would work best for everybody. 1 and 2 are the two degrees of badness, and 3-5 are the three degrees of goodness. That's pretty much all anyone needs. It's not rocket science, as people with bell curve diagrams would like you to believe.
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 4:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm glad they gave Company of Heroes a 10/10.. Maybe that will convince people to buy this great game and play it for what it's worth.. Plus, it can't hurt the Games for Windows cause.
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 5:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is everyone here serious?? 5=average is the way pretty much every site's and magazine's rating system is SUPPOSED to work, the only problem is all the reviewers out there with brain damage who can't seem to escape the notion that an average game = a bad game. Can't anyone grasp the concept of "average"?!
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 6:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The school grade system your talking about only applies to america. It's stupid that a game is considered bad if it scores under 6. Theres ten numbers on the scale and 5 is in the middle, which makes 5 average!
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 10:23AM WedgeTalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel sorry for al of those brain-washed into the "school grade" system.

A schools' system is completely different as they are not rating your QUALITY but your QUANTITY! See, in school, when you take a test and get on 5 out of 10 questions right, and everyone else averaged 7 out of 10 right, the average QUANTITY of questions correct is 70%, thus you scored below the average quantity.

When measuring QUALITY, it is best to used a 1-5 or 0-10 scale with 3 or 5 being average and very few things scoring on the extremities of the scale.
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 10:36AM Scatter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Acouple of points;

#4 - CGW hasn't reviewed Apple games since the 80's and I don't even remmeber them doing a peice on Linux gaming so nothing's change in that aspect.

As for the scoring system; the numbering system didn't change. They were just pointing out that this was how they always graded games in their reviews. I think the reason they were pointing this out was because with this issue they returned to giving games a pont score which they weren't doing for the past 1/2 year or so.

Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2006 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That type of rating system is used in respected UK magazines such as GamesTM and Edge and it works fine with their reviews. The reason for this is that any game which scores a 9 in other magazines would probably receive an 8 (or even a 7) in these magazines, therefore making 8's and 9's from this magazine a rarity. In other words, if a game receives an 8 or a 9 in GamesTM or Edge you know it's going to be fantastic.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW