This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Why? That leaves even less room for distinction.
Because there it's difficult to capture that "distinction" when you are dealing with a 7 or an 8. It's completely abstract. Especially because hardly any reviewer uses the lower numbers let alone a dreaded "1."
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Why? That leaves even less room for distinction.
Because there it's difficult to capture that "distinction" when you are dealing with a 7 or an 8. It's completely abstract. Especially because hardly any reviewer uses the lower numbers let alone a dreaded "1."
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
Scores in general are always going to be a source of contention, though I do find it amusing when people disagree with a score for a game they've never played. Which happens a ton across the internet.
In a perfect world, scores wouldn't exist. If it weren't for the SEO/Metacritic value, I likely would have done away with scores the last few years. It's the worst part of a review on a reviewer's side of things. How do you take these 4000 words and distill them down to a numerical value? In reality, a score leaves so much nuance out of the discussion, it actually does a disservice to the broader conversation around games.
This is why we changed up the descriptor on the scores themselves, from "good" "great" "masterpiece" to help out there. If as you describe it to a friend you would use "good," it's in the 7 range. Masterpiece (note, not perfect, just a masterpiece), it's a 10. Average? 5.
It's not an exact science, and every outlet does this differently. And that's part of the problem: there is no consistent scale across the industry. This is why we recommend reading our reviews - and everyone else's to get a broad opinion across the spectrum of reviews.
If all you care about is a score, then honestly the lack of consistency across outlets does you a disservice (not saying you, Sov, but a royal "you"). The content of the review is what matters. But oftentimes (and our data shows this) people just scroll down to the score, get mad and comment.
So yea, there is no perfect scoring system, and I actually find a 1-5 a bit more restrictive. I like that we use a 100-point scale here as it allows for some variations on the theme, and offers much more for our reviewers to work with.
I reckon that outside of the softballs thrown at franchises like FIFA/Madden, we're not actually dealing with review inflation. The non-MMO games are actually getting better and better, and it's hard to balance rating based on the "average" now, vs. reflecting improvements in quality.
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Why? That leaves even less room for distinction.
Because there it's difficult to capture that "distinction" when you are dealing with a 7 or an 8. It's completely abstract. Especially because hardly any reviewer uses the lower numbers let alone a dreaded "1."
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
It's just a matter of scale. A 4/5 and an 8/10 are equivalent in each scale. Many 5 point scales allow users to post half degree increments. And even those who don't still aggregate the total results with fractions. Look at a game with a 5 point "star" scale and the overall result will be something like 3.5 stars (7/10).
How is it any more difficult to capture a distinction on one scale than the other?
Steam takes it a level further and you can only up or down vote a title, which comes with its own set of misleading baggage.
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Why? That leaves even less room for distinction.
Because there it's difficult to capture that "distinction" when you are dealing with a 7 or an 8. It's completely abstract. Especially because hardly any reviewer uses the lower numbers let alone a dreaded "1."
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
1 - Not Worth Anyone Money 2 - Someone May like this bad game 3 - Fans of "insert here" may enjoy it - still bad 4 - Bad game but has some things that were good 5 - Average game - look into it before you buy it 6 - Game sines in some areas but still needs work 7 - Good game but look before you buy 8 - Great Game - one or two things we would like to see improved 9 - They almost got it perfect 10 - Cream of the crop. You just cant do better
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Why? That leaves even less room for distinction.
Because there it's difficult to capture that "distinction" when you are dealing with a 7 or an 8. It's completely abstract. Especially because hardly any reviewer uses the lower numbers let alone a dreaded "1."
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
1 - Not Worth Anyone Money 2 - Someone May like this bad game 3 - Fans of "insert here" may enjoy it - still bad 4 - Bad game but has some things that were good 5 - Average game - look into it before you buy it 6 - Game sines in some areas but still needs work 7 - Good game but look before you buy 8 - Great Game - one or two things we would like to see improved 9 - They almost got it perfect 10 - Cream of the crop. You just cant do better
See thats almost not complicated
Crap I forgot about the 0.5 can someone help with that?
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Why? That leaves even less room for distinction.
Because there it's difficult to capture that "distinction" when you are dealing with a 7 or an 8. It's completely abstract. Especially because hardly any reviewer uses the lower numbers let alone a dreaded "1."
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
It's just a matter of scale. A 4/5 and an 8/10 are equivalent in each scale. Many 5 point scales allow users to post half degree increments. And even those who don't still aggregate the total results with fractions. Look at a game with a 5 point "star" scale and the overall result will be something like 3.5 stars (7/10).
How is it any more difficult to capture a distinction on one scale than the other?
Steam takes it a level further and you can only up or down vote a title, which comes with its own set of misleading baggage.
Like I said, if you have a 4 or a 3 what is that? One's "bad" but one's MOAR bad!!!!
How is it more bad?
I would bet dollars to donuts that if a player saw a 5 they would just say "bad" and skip it. So do we need the rest?
* is good but so is 9. So why a 9 over an 8.. ARe there 5 things better in a 9 than an 8?
All a score needs is a quick "Excellent/Very Good/Good/Fair/Bad."
Honestly I'd leave at the ".5's"
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Nanfoodle said: Crap I forgot about the 0.5 can someone help with that?
-- 0.5: Not worth stolen money 1 -Not Worth Anyone Money -- 1.5: Sure, if it is thrown into a bundle or game pass. 2 - Someone May like this bad game -- 2.5: Fanbase will be crytobros, exploiters, and other lame people. 3 - Fans of "insert here" may enjoy it - still bad -- 3.5: If you have a friend who is a fanboi of the game, endure this for his birthday. 4 - Bad game but has some things that were good -- 4.5: Bad game but has at least 2 systems that were good. 5 - Average game - look into it before you buy it -- 5.5: Get a friend to try it first. 6 - Game sines in some areas but still needs work -- 6.5: Wait for the first patch. 7 - Good game but look before you buy -- 7.5: Wait for the Steam sale. 8 - Great Game - one or two things we would like to see improved -- 8.5: Recommend if you can get a friend to join you. 9 - They almost got it perfect -- 9.5: My name was already taken. 10 - Cream of the crop. You just cant do better -- 10.5: No time to post, buh bye.
So yea, there is no perfect scoring system, and I actually find a 1-5 a bit more restrictive. I like that we use a 100-point scale here as it allows for some variations on the theme, and offers much more for our reviewers to work with.
Thanks for the clarification and the rating explanations are a help. I still think the more restrictive 5 point system along with a review is better ...
example from your rating system:
2 - Shoddy. This is one of the worst games you can play. This is a game that isn't fun, and might be downright insulting to the player's time.
1 - Broken. This is a game that just does not work on any level - artistically or technically. This is legit the worst game you could ever play.
This just seems a different way of saying "bad" and could very well be included in the written part of a review.
Not suggesting you change anything but I think it supports my point. Different adjectives to say "bad."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So yea, there is no perfect scoring system, and I actually find a 1-5 a bit more restrictive. I like that we use a 100-point scale here as it allows for some variations on the theme, and offers much more for our reviewers to work with.
Thanks for the clarification and the rating explanations are a help. I still think the more restrictive 5 point system along with a review is better ...
example from your rating system:
2 - Shoddy. This is one of the worst games you can play. This is a game that isn't fun, and might be downright insulting to the player's time.
1 - Broken. This is a game that just does not work on any level - artistically or technically. This is legit the worst game you could ever play.
This just seems a different way of saying "bad" and could very well be included in the written part of a review.
Not suggesting you change anything but I think it supports my point. Different adjectives to say "bad."
I would do 1-6 to be honest
6 Masterwork (handed out very rarely) 5 Excellent 4 Very good 3 Good 2 Fair 1 Bad
So yea, there is no perfect scoring system, and I actually find a 1-5 a bit more restrictive. I like that we use a 100-point scale here as it allows for some variations on the theme, and offers much more for our reviewers to work with.
Thanks for the clarification and the rating explanations are a help. I still think the more restrictive 5 point system along with a review is better ...
example from your rating system:
2 - Shoddy. This is one of the worst games you can play. This is a game that isn't fun, and might be downright insulting to the player's time.
1 - Broken. This is a game that just does not work on any level - artistically or technically. This is legit the worst game you could ever play.
This just seems a different way of saying "bad" and could very well be included in the written part of a review.
Not suggesting you change anything but I think it supports my point. Different adjectives to say "bad."
I would do 1-6 to be honest
6 Masterwork (handed out very rarely) 5 Excellent 4 Very good 3 Good 2 Fair 1 Bad
That works.
i just think that each number should encapsulate a very specific idea like "good" or "fair" or "bad" and not just be a number on some sliding scale that has very little meaning at first glance.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
what would really work if people would simply respect others opinion. Disagree, and move on. It's a videogame for crying out loud. They didn't perma ban you from playing something else.
That means the game is either "perfect" (if you are rating games against an objective criteria) or the game is "the best JRPG available to play right now" (if comparing the game to others in it's genre).
Neither seems likely.
Sadly, this review, plus the others I've read of this game, have convinced me not to buy it. I think it's time for me to admit that the Final Fantasy series just isn't for me. I loved 7 and consider it one of the best games ever made. I loved 9, it's not far behind 7. But since then it seems to have been a steady decline in gameplay, with an ever increasing focus on story and graphics.
What I'd love to know from those playing 16 is what is the ratio of gameplay to passive entertainment. FF10, for example, was about 50% gameplay, 50% passive observation of cutscenes, conversations etc. FF13 was about the same. FF12 was a bit better, maybe 70:30 in favour of gameplay.....but it also had auto-combat, undermining it.
The older games had much better ratios, with FF7 being something like 95% gameplay, and only 5% cutscenes / story.
I simply cannot stand interactive movies, which is what modern Final Fantasies (and RPGs in general) seem to be.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
That means the game is either "perfect" (if you are rating games against an objective criteria) or the game is "the best JRPG available to play right now" (if comparing the game to others in it's genre).
Neither seems likely.
Sadly, this review, plus the others I've read of this game, have convinced me not to buy it. I think it's time for me to admit that the Final Fantasy series just isn't for me. I loved 7 and consider it one of the best games ever made. I loved 9, it's not far behind 7. But since then it seems to have been a steady decline in gameplay, with an ever increasing focus on story and graphics.
What I'd love to know from those playing 16 is what is the ratio of gameplay to passive entertainment. FF10, for example, was about 50% gameplay, 50% passive observation of cutscenes, conversations etc. FF13 was about the same. FF12 was a bit better, maybe 70:30 in favour of gameplay.....but it also had auto-combat, undermining it.
The older games had much better ratios, with FF7 being something like 95% gameplay, and only 5% cutscenes / story.
I simply cannot stand interactive movies, which is what modern Final Fantasies (and RPGs in general) seem to be.
I have watched a number or reviews and the little gameplay we have so far. This is the first FF game I want to play in a long time. I find the new direction refreshing. I love that its English voice acting is quality. I am looking forward to when PC or Xbox gets this in the next 1-3 years.
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Take the score, divide by 2, and voila, you've got your 1-5 scale. Either way, it looks like FFXVI is a masterpiece.
This is because gaming media has hyped the scores squeezing them into the 7 to 10 area. There is not much space there to differentiate between games so a 0.5 is a big deal.
Games should be scored on a 1 - 5.
Take the score, divide by 2, and voila, you've got your 1-5 scale. Either way, it looks like FFXVI is a masterpiece.
Most reviews talk about how the combat is lacking. Its fun combat but just not even close to some top notch action combat we have seen in many games over the past few years. Its a solid game, maybe a 8 or a 9 but that would be at best. My guess it looks like a solid 8. Under Sovrath scale a 4 for very good.
How can a game with Chocobos get a 10? Get rid of those bipedal monstrosities!
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
How can a game with Chocobos get a 10? Get rid of those bipedal monstrosities!
I do hear they taste like Chicken =-) So may I suggest we move to have FF games have a Fried Chocobos Fridays going forward. Help the fish population bolster and clean up this real problem.
I honestly feel that 2023 will go down as one of the better years in modern gaming history. Not only that but I honestly feel that we are entering a golden era for gaming.
The year that made my back catalog blow up. I have to admit the game I waiting for this year now is Starfield. The amount of content they bragging about and the first story DLC is in the works. May take a few months to get everything done. By then I will have at least 4-5 games released I want to get at.
I honestly feel that 2023 will go down as one of the better years in modern gaming history. Not only that but I honestly feel that we are entering a golden era for gaming.
I think we've been in a golden era for gaming since 2017. The only truly mediocre year since has been 2021.
I honestly feel that 2023 will go down as one of the better years in modern gaming history. Not only that but I honestly feel that we are entering a golden era for gaming.
Your optimism is exceeding even my expectations of you.
Comments
Is a 4 horrible but a 3 more horrible? How so? what is the metric they are using. If someone says a game is a 4 it might as well be a 1.
If one wants to add some more flavor they could use .5.
5 is a masterwork or "excellent", 4 is a very good game, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is bad. Or something like that.
and you can color in between the numbers if you want to weight it toward the next number.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
In a perfect world, scores wouldn't exist. If it weren't for the SEO/Metacritic value, I likely would have done away with scores the last few years. It's the worst part of a review on a reviewer's side of things. How do you take these 4000 words and distill them down to a numerical value? In reality, a score leaves so much nuance out of the discussion, it actually does a disservice to the broader conversation around games.
This is why we changed up the descriptor on the scores themselves, from "good" "great" "masterpiece" to help out there. If as you describe it to a friend you would use "good," it's in the 7 range. Masterpiece (note, not perfect, just a masterpiece), it's a 10. Average? 5.
It's not an exact science, and every outlet does this differently. And that's part of the problem: there is no consistent scale across the industry. This is why we recommend reading our reviews - and everyone else's to get a broad opinion across the spectrum of reviews.
If all you care about is a score, then honestly the lack of consistency across outlets does you a disservice (not saying you, Sov, but a royal "you"). The content of the review is what matters. But oftentimes (and our data shows this) people just scroll down to the score, get mad and comment.
So yea, there is no perfect scoring system, and I actually find a 1-5 a bit more restrictive. I like that we use a 100-point scale here as it allows for some variations on the theme, and offers much more for our reviewers to work with.
2 - Someone May like this bad game
3 - Fans of "insert here" may enjoy it - still bad
4 - Bad game but has some things that were good
5 - Average game - look into it before you buy it
6 - Game sines in some areas but still needs work
7 - Good game but look before you buy
8 - Great Game - one or two things we would like to see improved
9 - They almost got it perfect
10 - Cream of the crop. You just cant do better
See thats almost not complicated
How is it more bad?
I would bet dollars to donuts that if a player saw a 5 they would just say "bad" and skip it. So do we need the rest?
* is good but so is 9. So why a 9 over an 8.. ARe there 5 things better in a 9 than an 8?
All a score needs is a quick "Excellent/Very Good/Good/Fair/Bad."
Honestly I'd leave at the ".5's"
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
-- 0.5: Not worth stolen money
1 -Not Worth Anyone Money
-- 1.5: Sure, if it is thrown into a bundle or game pass.
2 - Someone May like this bad game
-- 2.5: Fanbase will be crytobros, exploiters, and other lame people.
3 - Fans of "insert here" may enjoy it - still bad
-- 3.5: If you have a friend who is a fanboi of the game, endure this for his birthday.
4 - Bad game but has some things that were good
-- 4.5: Bad game but has at least 2 systems that were good.
5 - Average game - look into it before you buy it
-- 5.5: Get a friend to try it first.
6 - Game sines in some areas but still needs work
-- 6.5: Wait for the first patch.
7 - Good game but look before you buy
-- 7.5: Wait for the Steam sale.
8 - Great Game - one or two things we would like to see improved
-- 8.5: Recommend if you can get a friend to join you.
9 - They almost got it perfect
-- 9.5: My name was already taken.
10 - Cream of the crop. You just cant do better
-- 10.5: No time to post, buh bye.
example from your rating system:
2 - Shoddy. This is one of the worst games you can play. This is a game that isn't fun, and might be downright insulting to the player's time.
1 - Broken. This is a game that just does not work on any level - artistically or technically. This is legit the worst game you could ever play.
This just seems a different way of saying "bad" and could very well be included in the written part of a review.
Not suggesting you change anything but I think it supports my point. Different adjectives to say "bad."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
6 Masterwork (handed out very rarely)
5 Excellent
4 Very good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Bad
i just think that each number should encapsulate a very specific idea like "good" or "fair" or "bad" and not just be a number on some sliding scale that has very little meaning at first glance.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
LOOOOOL
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms
Take the score, divide by 2, and voila, you've got your 1-5 scale. Either way, it looks like FFXVI is a masterpiece.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다