So now a B- or below is utter fail. Got it!

I kid, I kid...

Considering how rare a score in the 5-range was, I expect a lot of A's and B's.

No joke.

@Saxboy: Great minds...

Well I welcome the change, but I really don't think it is going to have a huge impact on the bigger problem. Especially in something like a magazine, you actually have to buy a magazine, if you aren't reading the reviews (the text) what are you paying for? Its a start I suppose.

Wow, that's smart of them. Kudos to 1up network.

You heard it here first, and verified with a quote from Dan Hsu:

MSG 4 CONFIRMED FOR 360

I remember when games were rated 5, even though it said "Average" underneath the rating, the internet would go crazy saying the game "sucked".

Hopefully this help people better understand that not all lo rated game flat out suck, they just have some flaws and can still be enjoyable.

Hmm.. now that I think about it.. Lair got about 5.5, giving it a C-C+ on their new scale.. Doesn't sound AS bad.. right guys? .. Anyone?.. IT WAS A FUN GAME.... =/

Good start, the next step would be to replace the jaded people doing the reviews.

He says no conversion chart, then says a 5 would be a C...I think I can figure it out myself now, thanks Shoe!

I wonder what meta review sites like metacritic and gamerankings will make of it, or whether they'll just drop these reviews from their listings?

I'd rather have no score at all.

@Captain Impulse:

were we reading the same magazine? I saw 5's all the time. They aren't that rare

@Miksho:

seriously, if you don't have anything to contribute, don't bother posting at all

Very good change

I'm only interested in 3 summary remarks: Buy, Rent, Avoid.

A grade based on opinion (and without the context of the writen review) is useless, be it number or grade.

@JudgeNutmeg: Plenty of reviews used by Metacritic/GameRankings aren't rated on a 10 point or percentage scale. I'm sure they'll scale the letter grades "appropriately".

@rezlow: I'm with Rezlow. Buy, Rent, Avoid is all that is needed, compounded with a detailed write up.

GameRankings always considers an A to be a 90-some percent, never a 100%, even if it's the highest ranking given out (not all letter-based reviewers go up to an A+ but GameRankings always considers an A+ to be a 100%, regardless of the specifics for any particular publisher's grading system).

@rezlow: I like that system, too, actually.

I like my system. Thumbs up, Rent It, Crap.

mmmm comment laaaaag.

And now the metacritic analysts go AAAAAAAHHHH!!!

A+ in this sense fills me with dread. So there's now a fraction above an A?
What about a fraction below?
Is this going to be a 10 scale by another game?
Hey, its not as an 8.5, its a A - - !
Will games with lovely marketing drives (Halo 4) earn an A++?
Just stick to "cardinal" letters A through F

Yeah, because if they don't publicize their conversion table no one will figure out what an A+ for HALO 3 is.

@HurricaneDave:

That wouldn't be a half bad idea. I'm just wondering how title length will play into it though. For example, lets say we have 2 games, a platformer and an rpg and now suppose both games get roughly the same score. Would they be more likely to label an rpg as a "buy" simply because of its length while the platformer only gets a "rent" because of the relative shortness?

I think they are going waaaaay too into this shit.

My goodness!

@rezlow: Rent is a confusing rating. Should solid, albeit short, games with wide appeal (e.g., Heavenly Sword) be grouped together with excellent niche titles (e.g., Fire Emblem) and both grouped together with mediocre but not altogether terrible titles (e.g., Dynasty Warriors 6)?

Awesome, now people might finally realise that average (ie. 5/C) doesn't mean "bad". The score obsessing (not helped by sites like metacritic) was ruining video game journalism, or rather how it was perceived, so we ended up with people throwing a shit-storm over Twilight Princes receiving less than a 9 which it OBVIOUSLY deserved by divine right.

I love 1UP, they're one of the few sites not to use a 7-10 scale.

Completely unnecessary. Thye have been using the same scale for almost 20 years and now letter-grading is "universally understandable"?
If they are doing this is because they are losing support, information and advetisements, from companies because they give a low score to their games. Dan Hsu express this in his february EGM editorial.
By using letters, the scores may not seem to harsh and they wont lose more ads. So much for not selling out.

Personally, I think reviews would be fine without a letter or number grade. At the end of the review, the plusses and minuses should be bullet-pointed, and suggestions like "If you liked game A, you'll enjoy this game" or "It's in the vein of game A, but not as good."

I mean, we can all think of low rated games we loved -- I'm more interested in how the game plays and what it is similar to than what someone else arbitrarily decides it's GPA is.

@Spoiler Duck: these will be good times - when a C means "C" and not "crap".
Currently if a game does manage to get a five, then it must be terrible, because, under the broken system at present, for it to earn something lower than a seven means it is terrible. Its dangerous to say "C=5" as that links it to the old skewed system. Just call it a C. C doesnt give me The Fear - but it does when its just a placeholder for the current "5" score.

@rezlow: I think you're on the right track. We need to have a totally different rating system based on the types of gamers that are out there today. Letter grades will have the same problem as numeric scores, i.e. trying to objectively compare games like Everyday Shooter with Halo or Wii Sports with Uncharted.

I'd like to see games rated as: Must Buy/Rent, Casual Fun, Hardcore Only, If You Have the Time/Money, Has Potential, Avoid, or something along those lines.

Funnily enough, a "C" at my school has always been 70%, which equates to 7, right? So shouldn't a seven have been average and then everything below that not satisfactory?

Obviously, it's completely irrelevant now with regards to 1up. The letter grade system is much better in my opinion, since I don't get so hung up on the one tenths of a point.

@GMC: Well that was the thing, a 5 NEVER meant "crap" on 1UP, but the entire readership and the game companies themselves believed it to due to how every other gaming site gave scores. In every other industry, a 5/10 review means "average", so why it was a 7/10 for gaming sites I'll never know.

@ortegar: The advertisers pulling funds was just the exclamation point to a widespread problem with internet reviews, the ultimate fault lying more with the readers rather than the editors. Gaming companies only believed a 6 or whatever to be a low score because the internet readership believed it to be. It's ultimately just another extension of the internet shouting matches. "Haha 360 version of game X got .5 more than PS3 version PS3DEATHCONFIRMED", "WTF how could Bioshock a game with no multiplayer get rated higher than Halo 3 when Halo 3 is CLEARLY the better game is biased against the Halo and just trying to get page views grawr" etc. etc.

In short, the internet broke game reviews, so now Ziff Davis are trying their best to work around the problem.

I suppose removing the rating system entirely and forcing the reader to, well, read the review and judge for themselves whether or not they should purchase a title would be too much.

As others have mentioned, just because Halo and Mario receive similar scores doesn't mean they'll appeal to the same type of gamer.

I don't think this new scale changes anything. A C will still be considered average which is interpreted by Joe Consumer as total crap. Adding the + and - modifiers is just like adding .5s. I really don't see what they plan to accomplish with this.

@rawg: Objectively comparing games between genres is tough, but it isn't impossible. The movie industry has been doing it for decades without problem. You just need to look at the score as a combination of fun factor and how good the game is at what it does. Wii Sports got surprisingly (for some) high scores because it was so good at what it did: provide a completely new experience that uniting gamers and non-gamers alike.

Well if people complain about the letters connote they could always dress it up with the DMC system.

Deadly, Cool, Brutal, Awesome, Smokin

What is the point? Are they trying to solve something? If anything, this just confuses readers even more. It's like Gerstmanngate has scared the big-name game journalists into some search for a "solution" to gaining more confidence from readers. Guess what guys, nothing will work (for me at least) as long as there are game ads..

@Miksho: that was just sad. nice try, marty mcfly

How is going to affect their current practice of reviewing incomplete games for the purposes of slander?

I love how they did this two issues ago. The last part of the Reviews section is reserved for games that came in too late or for titles that are too worthless to review. They slam Haze around and then remark it isn't a final build. Even if Haze released today they still would have been looking at a build that was several months old. And it is indeed in the review section. The last time I looked that is a preview, not a review.

How will the new rating system affect their ability to properly name which platforms a game is coming to? Recently printing Ninja Gaiden 2 was a PS3/360 game isn't an error, it is incompetence.

How will the new rating system affect EGM's ability (or lack thereof) to properly list sales figures despite their coming from the official source?

The list is endless. And public crybaby Shoe wonders why companies are blacklisting him and his band of merry village idiots.

Awwww... I'm way too used to the 10-point grading. :(

I love 10 point grading. Its not as though people are going to bitch less with letters than with numbers.

Course then it will avoid another travesty like Halo 3 getting a perfect score and Orange Box getting a 9.something. Now they would both be A+s.

"Smart of them not to make a conversion table. What would the point of switching over be then? "
eh u relly dont get it, do u?

CAn't wait for it,

"OMFG HE GAVE THE NEW ZELDA GAME AN A-"

@HJungle: I do agree what you said. In the end, it is still graded. Only difference is only that good games may not be much differentiated, A+ games would only be A+, not like 9.5, 9.0 , 10 and the sort.

Sumhow the situation is gona be worse for lower scoring games. For example, A- and B+ is a very huge difference in the mind of the internetz, even though on actual score it might not be that much.

I would go for removing the score system, but that would make the magazine kind of hard to read for people.

Instead of scores in each section (visuals, story, gameplay), i feel there should be a short write up on them. i know 1up and alot of game review mags are doing it already, but its still all one big chunk of text. would be good if they split up the paragraphs into sub sections. Let visuals whores and story fan boys have their own field day.

1up tries so hard to be hardcore. Their whole shtick is to give the lowest score and that somehow makes them more credible. In reality they produce some of the most rushed, flippantly written reviews I've ever read from a major gaming site.

They're still using the same exact 10 point scale, just with letters instead of numbers. Depending on whether they use plusses or minuses (or both) in their letter scale, it'll look something like this:

10 = A+
9 = A-
8 = B+
7 = B-
6 = C+
5 = C-
4 = D+
3 = D-
2 = F+
1 = F-

And you can bet that Gamerankings is going to convert their scores right back to percentages anyway.

I still think it's a good thing, because when they give a game a 5 now, a C is more in line with what people associate as "average". Since too many other sites use 7 as average, a 5 just comes off sounding "bad".

And maybe reviewers can feel more comfortable about giving out 5's now, because as others pointed out most games would tend to score a 7 or above anyway.

Its just stupid

This is ridiculous, they didn't need to change the scoring system...they needed to improve their actual reviews. I guess it's easier to change a 90 to an A- than it is to write a proper review.

This system is STUPID. It's counterintuitive, at least by the U.S. school grading system. And that's the point.

For example the U.S. school grading system is more or less 65%-60% = FAIL. But when Shoe says: "Our old "average" in the 5 [(50%)] range roughly translates to the C letter grades (with plusses and minuses), for example," you're gonna think a "C" is in the 70% range, when it's more likely a POS game, you'd probably wouldn't give a second thought to.

So, what does this mean? After writing about a month ago about EGM's integrity, and refusal to be swayed by advertisers about reviews, he goes and and changes the whole goddamn review system as a way to appease them.

What looks better to Ubisoft? 5.5/10 (rough average) for Assassin's Creed, or a "C+"?

It seems to me that switching to a letter-grade based scoring system is only to help out the gaming industry. It may be true what Hsu says, that most people assume 8 - 10 is good and anything below it isn't worth their time, but i fail to see how the gaming community should be moving to a simplified system just to pander to those who don't get it (which includes the expanding consumer base, who may not be familiar with a numerical grading system. though this newer breed of gamer probably doesn't read gaming magazines anyway) in an effort to not hinder sales. Selling games isn't supposed to be their job.

Granted, the final score is only a small part of the overall picture, but i find a 1 - 10 numerical value is far more accurate when properly used. I do not want to see every major game release getting an A, A- or at very worst a B simply because anything lower might scare a few people away from buying a game. If they are assuming that C = 5, you know that is exactly what will happen because if my assumptions are correct, a B will equal an 8 (i figure it will work like this: F = pure crap, C- = 4, C = 5, C+ = 6, B- = 7, B = 8, then i figure it will move to half steps. B+ = 8.5, A- = 9, A = 9.5, A+ = 10).

Also, i find all of this rather funny, coming so soon after EGM's confrontational troubles with others in the industry. Between this and the apologetic Sony suck-up issue, i am really forced to wonder how objective EGM will be in the future.

Well this is how the letter grades should work, at least this is how they do it in Canada.
A+ 90-100
A  83-89
A− 80-82
B+ 76-79
B  72-75
B− 68-71
C+ 64-67
C  60-63
C− 55-59
D  50-54
F  0-49

But you know what would be really good... fixing the old system. I like the number system but reviewers so afraid of giving bad scores nothing gets below a 6 other then the utter swill.

This conversion is a great idea. 1up's rating scale was already the best in the buisness, and now it just got better. Other magazines and websites should follow this model.

It really is a stupid system, but at least they're saying they understand how it'll work, unlike systems like gamespy with a nice few 5/5 games that have HUGE glaring flaws, they claim that a 5/5 game ISN'T perfect, wtf? But if its the highest rating they give than what would denote a perfect game w/o horrid flaws, 6/5? I mean no game is perfect, but if the game has glaring flaws that would make it 4.5/5 its horrible when the reviewers don't even understand their own rating system.

This system will be dumb, as everyone said it'll just be converted in the meta sites, besides even in school when you get a grade letter you still automatically convert it in your head, its near impossible to do a disconnect where its been ingrained in your skull.

If he's actually being honest about the conversion, then this is just stupid - the whole point of going to a letter grade system should be to provide more granularity on the high end of a scale - where it matters. It's the exact same reason an F covers such a broad range on an entrance exam or the like - it doesn't matter to the institution for which you write the exam (here, analogous to us consumers of a game) whether you failed by a little, or by a lot - it just matters that you failed and that we don't want anything more to do with you. Whereas if you succeed, it matters greatly to our consumption decisions whether you succeeded by a lot or a little.

@Alski:

Wow, that is one generous grading system you have.

why they did this:

1. recent controversy over advertisers pulling ads due to bad reviews
2. magazines still need to give "fair" reviews, or face being labeled as sellouts
3. New ratings system is developed.

Take an average joe. He looks at a review, probably skims over it if its not a big-name game that he's been waiting for,

looks at the score: 6/10. Passes on the game.
Looks at the score: C+. "hey I got C's in school, thats not so bad". Buys the game.

Thats it. Its entirely psychological. Advertisers would much rather see their games getting a C+ than a 6/10. Gamers will take a risk on a C+ more than they would a 6/10. That game is more than likely garbage either way, or a renter at best
...Take every review with a grain of salt.

Also, would like to nominate article be re-titled: "Shoe: 'EGM to convert reviewer objectivity to better meet advertisers demands'."

@Hazaa54:

reminds me of that article I read about hired forum trolls, who are paid to comment in