On what scale should games be reviewed? - Results (38 votes)
1 through 5 (Example, a 4 out of 5)
42.11% (16 votes)
1 through 10 (Example, a 9 out of 10)
23.68% (9 votes)
1.0 through 10.0 (Example, a 8.9 out of 10)
34.21% (13 votes)
This poll is now closed.
IGN's recent Saints Row 4 review made me think about making this topic. They gave it a 7.3 out of 10 which makes no sense to me. What determines a 7.3 from a 7.4? I personally think 1 through 5 is the best choice. A 1 being never buy this game, a 2 being not very good only get it if its cheap or you're a fan of what it's based on, a 3 being average and if you're a fan you'll really like it, a 4 being it's a very good game with some issues holding it back, and a 5 being a masterpiece everyone should own --- PSN and Steam ID: Kman2097 | 3DS FC: 5455-9399-6174 Kurtis | Twitter: @ColonelKurtis My favorite games: Shadow of the Colossus, Medievil, Red Dead Redemption.
1.0-10.0 is fine. There are thousands of video games out there, a 100 point scale isn't excessive, particularly when we consider that the lower half of that scale is often reserved for games that the average person knows instinctively to avoid.
The distinction between a 7.3 game and a 7.4 game is obvious. The 7.4 game is a little bit better than the 7.3 game. If you're looking at a 7.3 game in isolation, it probably got that grade because there's another game that got 7.5, and this game isn't quite as good. Once you understand that the ratings are all (supposed to be) relative to other games, you can understand why we need more than 10 possible grades. --- http://terosclassicgaming.blogspot.com/ - Watch me beat "NES Yume Penguin Monogatari" http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
None of the above. People are too quick to ignore reviews and just go to the number or letter grade the game got. I wish they would do away with them all and just have the critic says what they liked and disliked about the game.