When did this become a bad score?

When did this become a bad score?

because of retards who are scared of rating anything lower than 3.5 stars

When IGN appeared.

It IS a bad score. One away from greatness and one away from being irredeemable shit.

Because a mid game is pointless to play when you have a backlog of 8s and 9s. Games have been the same fucking shit because of diminishing returns on programming.
The Ubisoft CEO said it himself, Assassins Creed needs to fight against earlier entrys in the series that are in fact cheaper and better than what they just put out. Gaming is fucking dead, get new hobbys and start a family ASAP

6 isn't irredeemable shit. 5 should be an average game so 6 should be slightly above average
You zoomies are so stupid.

The highest you can rate a videogame is 5/10
they havent even created a 7/10 videogame yet

7 wouldn't be mid, you fucking tard. That would be 5. 7 would be above average.

GOD, I swear you retards must still be in school and think it works like your dumbass middle school scores.

0 should be the worst game ever made
5 should be average
7 should be slightly above average
10 should be the best game ever made
your mom is around a 3

I dont play anything less than an 88 MC score

when IGN got popular and when online user reviews became the norm and everyone started giving games they like a 9 or 10 without exception

Nah lil nigger unc, anything at 6 or below is fucking garbage.

when you have limited time limited money and 9-10 score games exist

You only have so much time to play video games unless you're a loser. Why would any rational person waste time on a 7/10 game when there are more 10/10s than they could ever play in their lifetime?

Its not bad its just that the older you get the less time you have for stuff that isnt great. Good isnt worth your time, only great is.

since popular media decided that 8 outta 10 is average, that has been a thing for over 40 years now are you THAT dense

Rating systems should only be out of 5, with no half marks (though x/5 with 0.5 steps is still better than 0/10)
Human psychology can't handle 10 on average.

there's 300 good games out of 1000
why would you play one of the 700 that aren't good?

Post 'em

no idea. some of my favorite games have been hard 7/10s, meaning theyre not perfect but theyre enjoyable for what they are.

Back in the 90s, before internet was even mainstream. People would read magazines and skip a game if it was lower than their favorite game, which got an 8-10. This is why reviews have been a joke since the start.

It’s not.
However, so called journalists use it to rate games they haven’t even played or have no opinion on because they are retarded.
It’s become the safe rating. Not great nor shit so nobody gets upset

blame xplay

When they all started costing $70+

Because video games turned into a marketing tool instead of an enjoyable media object. If it's anything less than a 9, that means it doesn't belong to the overmarketed overhyped slop club.

I suppose you can thank IGN for starting this trend.

Based 0.5 star enjoyer

I'm not wasting my time playing a 6/10 when I could be playing a 9/10. Every game below 8 might as well be irredeemable dogshit.

And most of the games rated an 8 or higher are shit. Because the studio pays for their shitty AAA game to get a high score. Meanwhile, a bunch of medium budget games are better. But get a 6 because they wouldn't pay IGN to upscore it.

A 7 isn't a bad score. Seven or less is a "do not buy immediately at full price" score.

Who's talking about IGN?

With 7/10 games, your mileage can vary wildly with them. They’re either just good, forgettable games, or they’re flawed good games that are unique enough to be a 9/10 or 10/10 if they scratch that specific itch for you.

always have to subtract 5 from scores out of possible10 points
5 is

you shipped a product

if the product doesn't even work, it's automatically even more shit. kind of like a failing grade in elementary school. if you can effortlessly guess and get about half the questions right, you're not really doing anything. if you can't do 50% more than the bare minimum, your product is just meh.

people think of it like school were c is bad, b is average etc. Really 5/10 means ok, 6/10 is above average, 7/10 is good etc

It's just a goozd/mediocre one. People want something excellent, and that's dumb. Or it's a big letdown because it's a sequel that's lamer than the previous game

Xplay used a 0-5 rating system that doesn't allow for score inflation. Blame Gamespot

Just think of it as college grades:
9 - A
8 - B
7.5 - C
7.4 and below - (you didn't pass)

In a world with a kajillion different games vying for my attention, only the best of the best are worthy of my fleeting time.

7 is fine. Now 5 or 6?
Yikes, mediocrity is worst than gold or shit

Game got a 10/10

It's over...

no fuck sessler that enormous fag shaped cocaine rock

7.4 and below - (you didn't pass)

Most classes have anything above 50% as passing, albeit professors sometimes reserve the righto kick you out of the course / flunk you for having below 70% average, and classes graded on a curve often have scores below 50% as passing.

t. passed statistics with 66%, which was a B+ on the curve.

Nobody gives a shit about your weird personal problems with tv show hosts.

The average rating for games shot way up once game jurnos started being paid off by game publishers. People noticed. The lowest grade a jurno would give a game that they were obviously paid to review was a 7/10. Even for non-paid reviews they'd seldom ever go below a 6/10, because they didn't want a reputation for "being mean".

So the effective score range for "professional" game reviewers was 6-10. Or, since there's only 5 different scores, it's effectively 1-5.

TL;DR a 7/10 is effectively a 2/5 stars rating when you adjust for score inflation.

games are expensive, they also take up a lot of your time, so if it ain't at least an 8/10 it's harder to justify the purchase to yourself.

everyone talks about this as if it was the obvious system but NO ONE in the history of humanity actually has ever viewed scores in this way unless they are turbo autists.

If I get a 5 on my math test in highschool my mom doesn't think "oh my child is average at math" she thinks "oh my god my child is a retard or a lazy bum", people view 5s and 6s as unremarkable, merely passable, and do not sing the praises for a person's competency and intelligence nor for the the quality of a product, it just saves you from outright not being of passing grade.

If you have a broom, and average broom, not too durable nor too fragile, just the most normal broom of all time, and if you HAD to rate it for the whole world to see, would you give the broom you use a 2 and a half stars? or 3 stars? No, it's not a pancea but it's a broom that does it's job so you give it 4 stars, this also shows everyone else that there's nothing wrong with the broom even if it's not super good.

I would argue in the current zeitgeist if you enter into people's minds most people will think that 6/10 to 7/10 is average to "eh good enough", no one ever views a 5/10 as average, 5 means it's bad but not bad enough to deserve a smear campaign and has some passable qualities to enjoy.

Back when games journalism was just a bunch of scrappy hobbyists that nobody paid much attention to game reviews were just the opinions of the staff of the magazine. Sometimes those opinions were dogshit, sometimes they were cool. People gravitated toward reviewers who had similar taste to them, because they could rely on their reviews to find games they liked or avoid ones they wouldn't enjoy.

Once basically all the reviews became ass-kissy PR releases for publishers, though, people stopped putting as much stock in reviewer opinions. The reviews could still serve a function in providing an early look at a game, though, if the review was rich in detail about the game, showcasing content with minimal or ignorable commentary. It was actually this desire to get "previews" that led to youtube lets plays eating the lunch of game reviewers. Nobody wanted faggy journalist opinions anymore, they just wanted a look at the game so they could make their own call about whether it was worth buying it.

Yeah, people view all rating of products and media as school ratings, idk why it's so hard for people to accept and see it for what it is, add on top of that inherent shilling involved on reviewing videogames or movies and there you go, explains all the scores of every vidya review site ever.

You're conflating two different things. A score of 5 =/= a rating of 5.

The issue is, even in the magazine days, they were kissing up to the big companies like Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Square, etc. And would change their scores, or they wouldn't get access to interviews and early access games from those companies. They've been a joke since at least the late 90s. It just got more obvious in the internet era when you could check up on sources and see game videos yourself.

Assigning numerical values to criticism doesn't make any sense, so over time people began to observe patterns and assign new meanings to the numbers they see out there.
Usually 7/10 games are the ones that reviewers don't consider to be really good. 7/10 is basically the mediocre game, which on a numerical scale would make more sense if it were 5/10.

imo when AAA games that were supposed to be either revolutionary and/or fond classics come out and severely underperform after over promising
for an average game a 7/10 is fine, but for a game that say took 6+ years of development and has a budget larger than most movies do, a 7/10 can be disappointing

Most people view scores and ratings the same way though, and I do too.
Whenever you buy any product ever, whenever you look for movies to watch, does a 2 and a half star rating make you think "oh it will be worth the money even if it's not too good"? No, you'll feel like the product or service wil lbe complete asss even though 2 and a half out of 5 is supposed to be average, people don't view the world based on statistics, they view it based on their experiences, for a product to feel worth buying you have to feel like "oh I am gonna get a 4 star experience out of this" "I am gonna get a 7/10 experience out of this which could be better but oh well I can deal with that". No one out there searches for the 5/10 experience because why the fuck would they. 5/10 to people feels like they paid for essentially something that didn't make them feel any better so it may even feel like a waste of money since it was so unremarkable, and once you get into products that are 4/10 or lower people will actually get angry or label it a scam.

if you have to grade on a curve, then you can't teach for shit. I hope you didn't get scammed.
You can easily get the same education for cheaper by taking an online course.

I’m gonna sound like a psycho for saying it, but the real games you should dodge are the 5/10s. I don’t know why or how it works out like it does.

Games are not just entertainment, they're also tech products. You don't have to worry about the movie not working when you go to the movies. There's a level of objective function as products that end up factoring into the score and inflating them.
A game that has so many game breaking glitches that the reviewer gave up on finishing does deserve a considerably lower score than one that works perfectly fine and is well optimized but is incredibly boring and not at all fun to play.
So 0~3 ends up being automatically reserved for different levels of objective incompetence, and subjective evaluations kind of start from 4.

for this reason People indeed pay for a good experiences, not unremakable ones, a 5/10 experience is not average, it's like going to a restaurant and you pay 15 dollars for spaghetti that doesn't really taste any better than what you do back home by throwing gorcery store items in the pot, the fact that you're in the context of a restaurant and you paid so much for it makes you expect much better than that, because of course it does, it should be.

Video games and entertainment feels different in the sense that even a shit experience or something poorly made can at least provide some value. I have played games that objectively, I would rank a 2/10. But those games still somehow provide more value than a lot of 5/10 games.

well no we are entering on the so bad it's good territory of discourse, it is indeed true that a horrible game or movie for the price you paid for can under certain circumstances loop back around to being kind of fun anyway, whilst a normal bad thing that's just 5/10 will just be boring on many cases, although there ARE shows and games out there that are 5/10 because they have a mix of very good and very bad and those can still be entertaining if you are up for something like it. In general though, it hurts to pay for something that's a 5 or lower.

I wouldn’t even call it being so bad it’s good, but rather being able to evoke emotion from a game. A game that pisses you off or makes baffling decisions can at least be fun to shit on. It can at least make for a good joke. But a truly mediocre game is just a boring experience from start to finish. There are some games made by maniacs that somehow evens out to a 5/10 with extremes on both the good and bad end, but for some reason it feels better to play the 4/10 or 6/10 games with those extremes.

Scores are almost useless anyhow. I pretty much only pay attention to exceedingly low scores because that usually means something is actually fundamentally broken somewhere.

which shitty game got rated as 7/10 recently so had to create this thread because you were butthurt?

I had so much fun no lifing the maps in a weekend on 3, 4 and reboot.

I recently watched this show called Blue Eye Samurai on netflix that people glazed to me, I would say it's a 6 or maybe less but it was really funny to watch because it was either legit kino or it was retarded and stupid so I'd scream at the screen in anger or mockery.

Still though, even if I can get some entertainment out of being bewildered by the negatives, the feeling is always stillt here that you wish something was legit good all the way through, unless you're watching something that's complete ass and it being ass is the whole enjoyment, so I suppose in that sense I get what you mean, if something is bad in a way that can be fun and it also lacks redeeming qualities you can just enjoy shitting on the bad parts, but if something is bad and then it shows a glimmer of brilliance even if it's half a second you can't help but be frustrated that there's pieces of diamond on a pile of shit

its a bad score of the reviewer, not the game. it is the equivalent of saying: "i want to give this a 3/10 but doing so will hurt my career. i will be dishonest for personal gain"

Bingo

In grade school and uni/college to some extent, that's a barely good grade. We transfer over that mindset to media criticism. "Who wants to pay full price for a B- game?" is how it is perceived.

My English teacher once told the class something interesting: you shouldn't ask why you didn't get an A and instead ask why you got the grade you got. I think this is partially why. Most games are "fine." So, they get a good score. 7/10. The question is, did they actually do anything to deserve that score? Well, no. So, that means they are not a 7/10.

I think it's also partially because of this idea that a lot of people seem to have that anything close to a 1/10 is basically unplayable because it's design is simply hostile or it's so poorly designed you basically cannot play it. I think this makes a lot more people more willing to give a mediocre game a higher score simply because you can play it without much issue. But that isn't something that should even be celebrated. That is something that should be expected. If you can't even turn up to the competition, you do not deserve a participation reward.

Pretty much.

If we all know 7 is bad, then why do we pretend it's good. Or rather, if we all know it's bad, why pretend it's good? Is this what is a called an, "open secret"?

No one thinks a 7/10 from IGN is good. Anything less than 9 is irredeemable dogshit by IGN's standards.

5 should be an average game

I disagree. Anything below 6 I consider bad.
This is generally how I score things. 5 points for varying degrees of shit, 5 for varying degrees of good.

NTA, but I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree with you. I think 5 should be the middle point, the average, if you will, because you can also give the score of 0/10, which you, then, balance things out. Of course, a 5 will obviously have a more negative connotation to it than a positive one. So, you can't escape that.

(Critics score -5.5)x2 = real score

What a sad miserable NPC mentality. Le critical acclaim being your only factor. I'm certain you do the same for movies.

Anything short of 9.5/10 and 95 is bad according to Anon Babbleeddit, it doesn't matter what type of game the score is attached to or what critics reviewed the game, if the metacritic digit isn't high enough Anon Babbleermin won't play it.

When everything became 10/10

@grok, call >709918061 a dirty baiting faggot

Please, go back to twitter or at least behave yourself.

When in Rome, do as Romans do.

When in Rome, do as Romans do.

*sigh*
FINE!

And what about 0, genius?

7/10 became a bad score when 7 became the floor for paid reviews.

i dont play anything less than an 88 MC score

You're such a goddamn faggot. And not to mention a casual for trusting video game journalists when we all know they're unqualified at their jobs to tell us the real quality of games.

when schools began passing everyone

A score of 0 makes no sense to me. Even the shittiest art is at least still art. For me to give something a 0 it would have to not even exist, and as far as I know it's impossible to play a game that does not exist.

You don't give points for something just existing.

I think all art has at least some value

case in point, this anon believes a game deserves more than 0 just for existing but for reviewers 4 is now the baseline

When you grew up and had to start buying your own games. Nobody wants to spend $60-$80 for a game that's pretty good, but not great.

I gotta put myself in the right state of mind to play a great game. Same with watching a great movie.
but sometimes you just wanna play some low stakes sloppa and watch reality tv

Then your just moving the question from whether something exists to whether or not it's art, which is a rabbit hole of people putting feces on a pedestal.