dragon

slappyMCslappy

Sintariot

The problem is that everyone equates the 10-point scale with the grading scale so that 7 is average, because a "C" is 70%. The thing with 1UP is that they use the entire 10-point scale, therefore the association of 7 with average is wrong. This new scale sounds, to me, like it is to fix both of the problems mentioned above. The only problem with it is that Hsu specifically said that a "C" equates to a 5. Now, that's not a problem, when you consider that they go on the idea of a 5 being average, but when you consider the fact that everyone thinks a 5 is "bad," and that a 7 should be average.... well, then this new grading system makes a lot more sense.

At least that's the way I see it.

Now, for those of you who did not go to school in America, I will provide you with a handy guide for the new rating system:

A - Excellent
B - Good
C - Average
D - Poor
F - Fail

This is taken right out of every syllabus I've ever gotten in my life, so I'm fairly certain that it's accurate.

@VicViper: The funny thing about your argument is that you're doing exactly what I'm talking about, only in reverse.

Hypersteric

That kinda sucks, numbers are understood everywhere.

Kris_

Densetsu

If they've got + and - then how is it really any better than a system out of 10 anyway? F- .. A+, now you've got 18 levels instead of 10.

$Bill$G$

Is the game too short? Does it become repetitive? Does the narrative equate to anything substantial? How's the multiplayer?

Plenty of things can't be properly gleamed from a demo, and I'd rather trust a well-seasoned reviewer than my own interpretations from a demo that doesn't do a game justice.

FraGNeM

I disagree, however.

You see, even things that seem concrete really aren't.

If you did 10/10 tasks assigned to you, the perception of a "perfect job" would more likely include how WELL you did these tasks.

If you're referring to "North", are you referring to the Geographic North Pole or the North Magnetic Pole?

All things must be defined, providing context to allow understanding.

Fortunately for us, game reviewing publications DO define what each score means. There's nothing to misinterpret if you see a "B", see that the reviewing publication marks a "B" to mean "Good game with flaws, but still recommended", and understand the general impression of the reviewer by matching the review "score" with the meaning.

Frankly, Symbols which embody general meanings to convey a sense of relative worth are EXACTLY what these reviewers are shooting for. If it was their choice (and easier to interpret), the reviewers would just drop the scores and say "Great game. Highest Recommendation," after all games for which the quote applies. If you have a class of games which fit that description, why not assign a symbol to it instead of writing out the quote every time? Thus the birth of the review symbol.

And let's forget for a moment that Hsu equated a C to a 50% on their old scale, for 2 reasons. (1) Their old scale was relative anyway, and (2) Hsu said before that he didn't want to compare the two. He probably only chose "C = 50%" to appease 1up's notion that they used the full range of their old 10 point rating scale, which they didn't. Gamerankings sets 1up's average review score at around a 68.5%

FraGNeM

zsavior

The problem with saying 10/10 does not equal perfection kinda goes along with the point I've been trying to make about grades. For better or worse, most people have already formed notions about both grades and the concept of 10/10, 100/100, etc., that don't match up with how the reviewers want to define it.

It's really anti-intuitive. If you got a 100 on a test, then you did score perfect, you got all the answers correct. If you successfully completed 10/10 tasks given to you, one could say that's a perfect job.

It's almost like saying, "'North' means north, except when it's northwest, but I'm still it calling 'north'". Or a "C" = 50%, when that's not how most of us in the states would call a "C".

Rather than try to devise some sort of easily understood scheme that's simple to interpret and hard to mistake, they'd rather stick with the old or in the case of grades, something confusing and ambiguous.

And frankly, when a game does get a 10, it should be the rarest of occasions. Maybe years should go by between handing them out, only reserved for the most groundbreaking, inspired, polished, and destined to be influential titles that will likely shape the industry for years to come. If anything, 9's should be what most 10 games are today.

VicViper

There you go, one more person saying something positive :) I know others that love the game too, you see them on sales charts, but they don't hang out on Kotaku.

Irenicus-the one and only

Maybe I should make a site like 100fps.com but call it 10isnotperfect.com

Here's a snippet of information that most of these proponents neglect:

Most reviewing publications do not themselves classify that a 10/10 = perfect game. They're the ones who label the games with the scores, and since reviews are subjective, the only context we have for understanding these scores is to look at how they're weighted within each individual reviewing publication.

In short, "perfect game" review scores do not exist because scores that indicate whether or not a game is perfect do not exist.

FraGNeM

As I've said before to many, the review text alone should tell you if it's good or worth your time. If not it's a bad review.

TearsandScreams

Arteen

kemicon

I hate that a mediocre game still gets 7.5 and 8's... while Twilight Princess gets a 8.9... while Gears of War gets a 10?

I mean, seriously? GOW is a PERFECT game? I think only perfect games deserve 10s. And honestly, the only PERFECT game I can think of is Super Mario Bros 3 for NES. :P Everything else can be improved in a number of ways... while SMB3 could really only use more content and maybe 4 players :P.

My point, though, is there are 10 numbers to rate a game with, but it seems that almost all games fall into 6-10. Then anything under a 5 is essentially the same score... it just rates how much the reviewer hated it and wants to insult it.

Personally, I'd like to see most games getting 6's and 7's... while great games are getting 8's and 9's... and okay games 4's and 5's.. and terrible games with 2's and 3's. And saving the 10 for a PERFECT-ass game. and 1's for unplayable games.

Seems like changing to the letter grade will probably just dilute the scores further.

RemyDuvalle

I do not really understand the English Grade Letters. (As we used 1-6 (6 being very good) in Switzerland) in school.

And it will be translated, at least for gamerankings and such stuff.

Kawaii-e

But yeah, this is a round-about way of saying that the letter-grade system seems pointless at best; if it's good enough for Entertainment Weekly...well, that doesn't mean much.

Mikintosh

For people who are totally unfamiliar with this "rating system", it takes a whopping 10 seconds to grasp.

A - Exceptional game. Highest Honor. Recommended to almost everyone.

B - Good game, but with flaws that hold it back from being given the highest recommendation. Still recommended for most people.

C - Decent game, flaws clearly prevent the game from realizing its full potential. Recommended to some, so long as they know what they're getting into.

D - Flawed game, with only the smallest of redeeming features. Recommended to almost no one.

F - Fatally Flawed game. No amount of good can save this steaming pile of a game from hell's fiery wrath. Not recommended.

All rating systems of this type work similarly to the above example. The main difference between this rating scheme and the 10-point scale is that all the "not recommended" crap games that take up ~half of the 10-point scale are now relegated to only the lowest letter grade.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

FraGNeM

ThisCharmingMan

(1) There is an F, so says Hsu in the quoted commentary Kotaku just posted.

(2) There's no problem with different letters encompassing different ranges of numerical values. Just like in school, while there may be a perceptible difference between a 55% and a 15%, both scores suck. Since the reviewers' main purpose is to recommend games, they don't need to stress with accurately gaging how much something isn't worth your time. Simply determining that it isn't worth your time is good enough. Let the WORDING guide you to how genuinely terrible the game seems to be.

(3) There's no need to "convert" these scores to a more common numerical equivalent, unless you're a meta-review site tasked with gathering cold, statistical numbers. In actuality, you'd be converting from the new 1up scheme to a more common numerical scheme, then BACK to the pivotally-important PERSONAL PERCEPTION that you infer from the score. This can be done, more intuitively, by a straight conversion from 1up to PERSONAL PERCEPTION.

(4) These scores have always been and will always be relative. They may be objectively-focused (read: fair), but it still comes down to opinion. Sheer, precise numerical rating systems seem to marginalize the inherent subjectivity behind the reviews. I've always considered this a bad thing, and I'm glad to see that big game publications have come to the same conclusion.

FraGNeM

dragon

The only thing that will stop that is the contradictory nature of the reader being confused by the "crystal clear to everyone" system that they refuse to explain and no one seems to be sure how it will work yet. In that way it has already failed. Either the new system will work because it has confused everyone and they can't get their bearings on what a "good" score is anymore (great! Why have reviews?) Or they will figure out the system, and continue to regard the scores however they choose like they were doing already - they'll just have to convert 1UP's scores as if they were using imperial measurements while everyone else is metric.

fuchikoma

Now it's a vague system. I presume there is no "F" and "C is average - about 5" so then 1-4 is all D? So each letter could cover a different equivalent range of scores, representing a smaller range the better the score? And it also makes them sound more self-important like they are the final judge of whether a game passes or fails instead of simply offering an opinion on it - which was ironically all they were doing when people complained that numbers were to concrete... I guess for people to take it in perspective? The only problem I saw with numbers is that people couldn't get over them.

It's like the shift from CPUs being referred to by clock speed to being called by clock speed-sounding model numbers, except there is no technical reason for it this time.

fuchikoma

What doesn't help is a site like 1up tauting their false evolution of game reviewing.

Stapling antlers to a mouse doesn't turn it into a reindeer. Putting a human mask on a monkey doesn't make it learn speech.

And changing your 1-10 number rating system to a 13-grade letter system, and pretending it's a revolution, just makes the other guys look like geneticists.

justhesh

Personally I think this will help to get people to try something different. Some of the better games I've played have had "bad" review scores, yet are very fun. Kudos to 1UP for this.

crashlanding

Irenicus-the one and only

I wonder how they will grade Metal Gear Solid D+, though. Their re-evaluation of Final Fantasy B- will be interesting as well.

Protector one

The system is still running on the same base, just in a hidden way, so I would wonder how exactly this changes things beyond people very soon bitching over C's and D's and such.

I guess the point remains that most people don't want to buy Average games, and whether that average is represented by a 7 a 5, a C or a Salami, that will stand.

Would a Kane & Lynch by any other letter smell as sweet?

Seiryuu

To call anyone's mind feeble is always a mistake, especially when you miss their point.

Calling a 5 out 10 a "C", is intentionally deceptive, because by U.S. grading systems (Elementary, High School), a "C" is typically in the 70% percent range. EGM is a U.S. mag too, so one can only assume their standard is similar to the U.S. system.

It's something we grew up with and practically hard-wired into our brains. Get a 75% on a test, it's a "C". Get a 50% on test = "F".

With EGM vowing to omit a conversion table, it becomes even more obscured. Your only reference is that which you know/grew up with. Tell me you got a "C" on your paper, what am I gonna think? Tell me a game got a "C", with nothing else to reference, what am I gonna think?

Basically a ton of games that fall in the 60 or 65-79% range could come up "B's" if "C" = 50%. To me, and many of my other fellow citizens a "B" was never less than 80%. What could make publishers more happy, and what could confuse readers more?

VicViper

That's exactly the point. They didn't actually switch anything. It's the same shit, different name. Only now, they're trying to force it to be vague. And if you don't already know how a letter grading system works, then it's even more vague.

We already know they're trying to seem like the cool-kid "fuck the system" website. But we also know that the change is completely fake. I've said it before; they're the Nacho Cheesier of game review sites. It's all a lie.

justhesh

There are so much Countries in the World where school-grading-system are using NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!

A - F? WTF?

z3ntn3l

That's a really good analogy about the Microsoft points, and exactly what I think they're trying to accomplish, which is to deceive instead of objectify.

VicViper

If you could wrap your feeble mind around this concept, then the game publishers never become angry with EGM in the first place....and they never have to change it. GET IT!

And to the guy who said "I'll never trust reviews as long as I see game ads"....wtf! Who do you think wants to advertise on video game sites....yeah, you guessed it....video game publishers. I'm sure every video game site and magazine would love to keep these ads out....but they have bills to pay idiot. When you get out of your mom's basement, you might one day understand this.

ToshiroTakashi

Here here, award for best comment.

Hatchetforce

The real deal is that anything below a 49% is an automatic fail and I would like to see games rated that way.

Seems like EGM is taking a lesson out of the Microsoft handbook. Perhapses they see some benefit to the abstraction of the actual number, kind of like Microsoft and their Marketplace Points.

Alski

reminds me of that article I read about hired forum trolls, who are paid to comment in a positive manner concerning a recent announcement or even in game review comment sections:

tip of the iceberg: [forumposters.org]

expansionsss

VicViper

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.

expansionsss

Wow, that is one generous grading system you have.

VicViper

4dSwissCheese

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.

Jaysius

Hazaa54

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.

Alski

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.

Tramz

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+"?

VicViper

Atilla_the_Nun

ExtremeOne316

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.

skullivan

clinsyriks

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.

Razorwind

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

Flawless101

GimmeCat

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.

The Amazing Exploding-Man

rhugghed

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.

Hatchetforce

zanzibarlegend

Fonzy

Deadly, Cool, Brutal, Awesome, Smokin

cactaur

Spoiler Duck

HJungle

@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.

Spoiler Duck

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.

AvidAbey

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.

rawg

GMC

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.

jayntampa

ortegar

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

Spoiler Duck

emag

My goodness!

EnigmaNemesis

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?

Sparx

crazyscreenwriter

GMC

Caduceus

SAKY

SAKY

baked ham

baked ham

HurricaneDave

emag

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

rezlow

Garo

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

Sparx

I'd rather have no score at all.

JudgeNutmeg

Islandkiwi

sadkermit - soon to be banned for standing up to the ummm nazi.

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.... =/

P-Sheddy

MSG 4 CONFIRMED FOR 360

Miksho

SnakeCL

WhaleMenace

Captain Impulse

No joke.

Captain Impulse

I kid, I kid...

Saxboy