Concerning the upcoming 10 point scale for GameSpot reviews...

So I recently found out the .5 increment will be removed from review scores in the "new" GameSpot. This is fine I guess, I don't like it, but whatever they want to do right? Well, I'm just worried because I don't want this change to affect user scores and reviews. This may sound like a trivial thing to most users on this site, I don't know, but I joined mainly to rate and review games and have all of that organized in one place. I know users had to change their scores after this site went from a 100 point scale to a 20 point scale, which makes me almost certain we'll be forced to make make this change as well.

Again, this likely wouldn't be a big deal for most, but I'm genuinely concerned. People are concerned about unions, levels resetting, etc, here I am worried about not being able to use a 20 point scale to rate games. And speaking of user reviews, I imagine those won't be going anywhere, correct?

While I much prefer the 20 point scale and am not particularly enthusiastic about the upcoming 10 point system, I have mostly positive feelings towards this. Though I prefer assigning scores in .5 increments, I believe the new system may force myself (and others) to fully assess every aspect of a game and not "over-score" it in any way (not that I'm assuming people do that). I do think it would be much harder for games to score high on the scale now (even though that was the case anyway).Mikey2K10

[QUOTE="Mikey2K10"]While I much prefer the 20 point scale and am not particularly enthusiastic about the upcoming 10 point system, I have mostly positive feelings towards this. Though I prefer assigning scores in .5 increments, I believe the new system may force myself (and others) to fully assess every aspect of a game and not "over-score" it in any way (not that I'm assuming people do that). I do think it would be much harder for games to score high on the scale now (even though that was the case anyway).SoNin360

Yeah I understand that. The 7.5, 8.5, 9.5 etc are important to me too.

I don't think it's a big deal. Reviews should give you a general idea of how good the game is, it's not an exact science. I always find it amusing when people say "oh this game only got 7.5 it deserved an 8 in my book..." Not to mention that overall, the staff reviews at Gamespot are becoming more and more meaningless to me, I find metacritic a much better indicator. On gamespot it's always the same 3-4 people that review games, and Kevin is the one who seems to review most of the high-profile games. I'm not basing my game purchases on the opinions of 1 or 2 people, I always like to get several different opinions. 

I don't think it's a big deal. Reviews should give you a general idea of how good the game is, it's not an exact science. I always find it amusing when people say "oh this game only got 7.5 it deserved an 8 in my book..." Not to mention that overall, the staff reviews at Gamespot are becoming more and more meaningless to me, I find metacritic a much better indicator. On gamespot it's always the same 3-4 people that review games, and Kevin is the one who seems to review most of the high-profile games. I'm not basing my game purchases on the opinions of 1 or 2 people, I always like to get several different opinions. 

Alucard_Prime

I just want to add my voice in here saying I like, and prefer, the new system. Lowering the scale makes a lot of sense because judging videogame scores will always be subjective, and explaining why a game got a 7.5 rather than an 8 (same as 15 versus 16, basically) is the kind of argument that becomes childish quickly. The smaller the scale, the more concise each value becomes.

The new system gives just what a score should: a quick look at what the review text is going to say.

So, kudos to GameSpot for the decision.

I just want to add my voice in here saying I like, and prefer, the new system. Lowering the scale makes a lot of sense because judging videogame scores will always be subjective, and explaining why a game got a 7.5 rather than an 8 (same as 15 versus 16, basically) is the kind of argument that becomes childish quickly. The smaller the scale, the more concise each value becomes.

The new system gives just what a score should: a quick look at what the review text is going to say.

So, kudos to GameSpot for the decision.

EvanescentCrow

Well there may be chance that you may be able to ask Lark directly in the comments section during the Fireside Chat being held this Wednesday at 12pm PDT. If you decide to do so please keep in mind a couple of rules:

• Be polite and try using proper spelling and grammar.
• Keep it short and to the point if at all possible.
• Right before you post a question, be sure to use Question: so it can be noticed easier.

Almost no review directly elaborates on the score itself, the content of the review is always more important than the score.SoNin360

Obviously. The point of the score is to be a quick summary, or a tone setter, not a replacement or a crutch.

BUT there will always be whining in the comments section along the lines of "Oh this game should have gotten x instead of y".SoNin360

That's a problem with the users, not the system. Everything that's popular attracts whiners. GameSpot, Microsoft, Justin Bieber...

Shrinking the scale isn't going to do anything in that regard. I see no other real reason to round scores even more.SoNin360

It's a matter of professionalism, really. I suggest you visit my profile and read my oldest blog entry (I only have two posted, so you can't miss it). It may help you understand the value GameSpot, myself, and others see in the new system.

It's a matter of professionalism, really. I suggest you visit my profile and read my oldest blog entry (I only have two posted, so you can't miss it). It may help you understand the value GameSpot, myself, and others see in the new system.

EvanescentCrow

I'm sorry but it's a long read and I lack time but I'm interested. Can you give me a shorter version?

Well there may be chance that you may be able to ask Lark directly in the comments section during the Fireside Chat being held this Wednesday at 12pm PDT. If you decide to do so please keep in mind a couple of rules:

• Be polite and try using proper spelling and grammar.
• Keep it short and to the point if at all possible.
• Right before you post a question, be sure to use Question: so it can be noticed easier.

 

F22_King_Raptor

The questions will be answered live on the GS page setup for the event. I assume it'll be similar the last Fireside Chat. Someone from the GS staff will be looking through the comments and reading them to Lark who will then respond.

The questions will be answered live on the GS page setup for the event. I assume it'll be similar the last Fireside Chat. Someone from the GS staff will be looking through the comments and reading them to Lark who will then respond.

F22_King_Raptor

I'm sorry but it's a long read and I lack time but I'm interested. Can you give me a shorter version?

The-Apostle

The shorter version is pretty much what was said in previous posts in this thread, that scores are not a replacement or a crutch, but rather a summary or tone setter. That said, if a score is present, it should find a balance between being too generic and too specific. I can add examples to help clarify, though.

Example of too generic would be a scale of 2, where "1" is bad and "2" is good - similar to YouTube thumbs system. In that scenario, you're breaking the products you're reviewing into black or white, with no tones of gray. That's extreme, and would be unfair to products that stand somewhere in the middle but, for some reason, are forced into one side of the equation. This would not be professional because it schews the value of the product, one way or another.

Example of too specific would be a scale of 100, where 100 is "as good as it could be", while 1 (or 0, if applicable) would be "unplayable". In this scenario, we have the opposite problem, meaning, the middle of the scale will be overcrowded and the reviewer will have to find a way to justify why one game was scored "32" while another one was a "35" - which is difficult, if not impossible, as you'd need to intelectually visualize 100 different degrees of quality and know how to define each one properly in the context of your review. This is also not professional because it's not efficient for the reviewer who should be focusing on informing the reader, not making the reader confused with unnecessary minutia.

As a side note, this also applies to user reviews because it would only cause confusion, especially if GameSpot maintains a comparison between "GameSpot score" and "User score" as they currently do. I'd suggest people simply continue to do what they already do, which is to add their own "personal" scoring system at the end of their reviews - if it's really that important. I've seen people use the school grades system and the 100 system, even though their "official" score on the site was coherent with the rest of the site, so I see no reason to feel threatened by the site's change.

Sorry, but that's as short as I can meke it.

As a side note, this also applies to user reviews because it would only cause confusion, especially if GameSpot maintains a comparison between "GameSpot score" and "User score" as they currently do. I'd suggest people simply continue to do what they already do, which is to add their own "personal" scoring system at the end of their reviews - if it's really that important. I've seen people use the school grades system and the 100 system, even though their "official" score on the site was coherent with the rest of the site, so I see no reason to feel threatened by the site's changeEvanescentCrow

Fair enough.

As far as I remember, when GameSpot last changed their ratings from 100 to 20, old reviews kept the old system, so it wouldn't surprise me if they do the same now. I also remember people getting annoyed because they rated a game "8.7" and now they had to round it either to 8.5 or 9, but just a couple of months ago I found a very old user review which used the 100 system, so it's safe to say old reviews weren't updated - only the reviews made in the future (but yes, I'm speculating).

As a simple theoretical exercise, though, let's consider the following scale of 5:

1. Bad
2. Below Average
3. Average
4. Above Average
5. Excellent

Let's see the 10 point scale now:

1. Unplayable
2. Very Bad
3. Bad
4. Below Average
5. Average
6. Average
7. Above Average
8. Good
9. Very Good
10. Exemplary

These are just examples of how I would define them, mind you. And let me reiterate that this is purely academic. What I would like to see is you post a list, from 1 to 20, and define each value like I did above. Please, don't feel like you HAVE to do it, it's just I believe this may help you get your message across.

so what happens to all previous scores? they just round up or down from .5 according to their whim?

this site is getting worse and worse every few months: 

almost all game forums are just a link to gamefaqs,

user images are turning soo small we're all going to go blind,

release dates are wrong half of the time,

now where will i go to read dumbasses argue about computer vs console & see fanboy vs troll crying matches?

so what happens to all previous scores? they just round up or down from .5 according to their whim?elessarGObonzo

now where will i go to read dumbasses argue about computer vs console & see fanboy vs troll crying matches?elessarGObonzo

According to moderators and rangers, user reviews will be probably be preserved for the new site, but keeping files for them on your personal computer is a good idea if you have one. My opinion of review scores is that they reflect the written or video/audio content, so if and when a new review format prompts reviewers to change their scores, review content I mentioned might need to be changed.

According to moderators and rangers, user reviews will be probably be preserved for the new site, but keeping files for them on your personal computer is a good idea if you have one. My opinion of review scores is that they reflect the written or video/audio content, so if and when a new review format prompts reviewers to change their scores, review content I mentioned might need to be changed.

BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

According to moderators and rangers, user reviews will be probably be preserved for the new site, but keeping files for them on your personal computer is a good idea if you have one. My opinion of review scores is that they reflect the written or video/audio content, so if and when a new review format prompts reviewers to change their scores, review content I mentioned might need to be changed.

harry_james_pot

Coming next year, the two point scale. Good or bad.SolidSnake35

Wow, you deleted my post because...? Butthurt much?

Anyway, congratulations on making so many wrong decisions with your new layout. Last.fm's unwanted changes didn't bring them any popularity (just check weekly listeners of e.g. Led Zeppelin 2 years ago and 2 months ago), don't think yours will too.

Anyway, you've promised to keep our old ratings, yet "I've rated Gemini Rue as 8". I'm pretty sure that was 8.5. Hell, I don't even know where I can access all of my past ratings, if someone could help, I'd be glad.

Also, one more thing from your faq. "Why should be something inbetween great (8) and superb(9)?" Good question. But better is: why should NOT there be something inbetween good (7) and great?

But yeah, delete post instead of replying with a valid response, I'd expect too much from you

Looks like they didn't make you change your scores. They just changed them for you. How delightful. So you say a game is 8.5 and they round to 8. Lovely! Personally I use a 100 point scale and refuse to use anything else. Not too many options for me on these new-fangled gaming websites, so I just mostly ignore their rating features now and just use a spreadsheet, where I have control of my scores, not some web designer.

I see why they made the change. Less intervals on a point scale means that each interval now has more significance. You have to take more time to consider your score.

The problem is that this will lead to even more clustering IMO. Worst yet you will see more trolling because some games aren't quiet a 9 but are better than an 8. Now there's no middle ground. Hard stances will be made. Trolls will arm themselves.

This is dreadful to take away the option from users. If anything it should bring back the 100 point scale like IGN for everyone's tastes so that if people want to score .1 then they can but for people who prefer whole numbers they can also. This decision just cuts off choice. Plus where are my game ratings list, and forum post list, and easy-to-see following games and updates? They needn't have done a make-over for the whole site but the main page only. Why does it feel like GS is continually getting worse and blatantly giving everyone a firm middle finger?