A Nintendo community
for the fans, by the fans!
 Go to forum index
X-Play changes their rating system from a 5 point scale to a 10 point scale
News reported by 
January 18, 2012, 02:44:33

X-Play has just changed their 5 scale rating system to a 10 scale rating system. This means that a game can now score half a star. For example, a game can get 3.5 stars out of 5. What do you think of the new rating system?

URL to share this content (right click and copy link)
Posted: 01/18/12, 02:44:33    
Why not sign up for a (free) account and create your own content?
To me, the more ways there are to separate games, the better. I love 100 point scales. If they went to 400 point scale, I'd still approve.

EDIT- And might I add, that in the current "industry" with people/websites/pussies scaling back and shrinking the parameters for which a game can be scored (so they all blend together and everyone wins!..sparing the feelings of turds who fa-reak out over a bad review score), its refreshing to see them meet the issue head on and commit one way or another. Of course, that all goes out the window if they rate every game an 8.5 or 9.0.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:01:38  - Edited by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:09:15
Personally I prefer 5 star systems. But I don't care what X-play says about anything.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:10:18
I'm betting it's because of some of the backlash they took over scoring Uncharted 3 and Zelda 4/5, esp. when the Zelda reviewer said he wanted to go 4.5, but wasn't allowed because of their system.

People need to calm down about review scores.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:10:25
I like how Giant Bomb does it. 5 stars, no half-stars. Make a score and commit to it. They don't even like the scores, but you get less readers if you don't have one. They settled on that so there wouldn't be any lame fiddling trying to discern what the difference is between a 72 and a 73. Not only that, but the difference between a 72 and 73 SERVES NO PURPOSE AT ALL.

The idea of these scores is for players to get a quick at-a-glance feel for how the reviewer felt about the game. It's not an in-depth analysis, THAT'S WHAT THE FUCKING REVIEW IS FOR.

God I hate review scales with more points.

I still say I'd like to have my "recommendation scale" implemented, where a 5-star doesn't mean "best or perfect," but rather "I think this game is a must have for you."

If you want to know ABOUT the game, read the review.

If you want to very quickly know if the game is even worth considering, look at the score.

Ugh. I've hated internet bitching about review scores (Not this kind of bitching, you know, 7.9 stuff.) ever since I started. Immature childish bullshit.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:25:38  - Edited by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:25:49
I prefer and A to F system, but I guess five stars is basically the same thing. I agree about the score debate, it does not really matter in the grand scheme of things. That is why I no longer read reviews for the most part. Although I do think a review should be an in depth anaylisis, otherwise it would be a hands on impression.

Anyway I really do not care about X Play or G4 as a whole with its frequent re-runs of Cheaters. And this is supposed to be a tech channel, it doesn't seem to be too far removed from Spike.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 03:50:55
I think a 10 or 20 point scale is ideal. % are silly.

The written review should be the most important thing, not numbers for fanboys to argue over.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 05:11:08
Xbob42 said:
The idea of these scores is for players to get a quick at-a-glance feel for how the reviewer felt about the game.

I never really get that from 5 star ratings though, especially since there are only 3 options for games worth playing... 3, 4, or 5. That's not enough to tell me anything. You end up with a lot of games with wildly different quality levels getting the same scores.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 06:29:19
@Zero Yeah, you do, because they're a quick-glance reference. If a game is a 3, it's an okay game. If it's 4, it's a great title in that genre. If it's a 5, then it's a must-have for anyone interested. It's as quick as it gets.

When you ask for more, you're basically asking for the review to be condensed into a score. The whole reason Giant Bomb went to 5 stars is to get further away from that. They don't think a score serves a particularly meaningful purpose other than an at-a-glance idea of how good a game is.

They also don't like scoring systems because they make people think stupid things. Like a 4/5, they gave Fruit Ninja Kinect a 4/5 because it's a really fun game that works very well with the Kinect hardware that does everything it wants to do. It's a fantastic title. But they also gave Skyward Sword a 4/5, so people of course thought they were saying "OH SO FRUIT NINJA = SKYWARD SWORD." The response was simply "A 4/5 for Skyward Sword is very different from a 4/5 for Fruit Ninja. They're scores based on what the games are in their respective genres. We don't like scores because people get stupid ideas like this. Skyward Sword is a great Zelda game, and Fruit Ninja is a great game in its own genre. Those scores aren't meant to be cross-referenced across genres like that because that makes no sense at all."

That's more or less a summary of their sentiment, not an actual quote, but you get the idea.

Review scores are fucking worthless. In fact, with publishers relying on Metacritic for shit, it's actually hurting the industry.

If you want to argue that, take it up with this article, the follow-up and the finale. and this video contained in said article (give the article a read, seriously.):

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 06:55:49
But that's why it doesn't work for me as a quick glance. This is what I'm telling you. It doesn't give me any usable information. They can say that a 4 for this game isn't a 4 for that game, but that's my point. A 4 now has little meaning to me because it has to contain way too many different things.

I don't think review scores are worthless at all though. They actually help me a ton.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:06:22  - Edited by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:09:02

I dunno. I've come around to the 5 star scale. To me, it's a better system because it subverts the broken 7-10 scale, which essentially a 3 star scale, in practice.

To me, 5 stars work like this:

0 stars = Something that the world is actually worse off for having produced. (ie: That racist Stormwatch game)(I don't really count these as part of the rating system as they should be extremely rare)

1 stars = Something that is an absolute flop, but isn't actually bad for the health of society. (ie: NES Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

2 stars = Something that has some good points for genre fans, but generally is not recommended by the reviewer (ie: Williams Collection 3DS)

3 stars = A good, average game that might have some flaws, particularly for genre skeptics, but is generally recommended by the reviewer (ie: I'll say Warioware D.I.Y.)

4 stars = A very good game that is highly recommended to everyone, though not necessarily an obvious Hall of Fame choice (ie: Maybe something like Bionic Commando, though YMMV)

5 stars = A game that belongs in the Video Game Hall of Fame (ie: Super Mario Bros. 3)

To me, that's all I need to know from a reviewer as far as a rating scale goes. Did they love it, like it or not? That's what I need to know at a glance. I don't want them to give me some pseudoscientific rating of the "quality" of the game, especially since that number will be compared with every other halfwit reviewer on the internet.

Roger Ebert has used a similar star system on his written reviews for years and no one's had a hard time figuring out what he thinks about the movies he reviews. Hell, on the TV show, he and Gene Siskel worked with just a simple up or down vote and no one complained.

As far as games of variable quality getting the same rating... who cares? It'd drive people to the text to see the justification of the rating, which should be the most important thing, anyway.

EDIT: You and I don't always agree, Xbob, but I think you're on the money right there. High five!

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:10:58  - Edited by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:12:40
@Zero See, but you're arguing semantics when semantics isn't the point. If a 4 for you doesn't help you understand why that game is a 4/5 in a Zelda game, how would that be any different than the game getting a 90 while Fruit Ninja Kinect also gets a 90? There's literally no difference. You only put more stock into the higher number scale because you believe it garners more merit, when I'd argue that only amateur publications use anything more than MAYBE a 10-point scale.

I encourage you to read those articles and watch that video for an alternate perspective!

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:12:03
@kriswright Movie reviews are definitely worthless to me. The difference is I only have to spend 2 hours on a weak movie.

@Xbob42 Well I don't think Zelda and Fruit Ninja would both get a 90 at any place with a 100 point scale, that's what I'm saying. Or they might, but then I at least know that someone feels similar about them, and that it's not a "low 4" versus a "high 4".

I've read lots of alternate perspectives at this point.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:23:39
Reaaaaad it all and watch the video! It's late, Zero, you have time!

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:28:01
Nah, on Skype.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:33:09
Quit getting naked for Guillaume!

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 07:37:41
Xbob42 said:
Quit getting naked for Guillaume!


--Xbob, go play Monster Hunter and join us!

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 08:56:03
Hey, since when did Metacritic overtake GameRankings as the go-to aggregate site?

I always get a little bitter when one site/company/whatever just does what another one did, and ended up becoming more popular. Wasn't GameRankings first? Why do people talk about Metacritic? WHY

(yes, I understand that they average site scores in a slightly different manner, but whatever)

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 09:09:43


I don't want him to stop.


Don't worry, both sites are owned by the same entity.

And Metacritic has had the upper hand for years now. I don't know why either.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 10:08:59
Probably because "Metacritic" sounds more... respectable, or something, I guess?

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 10:15:32
Xbob42 said:
Quit getting naked for Guillaume!

Post of the year.

Posted by 
 on: 01/18/12, 14:48:53
Browse    1  2