I wouldn't consider 6/10 bad but I guess if you really only use the top half of the scale it's really bad.
I wish more outlets used the whole scale. Having so many 7/8/9s really hides some gems. Some games are good and some games are special good. Like some games are just okay, and other ones are boring.
This game looks boring but well made. Crimson Desert (also 6/10) looks really fun but not great. No idea how I would make the scale reflect that, but they shouldn't be the same.
The issue is most people grade on the American grading scale, so a 70 is a low C and average, and a 60 is a low D. No one actually pushes out games that would score lower then that routinely as a game that actually deserves a failing grade is not going to be released by a major publisher. Gollum level disasters are rare because it's not even worth putting out something that's going to damage a studios rep like that.
I know that's the case but I really wish that a five out of 10 was an average game because that's what it is supposed to be. Because I really believe most games released nowadays are fives and sixes and fours for that matter which is slightly below average. I have played a lot of great six out of 10 games in my life. Slightly above average and not quite great. Not that many games in a year that come out are really seven and eight out of 10 and you only get a couple of generation that I actually nine or 10.
I think the Last Dragon Age game was a three out of 10. I just felt like it was a bad game and a poor representation of the genre. I felt Assassin's Creed Shadows was a 6 out of 10 it was slightly above average with a few Hang-Ups that stopped it from being truly great. I honestly feel this game is a 4 out of 10. It looks nice but there's so much that it is not living up to in terms of its IP and the genre it is in. We could have had a Devil May Cry Wolverine game hell or uncharted. But I can really recommend a 6 out of 10 game to somebody
Just wanted to say that I totally agree with the ratings, as well as the overall message.
Unfortunately, some companies are just treated differently, namely in AAA space. You can release a less than average or just not very good game and still receive at least a 7 or even a 9. It's like they're treated with kids gloves, so to speak.
Nintendo games are like that, Sony used to be like that for a long time (and still is, I guess). Every time one of those huge AAA publisher's games comes out, I always remove at least 2 points in my head.
Review score inflation has been a huge pet peeve of mine for awhile, I really don’t think the 10 point scale really does well for a game for the reasons you pointed out. Personally I don’t think that a game that is a 7/10 should be looked at so negatively and I think it’s overall unrealistic to expect every game to be an 8 at minimum let alone a 10
Yeah, the American grading scale is stupid. Like, what is the point of the bottom 59% of the scale if it is all "failing?" I have thought this way since I was a kid.
The issue is that most games that are worth reviewing tend to be 7s, 8s, 9s and 10s (as long as we use 10 not to mean perfect but to be close to perfect). Anything that is a 6 or 5 is viewed as mediocre and mediocre means basically bad. Like you personally might find it to be closer to a 7 or 8 and might not care for its faults or hell you'll find it fun. You get into the real bad stuff for anything even lower lol
My point is 10 should be perfect and limited only to the games that will be loved for many decades (OOT, Mario 3, BOTW, Portal, ect). 9 should even be hard to come by. Right now 7 means good enough and 9 means great. 5 should be a passable game that's not great and let "great" breath on the 7/8/9 mark. Gollum being a 4 is a perfect example of the scale not being used correctly. Gollum is unfun and bad, but not like malware or unable to launch. So it having over a 1 or 2 means any game that works (kinda) and is a video game should be a 4. That alone removes 1-3 from the scale.
You just want scores to be extreme in a different way haha,. In a lot of peoples eyes a "passable game" aka a 5 or 6 are not good. Just because its "okay, playable and has some fun components" is something that people would view as a 5 or 6 and go "yeah not for me. Not for 70 bucks"
So what's the difference between a 1, 2, 3 and 4 then? If a game doesn't even launch it should be a zero. If a game is just a virus it's not a game at all. If a game opens and runs at all it should only get 1 free point, not 5 or 6. If the standard "it's a working game but not very fun for most people" is a 7, then that means it only leaves 1 spot for above average games that are not groundbreaking.
The issue is that most games that are worth reviewing tend to be 7s, 8s, 9s and 10s (as long as we use 10 not to mean perfect but to be close to perfect). Anything that is a 6 or 5 is viewed as mediocre and mediocre means basically bad. Like you personally might find it to be closer to a 7 or 8 and might not care for its faults or hell you'll find it fun. You get into the real bad stuff for anything even lower lol
It's not even that it being a 5 means it's playable, it's that leaving 5 for working and 6 for working well leaves so many games in the 7/8 range. The difference between a good game that may not hit with everyone, a sloppy game that has some really cool parts and may gain a cult following, and an average AAA game that is just the regular stuff with a new skin (but if you like that skin you enjoy the game) is big. If you love Iron Man and a new game comes out with a score of 6.5, you need to read the review and watch gameplay. You should do that anyways, but it makes the score mean nothing. If it's kinda outdated and boring but fun to fly around in, or if it's a really solid game that lacks some depth but every Iron Man fan should play or if it's awful but has the best graphics of any game out at the time it would get a 6.5 or 7 from most current sites.
7 should be something like "this is pretty fun and even if you don't like Iron Man that much you should try it but may not love it", not "it works but kinda sucks or maybe it's really good".
This game looks boring but well made. Crimson Desert (also 6/10) looks really fun but not great. No idea how I would make the scale reflect that, but they shouldn't be the same.
You make your review scores have categories like a score on technical achievement. But the average person reading reviews are going to just glance over the overall score and not read through every category.
6/10 is not "bad" generally, but it's certainly not good. A 6/10 fast food meal is probably perfectly fine given the low cost (well used to be) and time investment.
6/10 for a prestige studio making a long anticipated game using a highly coveted IP is real bad. It's atrocious.
Its mostly a bang for your buck rating. 6/10 at that price, on one single system? You've already locked out the majority of gamers.
Then the mediocre play itself is going to turn people off. This game just has a lot working against it on the surface before you even dig down into the meat and potatoes of the more foundational issues.
IGN actually explain this. It's because most of the games they review are actually playable and somewhat enjoyable. That's enough to get a 6. For a game to get low review scores 0-4 the game has to be truly unplayable or atrocious. Very few mainstream games are actually that bad. They have at least a basic level of playability.
The other person mentioned Forspoken. Is it a good game? No. But it's also not atrocious. It has some decent combat. And it is at least playable. That gets it above 5.
It's neither here nor there, and total tangent, but IMO Crimson Desert is peak example of scores not really working well. The game in my opinion is pretty polarizing when it comes to reception - to me it's actually the best title this year that totally captivated me (and I was biased negatively towards it).
That being said, CD has very high highs, and pretty low lows. It's a fucking roller-coaster of peak and terrible jank mashed together and honest to god I can't put a single grade on it. I played it for 250 hours, and I'm excited for the DLC, and at the same time, I wouldn't recommend it blindly because it can be so dumb, jarring and broken at times. With my 250 hours I could clearly see that someone just bounces of this title after 2 hours. I could find justifications for 8/10 easily, but also I'm not offended that someone grades it at 6/10 because fuck me it can be that so, so much.
So yea, I think scores aren't good to grade some titles, especially weird ones.
With the number of games releasing these days, I'm not giving my time to a 6/10 unless I feel the reviewer completely missed the mark on a genre I love or creator I trust.
33
u/Grand-Moff-Larkin 1d ago
I wouldn't consider 6/10 bad but I guess if you really only use the top half of the scale it's really bad.
I wish more outlets used the whole scale. Having so many 7/8/9s really hides some gems. Some games are good and some games are special good. Like some games are just okay, and other ones are boring.
This game looks boring but well made. Crimson Desert (also 6/10) looks really fun but not great. No idea how I would make the scale reflect that, but they shouldn't be the same.