Discuss this.
What is there to discuss? Shit's fucked yo
>>339479458
this guy has it
also 4
>>339479403
>8 is average
Fucking retard
>>339479564
7but really 2
>>339479564
prettyaverage
>>339479652
nice
>>339479403
People just kinda realized most finished game don't really worth less than 6.
People will only "perceive" the score like the bottom chart, if and only if, 10% of all game ever released get a 1, 10% get a 2, and so on. Which really wont happen.
>>339479564
>>339479403
I'd rather simplify it to a 5-point scale:
5 = Great
4 = Good
3 = Meh
2 = Bad
1 = Terrible
>>339479578
that's how people think nowadays
funny that a $50 game in 1996 would be worth $77 in 2016 money because of inflation
>>339479403
Dumb picture, by the 90s the scale had already been shifted to only 8+ score games being worthwhile
>>339479986
Yeah honestly, I used to read gaming magazines in the early 00s and it was already beyond fucked by then.
>>339479578
>>339479675
It's not the readers, it's the reviewers. If you give a low score you're not getting an advanced copy of the company's next game to review.
>>339479564
>>339479652
>>339479665
>>339479403
Looks like sharpness bars to me.
>>339479403
You could honestly simplify this even further. Most reviewer rating scales are essentially just thumbs up/thumbs down systems where >7 is a thumbs up and <7 is a thumbs down.
I just subtract 5 from the score and use that out of 5.
If a game is 8/10 it's probably just a 3/5. 9/10 is a 4/5 etc. etc.
Considering 1-5's are pretty much never given and anything that does average below a 5.0 is pretty much a trash non-game anyways.
>>339479859
>Meh, Bad and Terrible.
All synonyms for the same thing.
Your 1-5 scale is basically Great - Average - Bad - Bad - Bad. Which is what we have now.
>>339479403
>I don't understand percentiles! The thread
>>339479403
the magazines I read in the 90s had mostly the upper scale, below 7/10 scores were mostly reserved for joke reviews
>>339479403
That's not how the review scale worked back then. In fact, many reviews early on weren't numerical you fucking dumbass.
>>339479403
>4-6
>average
just because it's in the middle doesn't mean it's the average. any game, even several decades ago, that got a 4-6 score was basically a piece of shit. it's like how a 40% is not an 'average' grade, it's a fucking fail grade
1-5 garbage don't even bother
6 below average
7 average
8 good
9 great
10 amazing
Numerical scores are a terrible system for evaluating something as diverse as video games and only serve people who can't be bothered to read
>>339479403
I wish the mods would ban your fucking autistic threads.
>>339480547
By that thinking, almost every game released is above the 75th percentile, which is the problem with ranking games that way.
>>339479403
Fatigue OP.
Electricity isn't natural faggits. Where is it found in nature, yeah thats right a 1ms of a strike.
>Buy some LOTR game.
>Kinda weird but I like it.
>Read an old PC Gamer magazine on a holiday trip a year or so later.
>There's a review for that game.
>Gave it a 3 out of 10.
Don't think the reviewer liked it too much.
1 - Terrible
2 - Worth playing for the series
3 - Not a memorable experience. Enjoyable in short burts
4 - Greatly entertaining. New mechanics, enveloping story
5 - Fantastic gameplay, thrilling storyline, no faults
Looks like monster hunter sharpness.
I take the second weapon.
>>339480824
your nervous system works on electricity
>>339479403
Video games are for children so they modelled the video game rating system off of school grades that children understand.
Anything under 70 is a failure, anything over 90 is an A, and most things fall in between
>>339479403
Pretty accurate chart. Games rated at an 8 are starting to get pretty dicey too though. Then games over 9 are obviously shillbait. The 8.3~8.8 range are so are the sweetspot.
>>339479403
Who /hypermagazine/ here?
>>339479403
Just stop rating games completely. That way people have to read the review to actually think for themselves if they would like the game or not. Give pros and cons at the end. This is only non-retarded system but it wouldn't work because people don't read anything anymore.
>>339480805
I got permabanned for "posting CP" yesterday. The post in question was one where I posted a .gif of anime getting thrown in the trash.If you expect janitors that do what they're supposed to do, you're dreaming bub.
>>339479403
>>339480998
>anything over 90 is probably a teacher's pet
fixed
>entitlement
>>339479403
>>339481108
>implying the original ever needed a change at all
dumb fucks
>>339481108
>Using fractions of a point
For what fucking purpose
>>339481254
that looks like dogshit tho, kys and delete it
>>339481254
If you can't put a name on all the letters then there is no point.
Just have a 6 point then.
1 dogshit
2 awful
3 bad
4 meh
5 good
6 fantastic
Shit on the second one all you want but at least there is reason behind everything.
First one is worse because it doesn't really differentiate between 7 and 8
>>339479403
It's lies, it is all lies.
