Do number ratings have any use in media? 10/10, 9/10, 5/10, etc...

Video games, television, movies, etc. usually have groups of people dedicated to reviewing them...whether it's movie critics, video game review sites, etc.

And almost all of them employ 5 or 10 point scale.

Except here's the problem...

In general...

• the quality of such media is often subjective, so reviews are useless unless you know what the reiewer likes/hates
• what happens if you give something a perfect rating, and then find yourself rating something even BETTER than the thing you gave a perfect score?
  • For example, imagine an unrealistic hypothetical example where you're a judge for some sort of....short movie competition. You see a movie you adore so much, you can't see ANY flaws, so you gave it a 10/10 because you honestly believe that's what it deserves. Later on, you see something even better...what then? Did the number rating method just screw you over?

And for Video Game exclusive problem...

• what's the point of a number rating when 5-7 means Shit even though that's supposed to be "average-above average", 8-9 means Okay even though it's supposed to be "Very Good" and...well, atleast the audience got the meaning behind 10 points right*
  ^{Excellent, or perfect}
  .

So yeah...is there any point in reviewers of any media, games or movies, to review things with a number ratings? Do they have any purpose beyond a teacher grading exams*

? It feels like the reviewers of entertainment media are shooting themselves in the foot when they review things with "stars" or "X/10" for the reasons I mentioned.

edited 3rd Jul '11 5:37:01 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

people complain when they're not there, unfortunately. I preferred Ebert's really simple thumbs up or down system, that should be co-opted for everything.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Number ratings have no real inherent meaning, as there's way too much subjectivity. It just gives people something to hang their hat on, but I feel it is more distracting than useful.

They'd say it's not a competition, or possibly that there's some evolution to the scales, much like Trek's Warp Factor.

edited 3rd Jul '11 5:51:07 PM by blueharp

But almost every reviewer of every entertainment medium use them.

What happens if they find something even better than something else they previously gave 10/10 for?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Then they still given it a 10, unless they make the scale go Up To Eleven.

People like decimal systems.

INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.

This is actually why I generally avoid number ratings when I write reviews for my college newspaper: without a clear baseline, the numbers are highly susceptible to subjectivity. For one person, "pretty good but with noticeable flaws" might be a 7; for another, an 8.5. I use letter grades instead; people generally understand that A means "little to no flaws," B means "overall good but has a couple issues" et cetera.

I actually am given to understand this is the exact same reason EGM switched from number to letter grades.

So what about the video game exclusive problem?

Where average is unplayable, very good is just okay, and the only mark that's consistent with reviewers and audience is 10, which is perfectly flawless...which...as far as I'm concerned...doesn't exist.

edited 3rd Jul '11 6:35:51 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

The video game problem is a result of the fact that the same people who deliver the titles for reviewing, as well as pay for the review websites via advertising, are the people whose games are being reviewed. Game review sites have to strike a careful balance between saying what they mean about games, and irritating the very people who pay them. There are plenty of examples of this problem- developers withdrawing advertisements because of a bad review, reviewers getting fired, etc., etc. Here's a few examples.

I for one think the number system works fine, provided one of two things- it actually employs the full scale (5 is actually an average game, 7 is good, 10 is put it in a museum console), and the score is read after the actual review proper.

Game Critics is probably one of the best sites for straight up reviews, although they are often running behind because of their stringent requirements for posting reviews. Games are usually out for a month or more before they post something.

On the other hand, by then the prices have gone down.

edited 3rd Jul '11 7:07:15 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Numerical ratings are for the unwashed and illiterate masses who are unable to draw their own conclusions from a few paragraphs.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

Sometimes people define 10 as "as great as we can imagine it being," instead of perfect.

I don't really like the 10-point system. It gives bias to the upper half. Basically, anything below a 6/10 is automatically bad, and even 7 is mere average. This comes from having the denominator too big, and basing it on the grade point system.

I prefer using a 5-point system because people are more likely to use it fairly. People are so used to the decimal system that they take it for granted, and that may be why, as OP said, they shout "10/10!" to whatever they like. It's because they heard it so much. A 5-point system might cause them to put some thought in their decisions.

This is evident in sites like IGN. Some sites even have the nerve to say "8 is still solid good, 7 has some obvious issues that may make you reconsider" (I think it was an old version of the IGN ratings page). That kind of comment is for the midpoint, not a "C-grade" 7/10. What's the point of having 4 or 5 scales for how bad it can be? The message at the end of the day is "Don't buy it" so it's pointless.

edited 3rd Jul '11 8:19:32 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

As I said, the reason for the broken "6-10" grading system is obvious- the same companies that make the games being reviewed are the ones that fund the game reviewers through advertisements.

I sort of agree with Kitsune as well- really, without reading the entire review, the number is meaningless. And if you do, it doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose.

Except for maybe using Metacritic as a shorthand for which games you want to research further. *

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I do. Hell, I walked out with a PS 3 and three games when all I meant to do was look around.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

But...are you rich? How do you have that kind of disposable income? The mind, it boggles.

I got burned one too many times on games I assumed would be good (especially sequels of games I absolutely loved), and then ended up being disappointed in, I honestly can't imagine buying a game without reading up on it pretty extensively.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

No, I simply had a lot of scholarships. In retrospect, I shouldn't have gotten it, considering I've only used it a handful of times. It's just that I can't pass up a deal on used games. Goddamn you, Gamestop.

edited 3rd Jul '11 9:13:24 PM by KitsuneInferno

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

I'm fond of the 5 star rating systems, as long as they properly calibrate it: 3 stars being the "okay" rating most stuff deserves, going up to 5 stars for the superb and 1 star for the dreck. 10 points is too fine a scale - it gets too fiddly determining what differentiates a 6 from a 7 and so on (this includes half stars in a star system; it's the same thing).

And don't get me started on the video game reviewers who think they can rate things in percentage points. The inevitable grade inflation means they always end up awarding signifcantly flawed games scores like 94%. And they still get flamed by die-hard fans who think it deserves 98%+. So stupid.

But even in 5 point scales, what if you found something even BETTER than a game or movie your previously gave 5/5?...and imagine giving these points is your job for some reason. And imagine you can't give a cop-out "everybody wins!" scenario.

edited 3rd Jul '11 9:36:58 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Then it gets a five out of five. That's the maximum possible.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

That is the cause of the 7-10 scale we have now, someone gave some generic crud a 4, then the next one was a tiny bit better so it needed to be a higher number, that has gone on long enough that just booting on a console gets a 6.5.

...

Really, for the third time, the current scale is a result of the fact that game publishers fund review sites through paying for advertisements. That's really all there is to it.

They can't review too low because the people who make the games are paying for their sites.

@Kitsune: Gamestop? Really? I hate that place with a passion, they're always trying to get you to preorder, and not a dime goes to the developers. And they...have some practices that are just kinda scummy.

Plus I don't have a 360/PS 3, so they never have anything I want in the store anyways. At least not something I can't get cheaper on steam, with more money sent to the developers.

edited 3rd Jul '11 10:49:47 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I think five point scales end up working pretty well. One means "stay away, there's nothing positive about this", two is "well, there are redeeming parts" three is "some pretty major reservations here" four is "got some reservations, but it's pretty awesome" and five is "super cool stuff here." I think that's pretty much culturally agreed upon, as long as you don't let people do decimal ratings.

It's a half mile down the street and while I don't like the fact that Gamestop is the sole beneficiary of their used game model, Stuntman: Ignition for six fucking dollars! If I want a new game, I'll just download it off of the Marketplace.

Anyway, I'm strongly against any kind of rating. Like Yahtzee, I don't think opinions can be quantified on a numerative scale. It's so arbitary.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

Isn't Yahtzee just a very negative comedian? So any scores and critiques he gives can't be taken that seriously....

The movie equivalent would be.....Nostalgia Critic's reviews of movies. They might give useful critiques at times, but in general, they're going to Accentuate the Negative for comedic values.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

I didn't say he was a model critic. Just that I agree with him. If you aren't a good enough writer to articulate exactly what you think of the product you're reviewing, you're not a good critic. If people absolutely need a rating to tell them if something's worth their time, they need to remove themselves from the gene pool, the benighted fucks.

edited 3rd Jul '11 11:27:33 PM by KitsuneInferno

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

5 point scale is usable (1 is something you must not buy, 2 is something you shouldn't buy, 3 is buyable, 4 is something you should buy and 5 is buyable), though 10 points are pointless (what's the point of most of the numbers?).