Gamespot boycott

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: randay
this guy was known as a low scoring reviewer i believe

What does this mean exactly in today's terms? Is it just me or is it rare to find a game given a 5/10. There are plenty of crappy games out there but it seems like they always end up with 6 or 7 and to me anything above a 5/6 is considered above average.

The whole damn rating system needs to be looked at by almost everyone who reviews video games imho.

Think it of it terms of school grading rather than 5.0 being "average".

A 65 is barely passing, a 75 is merely satisfactory, an 85 is good, and 90+ is excellent. Anything below a 65 is a failure, with various gradations of crappiness.

Now add a decimal point. Most commercial games are indeed passable. A failure should really be left to those games that are borderline unplayable or just plain not fun.

But a 100 point scale is unnecessary and only serves to self-validate a reviewers own bullshit. Whats the difference between a 7.8, a 7.9 and a 8.0, really? Should it really be that impossible to achieve 100% as well?

A 10 or 20 (.5 increments) point system in the context of 65+ = passing is more than enough.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: randay
this guy was known as a low scoring reviewer i believe

What does this mean exactly in today's terms? Is it just me or is it rare to find a game given a 5/10. There are plenty of crappy games out there but it seems like they always end up with 6 or 7 and to me anything above a 5/6 is considered above average.

The whole damn rating system needs to be looked at by almost everyone who reviews video games imho.

Think it of it terms of school grading rather than 5.0 being "average".

A 65 is barely passing, a 75 is merely satisfactory, an 85 is good, and 90+ is excellent. Anything below a 65 is a failure, with various gradations of crappiness.

Now add a decimal point. Most commercial games are indeed passable. A failure should really be left to those games that are borderline unplayable or just plain not fun.

But a 100 point scale is unnecessary and only serves to self-validate a reviewers own bullshit. Whats the difference between a 7.8, a 7.9 and a 8.0, really? Should it really be that impossible to achieve 100% as well?

A 10 or 20 (.5 increments) point system in the context of 65+ = passing is more than enough.

its really a 7-10 scale. anything below a 7 is/can be considered a bad review. sometimes even 7s are considered bad.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: randay
this guy was known as a low scoring reviewer i believe

What does this mean exactly in today's terms? Is it just me or is it rare to find a game given a 5/10. There are plenty of crappy games out there but it seems like they always end up with 6 or 7 and to me anything above a 5/6 is considered above average.

The whole damn rating system needs to be looked at by almost everyone who reviews video games imho.

Think it of it terms of school grading rather than 5.0 being "average".

A 65 is barely passing, a 75 is merely satisfactory, an 85 is good, and 90+ is excellent. Anything below a 65 is a failure, with various gradations of crappiness.

Now add a decimal point. Most commercial games are indeed passable. A failure should really be left to those games that are borderline unplayable or just plain not fun.

But a 100 point scale is unnecessary and only serves to self-validate a reviewers own bullshit. Whats the difference between a 7.8, a 7.9 and a 8.0, really? Should it really be that impossible to achieve 100% as well?

A 10 or 20 (.5 increments) point system in the context of 65+ = passing is more than enough.

its really a 7-10 scale. anything below a 7 is/can be considered a bad review. sometimes even 7s are considered bad.

Yep, pretty much. But that doesnt make it broken. Its fairly consistent across the entire industry, as long as you can deal with the contradiction that most sites still list a 5.0 as "average" or "mediocre". They may indeed be so, but the point of a review is to determine whether or not a game is worth your money, and with so many great games out there, a mediocre game is quite simply not worth your money OR time, and therefore = fail.

Its not the numbers so much as the granularity of it that needs to be looked into. If anything, the numbers themselves really denigrate the review into little more than the score, hence the attitude of "reviews are trash" that has been expressed quite a few times in this thread.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares.
people get worked up over the smallest thing.
don't like gamespot ? read other reviews.
hell you should read more than one review in any case.
i for one will keep using GS simply becasue its the best orgranised site and their video reviews are awesome.

I think that, if it is true, it could have some effect on the video game media industry as a whole.

things like this probably happen all the time. this time it just got noticed (ie they timed it wrong) and it got noticed.
not saying its not wrong its just too small a deal to matter.