Why the 1 to 10 score?

Why? I think people should use the 1 to 5 score. It's way simpler. For example, if a game gets a 3.5 and another game gets a 4, what's the difference? Both of the games suck, the real torture is gonna be reading the actual reviews that tell you why they suck. Games are either the Awesome 10s, the Great 9s, the Good 8s, the Okay 7s, and the Meh 6s. Everything else below 6 just sucks.
Almost everybody does this. The only people i can think of that don't do this is X-Play and Gamepro.

Tell me what you think.

Because people like to rank things in a percentage or as a fraction out of 100.

It's much easier to convert a 1-10 ranking to % than it is to 1-5.

I think the score is meaningless if you don't read the review. Let's say a reviewer gives Mass Effect 2 a 9.1, if you read the article and think his complaints are minor grips then it means that the game is a 10 for you. The 9.1 is just a number decided on as a representation of the review, but it's the actual words of the review that tell you the full truth behind the number.

We should really just do away with numbers and have a thumbs up and down system. A game is either worth playing or not. Does it really matter if a game gets a 9.1 or a 9.2? If not it doesn't matter if a game gets a 3 or a 4 out of 5.

If a game is good give it a thumbs up and tell me about it's pros and cons. If it sucks give it a thumbs down and tell me why.

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

QFT

I agree with guilty spark. I do understand what you mean but I do prefer 0/10 scores. They're just more precise and you get a better idea of how the game ranks among others.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

You mean like Play Magazine?

demondragondude wrote:

I agree with guilty spark. I do understand what you mean but I do prefer 0/10 scores. They're just more precise and you get a better idea of how the game ranks among others.

Quote :

During this episode, the hosts also explained why they use a 5-point ratings system, rather than a 10- or even 100-point scale:
“
Morgan: Our system is better because it recognizes that scores are broad generalizations.
Adam: For example, a popular web site gave Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire a score of 3.0 out of 10. They gave Torino 2006 a 3.9. What is the difference?
Morgan: Both games suck, all the score is gonna be able to communicate to you is that the game is bad. If you want more nuance on the suckage, you have to actually go and read the review. See, in a 10-point scale, everything under 5 just means 'this game ain't worth buying', so there's no real difference.
Adam: And there's no real nuance to a score difference of two- or three-tenths of a point. Our scores at least give sweeping generalizations for you to use as a guide.

From Wikipedia on the TV show X-Play

Pickles wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

You mean like Play Magazine?

I don't know what Play Magazine is. But like when IGN or GameInformer come out with a review, I just read the review and skip the score because it is pointless.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Pickles wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

You mean like Play Magazine?

I don't know what Play Magazine is. But like when IGN or GameInformer come out with a review, I just read the review and skip the score because it is pointless.

In Play Magazine they don't really give out scores(unless you go to the website). They tell you what the game has and they let you make the decision if the game is worth buying or not. God they were fucking great.

Pickles wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Pickles wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

You mean like Play Magazine?

I don't know what Play Magazine is. But like when IGN or GameInformer come out with a review, I just read the review and skip the score because it is pointless.

In Play Magazine they don't really give out scores(unless you go to the website). They tell you what the game has and they let you make the decision if the game is worth buying or not. God they were fucking great.

They sound awesome. They were great? They canceled or something?

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Pickles wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Pickles wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Review scores are meaningless. Read the review, thats the point of it. then you will know why something got a score it did.

You mean like Play Magazine?

I don't know what Play Magazine is. But like when IGN or GameInformer come out with a review, I just read the review and skip the score because it is pointless.

In Play Magazine they don't really give out scores(unless you go to the website). They tell you what the game has and they let you make the decision if the game is worth buying or not. God they were fucking great.

They sound awesome. They were great? They canceled or something?

Not exactly. They're gonna come back but their new name is gonna be GameFan or something like that. A lot of people liked them. They aren't like today's cynical reviewers who write lengthy reviews that tell you why your favorite game sucks. They like games. Like, a lot.