Best rating scale for evaluating games?

[velcrozombie1]

I thought about this when criticizing Metacritic and their overly-nuanced 100 point scale in another post earlier in the day - if you're going to write reviews of games and you choose to include a rating scale (which I'm not sure is totally necessary, although it certainly is if you have any plans of keeping an archive), what type of scale would you choose to use?

I used to like the ten-point scale with half points that Game Informer uses (and it's certainly preferable to the 100 point scale), but grade inflation has become so extensive that many sites that use either this or even the straight ten-point scale very rarely go below a six or seven anyway. Besides, a ten-point scale has no middle - and thus no definitive average grade. A three-point scale has a definitive beginning, middle and end (like, average or mixed, don't like) but it's a little too simplistic. A five-point scale seems to work a lot better; you still have a definitive beginning, middle and end and the scale is still much harder to abuse than a ten-point scale, but you also have more nuance to your ratings by introducing varying levels of like and dislike (the Critic uses a modified version of a five-point scale). A seven-point scale could also work, but anything beyond that would become too complex to be useful.

To a point I like the review style that uses a phyiscal suggestion in lieu of numbers or letters ("Buy It", "Rent It", "Avoid It" and so on), but with the flexible prices of video games taken into account these ratings may not always be valid; something I would rent at a $60 price point often becomes a buy at $20, for example.

[Vexer1]

The 10 point scale I feel works the best, though when I review something(I have an account on IMDB and have reviewed a few films on there), be it a movie, game, album or TV show, I prefer not to use ratings at all and let the words speak for themselves.

[Gentlegamer1]

Letter grades like the Critic uses are the best, and should never be restated as numbers.

[Rev1]

I really like the out of 10 score but it is definitely inflated. 7 is often considered bad and anything below that is absolutely horrible. Even if another site uses 5 as the average, since no one else does it that way, you immediately see 6 and you're like, "next".

[HardcoreSadism1]

I like a simple Factor-5/5 type rating scale, GamePlay/Graphics/Audio/Controls/Replay Value.

0/5 Critically Poor
1/5 Poor
2/5 Below Average
3/5 Average
4/5 Enjoyable
5/5 Great

[Vexer1]

7 isn't usually considered bad, just average, 6 and below is generally considered bad.

[PinMike86661]

I'm partial to letter grading, with taking star grading in consideration.

My take on letter grading:

A-tier: Top-tier quality; excellent at the very least and a real standout of its kind (5/5 Stars).
B-tier: Strong quality; very capable, but not among the elite (4/5 Stars).
C-tier: Decent quality; good, but bordering on average-positively passable (3/5 Stars).
D-tier: Mediocre quality; negatively passable at best and borders on being bad (2/5 Stars).
F-tier: Bad quality; just plain bad and quite difficult to redeem any sense of value (1/5 Stars).
X-tier: Garbage quality; completely unplayable (0/5 Stars).

So there, simple but very explanatory, without the over complications of decimals in the 10 point system. I also accept splitting stars; even though I prefer not using that method, it's still simple enough to consider.

Here's my break down of each grade with star ratings, which I think Metacritic should adapt as their determination of letter grading is way off.

A+ = 5/5 Stars
A = 4.75/5 Stars
A- = 4.5/5 Stars
B+ = 4.25/5 Stars
B = 4/5 Stars
B- = 3.75/5 Stars
C+ = 3.5/5 Stars
C = 3-3.25/5 Stars (leaning more towards 3/5)
C- = 3/5 Stars or 2.75/5 (leaning more towards 3/5)
D+ = 2.5-2.75/5 Stars (leaning more towards 2.5/5)
D = 2-2.25/5 Stars (leaning more towards 2/5)
D- = 1.5-1.75/5 Stars (leaning more towards 1.5/5)
F = 1-1.25/5 Stars (leaning more towards 1/5)
F- (or X) = 0-0.75/5 Stars (anything below a 1/5 is what I consider to be unplayable)

Like I said, I prefer to be simple and not complicated, thus I prefer not using decimals, even if it's easier to use decimals in the 5 Star system. I also don't like giving anything a 10/10 or A+ as I feel those rankings give the impression as being the best of the best, which I absolutely don't believe in, thus my preferred 5/5 Star grade would peak at a pure A; however, I don't feel the same towards 0/10 or F- grade as I feel it's much easier to determine what's the worst of the worst than the mentioned opposite.

I feel the most baffling grading system is the 10/10 system using decimals as it's too over complicated, overthinking, and requires more explanation than it's worth.

[Sut1]

This reminded me, we used to have a multi-format magazine here in the UK called ACE and they scored games out of a 0 - 1000 scale ! It was ridiculous seeing a game score for example 645 how did they come to score ? Who knows ?

http://www.atarimania.com/atari-magazine-ace_62.html

Personally I like a simple 1-5 scoring system, you know 3 is average, 4 is good and 5 is awesome.
That's how I score on my video game collectors iphone app.

[scotland171]

Good topic, VelcroZombie.

Here are some thoughts off tbe top my head:

1 Every year rank the top 25 or 50 games, any criteria you wish. Anything else is just unranked. Not bad, just unranked.

2 Be like diving where there is a degree of difficulty multiplier that rewards risk. A really good but simple game would get a good initial score, but a low multiplier. Complexity, even if a bit rough, might have a higher overall score. (Diving also scores with a set of judges and tossing out highest and lowest)

3 Just released. Grade all games, not within a library as Dave does or with a distribution of grades in mind, but simply as if they game is about to be retailed for the first time. So a 1977 game like Combat would not be judged by later Activision or Imagic titles, let alone modern homebrews, but as if you were doing the review in a 1977 magazine.

4 Pros and Cons only, no score. What does the game do well, where does it disappoint. Who will like this game, and who won't. No game is perfect, and choices have to made that mean some things are weak, hopefully others are done well.

5 Comparitive. A new FPS shooter in town? How does it compare to others? What does it do better, worse, or not at all? If the current best in genre is defined to be a 50, what score does the new entrant get?

Any of those tickle your fancy?

[wgames771]

I personally think that what the Critic uses works really well, but then the ten point scales work okay too.