@bmo That’s only because mathematically the space between 0 and 1 is counted. If you were only counting the space between 1 and 5, the middle would be 3. Considering it’s impossible to rate something below 1 star on this site (you can’t give something 0 stars), I’m not sure the 2.5 middle is even relevant. The subtext for 1 star on here is “did not like it at all”, which I consider to be the base line.
3 Likes
I agree with you that each player’s experience and “score” for a game is totally subjective. Because of this any and all rating systems will be flawed or incomplete in some way or another. I mean, if you’re measuring sea level or something there’s a good way to measure it (with a ruler for example) and a bad way (with a like and dislike button haha). But with reviews/ratings it’s different.
However! Saying that, no matter what the rating system is, I would argue that it is useful to have some sort of system. Although each person’s experience is subjective, when hundreds of people play a game the average score becomes much less subjective. Ignoring the peculiarities and individual differences on a granular scale, when looking at the broader population a clearer picture is formed. If 90 out of 100 people say a game is awful, there’s a pretty good chance that you (or I) might agree with them. And vice versa.
So yeah, while every system will be flawed in some way or another, I would argue that overall it’s good to have some kind of system because statistically it’s likely to give everyone a pretty good idea of whether or not they will enjoy a game.
Ultimately I use the system for personal cataloguing purposes, so I’d prefer more fine-grained control, but that’s just me. I find it a bit irritating because I give most games a 3-star rating, even though many of them are “really good” and many of them are “below average.” With only 5 stars it’s difficult to distinguish between “really good” and “below average” games.
3 Likes
Exactly.
I can appreciate that and when it comes down to it I am comfortable with whatever the Grouvee userbase collectively wants. I do, however, find it interestingto debate, especially when debating the various nuances.
This is part of my problem with rating systems. A majority of people either like, or dislike a media object (film, game, book). That seldom helps me determine the likelihood I will enjoy something. Majority taste is not an indication of anything but dominant trends within cultural norms and ideologies. The Transformers movies draw vast amounts of viewers and make disgusting amounts of money. So much so that they are making, what, five more of them? However, I am squarely in the camp that does not enjoy those movies. Majority taste is a hard metric to go by. For some things I am in the majority, for others I am in the minority. I find it unreliable as a way to gauge if I will enjoy a media object. To determine whether or not I will I need more info on who the majority is, what other media objects they enjoy, and why. That is part of why all rating systems tend to fail me, why I tend not to back rating systems as useful systems of measurement.
Completely understood and I respect that. Because rating systems fail my way of thinking my own ratings constantly bother me. No matter the rationale I implement I am bound to be dissatisfied with how I rated a game. And invariably, I will feel a need to readjust my ratings for any number of reasons, all of which vary from day to day. However I do respect that each person needs something that suits them, and while I am open to discussing the various merits (or failings) of rating systems I am happy to see implemented whichever system suits the userbase.
2 Likes
Statistically then you would probably be considered and outlier. So, if we go to bestmoviesever.com and we see that Transformers XIV has a 5-star rating, but you would give it 1-star, then it means generally your opinion goes against the grain of the common opinion. Admittedly I fall squarely in this camp too for a lot of things; I too find rating systems (for film, games, music, etc.) totally unreliable. But for most people they probably find their opinion aligns with the mainstream.
Personally if I want to check whether I will like a game or not I will seek the opinion of people or reviewers who have tastes similar to mine. The general consensus often disagrees with mine but there are particular people/reviewers who I can depend upon for a reliable recommendation.
That’s another factor: each day opinions change, people change, trends shift. For me I might really like a game one week and then I won’t be impressed the next week. I have a list on grouvee of my “top games ever of all time” and I find myself constantly shifting and changing it and being dissatisfied with it. Admittedly it is rather silly and pointless to attempt to arrange games (or art objects) from best to worst; it’s like trying to project a 3D problem down into 1 dimension. I used to ask myself “what’s the best souls game out of them all?” but now I’m starting to think that this question is kind of meaningless; it’s more productive to specifically outline the strengths and weaknesses of each game rather than to over-simplify.
But ultimately I agree with you, personally it’s not a big deal for me. I am also happy to go with whatever rating system is chosen or to stick with the current one, I won’t lose any sleep over it. 
2 Likes
You’re speaking my language. I’m with you 100%.
And I agree with attempting to find reviewers with similar taste. It’s just plain easier when you know the reviewer’s predilections.
1 Like
Very meaningful discussion. I reflected on myself too.
In other news, apart from extremes voters, there are fanboy voters in our midst…
(Game is not out yet)
1 Like
Lol. It was in public beta though. Perhaps that was enough for a rating?
1 Like
haha, I’ve noticed that on a couple of games that haven’t been released yet.
1 Like
Lol, I’ll confess I gave Hitman a tentative rating based on the open beta. I then played the first instalment to confirm my feelings.
I’ve held off on rating Doom because the open beta felt incomplete to a degree to which I wasn’t comfortable rating it yet. Same with Battleborn.
1 Like
I guess I’m weird, I usually don’t feel comfortable giving a game a rating (or reviewing it) until I’ve played it all the way through. The only exceptions are games that are so completely awful that it’s impossible for me to finish them.
I noticed the Doom open beta and I was excited at first, but then realised it’s multiplayer-only. Really really disappointed in this. Aren’t there enough crappy arena-style shooters already? From what I’ve seen it doesn’t seem to add anything at all to the tired old formula of Quake 3 Arena from back in 1999. Doom was always a single-player game, and for a while it was the best damn single-player game in the world. I know they’re adding in a campaign or something but this is a bad sign. It’s a shame really, I feel like they could have taken it in a cool direction.
Sorry, went a bit off-topic there.
2 Likes
Nor do I. But Hitman was unique. I have played through nearly every Hitman and have a good feel for my expectations. The beta gave me a taste and I rated it specifically to see if my feelings changed once the game was actually released. I was testing to see how effective the open beta was at conveying a sense of the game but comparing my initial play session with a full play session upon release. Keep in mind we are talking about the time span of about three days from beta play to full game play, so I made an exception. That factro contributes to the reason I have not yet reviewed Doom or Battleborn.
The anticipation was that Doom was going to simultaneously spice up and revive the genre. Sadly it does not.
You are bang on the money. Even worse, one could argue it lacks aspects of what made Quake 3 Arena enjoyable to start with.
One would hope, but Doom looks like it may prove a large disappointment.
1 Like
Shouid we all be writing more short reviews to accompany a rating, to complement some of the more in-depth reviews, focusing more on why we liked or disliked a game, to get a broader based opinion rather than just a score?
I like the 5 stars by the way, wish it was a 10 point scale, but am happy with a 5 point scale and gain a lot of value from it, particularly when looking up other games I’d like to play. On the whole, I get the impression that people who use Grouvee are real enthusiasts, so I value their input more than any other site / score.
FYI, I rate films I’ve watched on IMDB just so I can remember what I have and haven’t watched!!! My ratings there go something like…
1 - just appalling
2 - very bad
3 - poor
4 - disappointing
5 - So /so
6 - ok
7 - good
8 - great
9 - amazing / outstanding
10 - all time favourite
…this really works for me, but I understand everyone will have a different system that works for them.
2 Likes
I have noticed, since having this conversation, that there are a number of yet to be released games that have already been reviewed:
I can keep going. Nearly everything that is coming out over the course of the next year has already been rated. Andromeda has one four star rating and one two star rating. It boggles the mind. We must have time travelers in our midst.
4 Likes
Oh ok, fair enough. Plus the new Hitman is doing that irritating episode release format so it would be literally impossible to do a ‘full review.’ And there are certainly circumstances when I can anticipate my rating for a game; I gave Dark Souls III 5 stars before finishing; it kind of earned that score regardless of how the rest played out.
I think they’ve taken this in an awful direction. id software are known as a world-famous AAA developer, but when you dig deeper they really haven’t made a good game since 1996; twenty years ago. Many people have said that id Software is more of a tech/software story and they struggle to keep up with modern games in terms of story and gameplay.
I don’t think they should have made a multiplayer game at all, or at least it should have taken the back seat (like in Doom or arguably Quake). There are a lot of new innovative arena shooters recently (Team Fortress, Battleborn, Overwatch, etc) and they don’t have the knowledge or experience to compete. They source material of Doom is cool, the ‘hell’ or ‘underworld’ setting. I think they could have taken ideas from some of the innovative modern shooter games (like Alien Isolation or Dead Space) and injected their own technology, story and setting. The ‘underworld’ environments/enemies could be designed by approaching it from a surreal/horror/lovecraft direction, like HR Giger or James Gleeson. Instead we have something kind of cheesy and cartoony, very unoriginal both in both gameplay and aesthetics.
Sorry, kinda branched off topic there.
I also think a 10-point scale would be good. For Grouvee my system goes something like:
- Horrible. Literally painful to experience. Keyboard and mouse covered in vomit.
- Awful, in my opinion, but there’s probably people out there who enjoy it. Not my cup of tea, but I can kind of see how it could perhaps be appealing to others.
- Anything from pretty awful to average to quite good.
- An excellent game, lots of fun but not much re-play value. Recommended, but don’t bother getting the box are tattooed on your back.
- Almost flawless. Unforgettable. Placed on the mantelpiece. Will land somewhere in the top 20 games I’ve ever played. Get the tattoo on your forehead.
As you can see, this is my issue with the 5-star rating system. I end up giving many games 3 stars, but it’s difficult to express the nuances.
6 Likes
I think there comes a point in a game where you are not yet done but have a good grasp of your feelings about it. Barring some major opinion reshaping ending, I think it is not unreasonable to settle on your feelings somewhere in the course of playing.
I enjoyed Wolfenstein: The New Order. It didn’t do anything mechanically innovative but it had a decent story and some excellent callbacks to the original. I had a thoroughly good time playing it. Now to be fair, it was developed by Machine Games, but it does run on the id tech 5 engine. I guess we can say that, at the every least, id has decent engine development.
That would have been something to see, for certain.
Agreed. But then I think any rating system is either too far on one end of the scale and not nuanced enough to be useful, or too far on the other and too technical to be useful to anyone but the person directly utilizing it. But I have bored many with my ratings discussions before so I’ll leave it at that.
2 Likes
Mass Effect 2? 3? I haven’t played it but I remember everyone got mad at the ending. XD For me with DS3, even if the screen went black and then suddenly the rest of the game was Mandrill Maze I still would have given it 5 stars. It’s such a huge game, I felt like I got my money’s worth at the half way point, they did a good job.[quote=“bmo, post:35, topic:748”]
I enjoyed Wolfenstein: The New Order.
[/quote]
I never got around to playing that, I’ll have to give it a go. For a moment then I thought you were talking about the other Wolfenstein reboot, it was called Return to Castle Wolfenstein (2001), I remember it being ok… but kind of underwhelming. Not sure if id software were even involved with it.
Ultimately, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The 5-star system works pretty well, despite its flaws, and I don’t think any other system would necessarily perform better or worse. So yeah, I guess I agree. Sorry to beat the dead horse!
3 Likes
This has always been the reason why I’ve brought up half-stars. It’s just enough nuance while still maintaining simplicity.
5 Likes
I guess that’s true, and if people wish to simplify they can always ignore the star-halves and just use the full stars.
3 Likes
I kinda dislike the star system precisely because it compels me to judge the game as objectively as I am able, ignoring the valid question whether I personally enjoyed the game or not. If the ‘rating system’ was rebranded as ‘enjoyment factor’, perhaps replacing the stars with smilie faces or something, I’d have an easier time just going with my personal opinion.
3 Likes
But if you hover over the stars, the system is clearly based on how you enjoyed the game. This whole discussion is about people bringing their own baggage into a site and their rating system instead of seeing how the site handles ratings and using that as intended.
2 Likes