How do you guys percieve game ratings? For me, it's pic related...

How do you guys percieve game ratings? For me, it's pic related. I hardly ever give a game a 10/10 since it is reserved for very special games.Meanwhile, a 5/10 for me is a good game while a 2/10 is a game movie. 1/10 and 0/10 are for truly awful games. How about you guys, how do you rate games?

Attached: ratings.jpg (824x703, 58.29K)

was talking to some coworkers a couple weeks back about how everyone naturally skews ratings upwards but they were having none of it. I do wish people were able to more objectively rate games though. Ever since I was young I had this idea of making an intensive rating scale for every aspect of a game and weighting it so that I could create a valid and objective metric to rate games with. Obviously impossible, but oh well.

This started in the early 2000s.

Back in my boomer days journos used to rate on a normal scale like on the left. Then game journalism switched from consumer subscription magazines to website advertisement. Game is absolute dogshit? Better give it a 7 so they'll still advertise with us in the future.

Because a lot of people convert numbers to grades. So 5 = F.

It doesn't matter. You're too stupid to take context into account when viewing a score.

lmao bro the internet changed nothing. Video game journalism has always been just advertising.

For me, I don't pay attention to reviews at all. Why listen to the opinion of a retard who can't even get a real job?

The problem with the "correct" scale is that anything below the 99th percentile of games is genuine dogshit given just how many fucking games there are. The "incorrect" scale is better since it is based on mostly objective qualities that, if present, will meet a minimum rating. If someone uses the "correct" scale and tells me a game is a 9/10 I'm not even going to bother because they either don't play very many games and thus their opinion doesn't matter, or they are admitting the game is shit and thus shouldn't be played.

There's really no need for anything more than a 1-5 scale.

When I read reviews, I interpret 10/10 as mediocre and anything below as complete garbage.
When I give ratings, I use a 0-5 scale instead, because 0-10 is fucking worthless.

I don't pay attention to reviews anymore
none of them share my opinions and even worse they set me up for opinions before I start a game

I never look at reviews on a number scale

Its dumb

There are only 3 real options for games you are interested in

1. Buy at release
2. Buy on sale at 50% or more off
3. Skip it, its garbage

Number scales are a meme

There are so many things that aren't looked at in a 1-10 scale

Music
Voice Acting
Environments
Animation etc etc

smart. but Yas Forums does the exact same to you

Traditionally 6 is the threshold of "mediocre"
Anything below 6 usually means "the game doesn't work as intended or advertised"

Everybody uses the scale on the right because who really wants to waste their time with a below-average game? At least a '5/10' movie might be worth putting on in the background while you use your phone or something. But a 5/10 game requires your full attention, possibly for hours, days, weeks, months. Most people just can't be bothered. If something's worth spending those days-months-years on, then it gets a 7-10/10 to signal to people that it's not like most games (boring trash).

Average is not acceptable, you need to be noticeably above average to be noticed. Sorry incels

that's fair but so far it hasn't stopped me from trying a game out if it's relatively cheap

this
no normal person uses a number scale when they talk about a game's quality.
It's either
>I recommend it
>I recommend it if it's on sale or if you have friends to play it with
>I recommend it if you're willing to look past certain flaws
>It's terrible, don't play it unless x, y, z.

Not true, there of plenty of 4/10 and 5/10 games that are super popular. For example, League of Legends, CSGO, DOTA2, etc

x>7 isn't a complete waste of time.
>8.5 is good

I guess there's no accounting for mongoloids on the scale

Here's the thing. There's so many new games nowadays, and so little time, that anything below 7-8 isn't even worth looking at.

Attached: raiting.png (217x588, 24.67K)

The reason why scores are inflated because reviews are "bought". While probably no actual money being handed under the table, it's obvious that there is pressure from publishers to reviewers in order to keep the news cycle going.

Give a game bad score? Oh sorry, you are not invited to this preview for our next big game. Guess you won't have an article quick enough! Also, we won't have our big, juicy ad money!

This has forced review sites to inflate scores. The average gamer will fall for the 7, buy the game, be disappointed, and think that only games rated 8 and higher are worth your time. Even an 8 does not mean anything anymore. It's a 9 or nothing.

Moral of the story: Read the actual reviews, don't just look at the number. It's just used for shitposting and the lively hood of developers for bonuses.

Attached: Part of this balanced breakfast.gif (320x362, 1.99M)

>anything other then 10/10 is a failure
fuck modern corporate culture

Well Ive played games that got a 6 that I enjoyed way more than games that got an 8

Also dont trust IGN

Numbers are for plebs who can’t think for themselves.
A comparative system is best. Ratings should amount to taking two games and asking the question of “which game gets you more entertainment for your buck?”
Compared games should be releases at the time, in the same genre, by the same dev, etc.

The right one is correct because no retard is going to subject himself to playing a 5/10 or lower game.

>1 star - shit
>2 stars - for fans of the genre
>3 stars - should play regardless of preference

Number ratings are dumb.They're often exaggerated (like 10/10 perfect or 0/10 horrible) and rarely under a 6 unless exaggerated. What's the point of a number score if most reviewers are only using 4 of the highest scores or exaggerating the score? And that's besides the fact that number ratings don't tell you anything substantial about the game other than whether the reviewer liked it or not.

READ THE REVIEWS. IGNORE BIG NUMBER.

Attached: 1571937947529.jpg (552x472, 52.39K)

that's not how distribution works...

I perceive it like the left, BUT, there's so many games of 7/10 and above that there's no reason to play anything below a 7 so it just ends up being the right anyway.

the raw numbers of game ratings are useless
everyone keep acting like they're the most important thing but I'd rather just read an actual review even if it's extremely biased because at least I'll know why they're biased

I tend to hover around 5-9 ratings just because I haven't come across that many genuinely bad games.
9-8 are for the really good shit
7-6 are for good games with varying degrees of lacking something
5 is for games I disliked but still did one or two things alright and doesn't have major technical issues
4 and below is pretty much only reserved for disasters like Fallout 76

5 - ok
6 - fun
7 - really worth your time
8 - memorable
9 - standout quality
10 - Add up 6, 7, 8 and 9

I rate games in hours of fun they gave me.
All games that exceed 100h are excelent.
below it gets increasingly worse.
Like only 20h would be some shitstain of a game.

The right is how we are rated in school and how we rate video games. This is just the unfairness of life. If you aren't at least an 8, you are useless.