1-7: Unplayable garbage

>1-7: Unplayable garbage
>8: okay
>9: good
How do we unfuck the video games rating system? A 5 should be average, a 6 above average, a 7 good, etc. If not, just stick to a 5 star rating system if everything under a 7 is essentially seen the same

Attached: 1_TwO7t4hDhar_IdpJzsuQ7A.png (500x360, 9K)

it's just how it is. basically 1-3 would be enough if you need to have scoring system. bad, okay, good

Yea Forums's rating system throughout the years:

>old Yea Forums: its shit

>new Yea Forums: its SHIT

>nu-Yea Forums (aka /r/gaming) : ITS SHIT

I think OP pic is unironically the most comprehensive version of a rating system. Numbers don't say much and can be arbitrary

Having a neutral option is shit tier. With a five star rating, a 3 tells me nothing.

Out of four is the best convention.

it would work too. metascores and whatnot exists mostly to hype up games. it's for publicity. like wow this game has 1 score better than that other one. fucking wrecked dude your game is so bad because number says so

It might not be used this way, but I think the numbers being skewed higher makes sense, and would become the norm even with your system.
Consider how many games there are, and how little time people might have for them. Even if 5 is average, you would never want to play a 5/10 game if you could play and 8/10 or 9/10. the average person doesn't have that time to waste, they want what they assume to be the best

Here is an easy solution:

Unplayable garbage = Your opinion

good= My opinion

What if the numbers were uncapped

All games ever made should just be ranked absolutely. When a new game comes out it bumps all games worse than it down by a rank.

The ideal rating system goes from 1 - 6.
1 is hate
2 is dislike
3 is OK
4 is like
5 is love
6 is kino

It's not that the reviews are wrong for usually being higher than 7. Just that most big budgeted titles aren't such unplayable garbage that they can realistically score that low. People's standards just went up as games got more popular and less shitty making what would be considered a 9/10 20 years ago is now a 7/10.

I like that pic's rating system. No game ever leaves you in a neutral state, you either enjoy it or don't but to varying degrees. If you claim to neither enjoy nor dislike a game then that's the equivalent to an empty and unexciting experience, which falls into the meh category, which has negative implications. Or you either enjoy the game and it's a definitely pleasant experience, but nothing super memorable (good), or it's great and it has an impact on you (awesome), or it's rancid shit (yuck).

Clear, concise and precise.

>Just that most big budgeted titles aren't such unplayable garbage that they can realistically score that low.
user, AAA game reviews are not automatically a 7+ because the devs pay the websites to make their games look good.

>0: Unplayable
>1: Awful
>2: Terrible
>3: Bad
>4: Tolerable
>5: Average
>6: Enjoyable
>7: Good
>8: Great
>9: Excellent
>10: Almost Perfection

Read the reviews you fucking niggers
And don't trust sites who don't rate lower
Fucking idiots

Who even relies on reviews anymore anyway?

what I do is I just look at the square's color on metacritic. Green is good, period.

Why is awful worse than terrible? They actually have literally the same etymology (both derive from "frightful" or "terror inducing" but one's Latin and one's English).

maybe people needs to read? Let me give you an example, everyone says that Rise of the Tomb Raider is an 8/10, but then you play it and there are so many deal breakers or shit that you really like that can make the game a 6/10 for you or maybe a 9/10.

People need to read reviews maybe not all of them since most journalist are more concerned about memeing that actually playing the damn game. Rise of the TR is an ok game but writing is worst i have seen in a AAA, the game cannot run well with ultra textures even with a gtx 1660 unless you pui it in an SSD, Lara lacks a goal, the one is provided is not believable and shes overall a fail main character.

But then again her ass looks really nice (some people will buy a game just for this), graphics even in low, or medium are nice, gameplay is actually fun when exploring crypts, tombs and using the bow to kill people.

So after reading that you think thats an 8/10? Thats up to you, maybe you dont like an ass in your face all the time, you think bows are lame, and you were expecting an good story, so thats a 5/10 for you, maybe less.

Numbers are just very limited and people tend to use review's scores as a buy guide instead reading the damn review. You could also play the damn game for a couple hours on steam and ask for a refund, anything is better that believe in a meme number at the end of the page.

Because games are a huge time investment, everything below 7 is not worth your time, unless you're 14 and don't have a developed taste.

i feel like reading reviews. it's still someones personal opinion. but sure it gives a lot more insight than just looking at the score.

in that example people probably know what to expect anyway. more or less the same as the first reboot tomb raider game. and yea the writing and characters are really boring in those games. lara is the only one that somewhat stands out.
played shadow of the tomb raider some time ago. i didn't even remember that one guy who was lara's best friend or something. but yea he was there doing stuff i guess.

0-3 - meme numbers, no one reviews game this shit
4-5 - LEFT ALIVE and THE QUIET MAN tier. It works but people review it for clicks and memes.
6 - ok game that you would never play. ME: andromeda, etc
7 - quality threshold.
8-10 - games actually worth buying years later on sale.

Not even the biggest way the review format is fucked. It's how faggot journos always scramble to churn out reviews as early as possible for the extra clicks.

That's the only reason why it's a regular occurrence to see journos playing on easy, rushing through the game or NOT EVEN FINISHING it before reviewing. And in the end, all you get are hot, steaming heaps upon heaps of half-baked, surface level takes and opinions. Informing the readers is very clearly not the goal.

Attached: 5e7f0fa1f21dfefbaddce768eeaf69f.jpg (236x186, 8K)

By stop having the intelligence of a braindead five year old and not using numbers all together. Numeric Rating is literally worthless. You're supposed to read reviews not look at the number at the bottom.

it's not their fault that zoomers want reviews RIGHT NOW preferably even yesterday. If you don't rush your review no one is going to read it.