I don't like 5-star rating systems without half-stars. When I see 3 out of 5 I tend to think of it as a bit above average.
In any case, you seem to be implying that he has "fallen to the crapped up system" by calling a 3/5 "good" despite that according to your own estimation of said "crapped up system" a 3/5 would be unwatchable/unreadable.
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
On one hand you can rate things with a normal distribution where 0 is extraordinarily bad and 1 is extraordinarily good with 0.5 being average. This makes the most sense from a mathematical point of view.
However most all of us were conditioned by schooling where 75 out of 100 (a C) is considered average and below 60 is considered failing.
So while so review sites try to rate movies, games, whatever on a pure 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 scale where 5 or 3 is considered average simply too many of us won't accept, even if it's explained to us, that a 5 out of 10 or 3 out of 5 as average.
Take Rotten Tomatoes. They report the percentage of reviews that "passed" on a pass/fail grade where 60 out of 100 or below is fail. School grading mentality.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
At this point my favorite review systems are three or even two point ones. The score is supposed to complement the review, not overshadow it, I can figure out what you liked about the game/movie/whatever by reading the review text. We all know ten point systems put a 7 at about average and five point systems fall into the 3/5 is above average trap that was already mentioned, but a three point system works great for "Yes, Meh, No" and a two point is by far the best solution for community rated works (like youtube).
Quote:
there are so many things wrong with that and we really shouldn't be teaching people that nor is it accurate even within the education system as it is now.|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
On one hand you can rate things with a normal distribution where 0 is extraordinarily bad and 1 is extraordinarily good with 0.5 being average. This makes the most sense from a mathematical point of view.
However most all of us were conditioned by schooling where 75 out of 100 (a C) is considered average and below 60 is considered failing. So while so review sites try to rate movies, games, whatever on a pure 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 scale where 5 or 3 is considered average simply too many of us won't accept, even if it's explained to us, that a 5 out of 10 or 3 out of 5 as average. Take Rotten Tomatoes. They report the percentage of reviews that "passed" on a pass/fail grade where 60 out of 100 or below is fail. School grading mentality. |
The rating system of games and such where below 7 = unplayable was actually created by Game Publishers and Game Reviewers... Basically Publishers will stop providing Reviewers with games to review if they get low numbers so the Reviewers started rating them higher and thus anything lower than 7 is used for it's so bad we don't care if you stop giving us games to review and it would be unethical to suggest people buy it in any way.
As far as referring to LAG... it's just a jumping off point to talk about how ratings and what is said/thought by the reviewers seem to contradict each other.
Quote:
This is a semanthic argument many will disagree with. But lets just focus in one word: Average.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
1 Star = Garbage
2 Star = Below Average (bad) 3 Star = Average (meh) 4 Star = Above average (good) 5 Star = Great |
Average is not "meh". "Meh" isn't even a proper word, but an expression of aphathy or indifference. Average is the middle of the road, and for me thats just plain "good". Above average is great and 5/5 would be amazing.
So:
- Way Bellow Average: Terrible
- Bellow average: Bad
- Average: Good
- Above Average: Great
- Way above average: Amazing
Quote:
There are a few review sites that do rate games where 5 is average, and they usually get called out by developers, publishers and fans when a game that get a 8s and 9s on other sites only get a 6 or 7 on theirs. What then generally happens are those 5 is average sites stop getting invited to events or offered sneak previews or review copies before release. Let's face it, the fastest way to kill off a review site is to force them to publish reviews days after a release of major games.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
The rating system of games and such where below 7 = unplayable was actually created by Game Publishers and Game Reviewers... Basically Publishers will stop providing Reviewers with games to review if they get low numbers so the Reviewers started rating them higher and thus anything lower than 7 is used for it's so bad we don't care if you stop giving us games to review and it would be unethical to suggest people buy it in any way.
|
There is also a movement within publishers to award bonuses to development teams based on aggregate review sites like Metacritic because publishers know that gamers have been conditioned to believe a game with an under 70 rating isn't worth spending $60 on. Especially around the holidays. Too many games, too little money.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
I rate this thread a 7Q
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
Today I was watching Last Angry Geek and he gave reviews on DCnU books...
He gave Teen Titans a 3 out of 5 stars. He then later went through and listed "good" books and in that list he included Teen Titans.
I'm not going to say his score was wrong, but at that the same time...wtf?
Some of you may be wondering what I'm talking about now so I guess I have to explain. He gave the book a 3 out of 5. That is what is called "average" A book that is middle of the road, take it or leave. It's not a "good" book, but rather an average book.
Now, I don't know about you but when I see a ratings and give ratings I give rate as such...
1 Star = Garbage
2 Star = Below Average (bad)
3 Star = Average (meh)
4 Star = Above average (good)
5 Star = Great
Is this just me that hasn't fallen to the crapped up system?
That system being that the real average is like 8/10 and anything under 7/10 is unreadable/unwatchable/unplayable.
*note that a 3 star score is really a 6/10 when you use half stars...