Current Events > IGN is ditching the decimals for their reviews.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Behold!

---

I was never a huge fan of decimals in ratings anyway unless you're trying to rank like dozens of things.

---

What is the the objective difference between Great, Good, and Okay?

Why is Unbearable worse than Painful?

Why is an average score (5/10) have a negative implication?

If they are going by the "Less than 70& is actually bad" metric, why is 6/10 Okay?

Why do the good scores go up gradually but the bad scores go right from Bad to Awful?

Why is IGN such garbage?
---

They should have went with the Adam Sessler rating system.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Why is an average score (5/10) have a negative implication?

Why would you think 5/10 is average? Can you imagine receiving that type of score at school?
---

XxKrazyChaosxX posted...

They should have went with the Adam Sessler rating system.

a five, out of five out of five out of five out of five out of five

---

It's the content of the review and not the number that matters.

---

I dont consider mediocre to be a negative connotation. Its average by definition. Neither positive nor negative. Its just mediocre.

This is a good change. I've come to think that a 1-5 scale is probably the best. 1-10 is fine too, but half-steps and decimals are pretty impossible to justify on such a granular level.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

What is the the objective difference between Great, Good, and Okay?

It doesn't matter. They just wanted a 1 word summary of each score's approximate meaning

Why is Unbearable worse than Painful?

Unbearable suggests that it literally cannot be tolerated. e.g. a game probably wouldn't fit a 1/10 if the reviewed actually managed to finish it all before uninstalling

Why is an average score (5/10) have a negative implication?

Mediocre means "around the middle". That seems appropriate for a 5 out of 10

If they are going by the "Less than 70& is actually bad" metric, why is 6/10 Okay?

They're not. Looks like 4/10 or less is "bad" here

Why do the good scores go up gradually but the bad scores go right from Bad to Awful?

There are fewer appropriate words to describe degrees of badness than there are for degrees of goodness. This is really not an important aspect of the scale

---

Okay is better than mediocre?

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Why is an average score (5/10) have a negative implication?

5/10 = 50% = An F

---

So... are 6-10 still going to be the only numbers that actually show up?

The school grade comparison is so dumb, because then there's no reason to have most of those scores. If your scoring is like school grades, then you MUST have a 5 star/5 letter/etc. scoring system.
---

IGN Scores have been garbage for years.

They really should just rate them on how mainstream they are, and nothing else..which is all they ever do.
---

Any reviewer who gets a review copy from the publisher, is automatically suspect.

This is still meaningless as long as they keep giving 9s to every single big budget game.

---

ProfessorKukui posted...

I gotta keep the decimal system alive

One bite, everyone knows the rules.
---

1-5 is the best,

1 and 2 = skip

3= wait for sale

4 and 5 are buy now

---

a 1-5 scale is the best system

1-10 and 1-100 scales only exist to feed metacritic bigger numbers

I prefer scoring based on each aspect of the game

I.e. story, gameplay, graphics, etc

Nier Automata is a 5/5 game, but not for the same reasons Breath of the Wild is a 5/5
---

There is a difference between the average and the median.

The average would be the combination of all rated games divided by the amount of rated games.

If there are 10 games:

1 is 3/10
3 are 6/10
2 are 7/10
1 is 8/10
2 are 9/10
1 is 10/10

Then the average is actually about 7.

now, if someone wanted to do the math and average out all of IGNs scores, it could conceivable average out to 5/10, but that would only be a coincidence, not how averages work

---

Might as well considering they have long since ditched journalism.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

I prefer scoring based on each aspect of the game

I.e. story, gameplay, graphics, etc

Nier Automata is a 5/5 game, but not for the same reasons Breath of the Wild is a 5/5

This is better served by just having a written review to explain the details, no? It doesn't really matter to me if BOTW and Nier are 5/5 games for different reasons, a 5/5 is a strong recommendation regardless.

---

Sonic Cannon posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

I prefer scoring based on each aspect of the game

I.e. story, gameplay, graphics, etc

Nier Automata is a 5/5 game, but not for the same reasons Breath of the Wild is a 5/5

This is better served by just having a written review to explain the details, no? It doesn't really matter to me if BOTW and Nier are 5/5 games for different reasons, a 5/5 is a strong recommendation regardless.

Yeah id prefer in depth reviews as well
---

Rika_Furude posted...

I prefer scoring based on each aspect of the game

I.e. story, gameplay, graphics, etc

This is, in fact, the worst way of doing it. Reminds me of all those awful compartmentalised gamefaqs reviews.

---

If they're going to stop using decimals then they should adjust so that they use more of the scale instead of just the top half.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The school grade comparison is so dumb, because then there's no reason to have most of those scores. If your scoring is like school grades, then you MUST have a 5 star/5 letter/etc. scoring system.

A student who gets a 50/F scores better than a student who got a 20/F, so you are still wrong.

Lets compare it to how men and women score each other. Would you really think you pulled an average girl if shes a fucking FIVE? A five isnt hideous, but she certainly is below average.
---

Imagine still caring about IGN's paid-off reviews in 2020

---

Wetterdew posted...

If they're going to stop using decimals then they should adjust so that they use more of the scale instead of just the top half.

Using the IGN scale what game in recent times has deserved a 1-4?


---

How can you guys take this so seriously. I don't understand.

---

Remember when Twilight Princess was given an 8.8?

---

IGNs scoring means bothing

they play it safe not to piss off any companies so they give all games a 7 and above. Trash reviewers

---

Toxic Gamer culture is also to blame for people being afraid to give things scores below 7.

---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Remember when Twilight Princess was given an 8.8?

GameSpot dropped the decimals in 2013.

---

seems very familiar

---

Does that mean The Last Jedi gets rounded up to a perfect 10?

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

So... are 6-10 still going to be the only numbers that actually show up?

They generally don't waste time reviewing all of the truly awful crap that no-one cares about, so the lower end of the range doesn't show up very often.

Conception616 posted...

A student who gets a 50/F scores better than a student who got a 20/F, so you are still wrong.

Lets compare it to how men and women score each other. Would you really think you pulled an average girl if shes a fucking FIVE? A five isnt hideous, but she certainly is below average.

Yes...

In fact, that isn't a good comparison either. Do you think 70% of people in the world are ugly? Looks are much more likely to follow a normal curve where there are a lot of average-looking people and you are equally likely to find amazingly beautiful and horribly ugly people.
---

__aCEr__ posted...

It's the content of the review and not the number that matters.

This

---

Prestoff posted...

This

But the content is the individual reviewer's opinion. Not that the website's opinion matters, but the score is more likely to reflect the collective opinion of the website - either that or the scores are meaningless because different reviewers have different standards and a 7 from one reviewer is not the same as a 7 from another reviewer.

Either way professional game reviews suck.
---

Good riddance. People would get so up-in-arms comparing other stuff because of point differences, when they can't be compared regardless.

But I wish they'd just have reviews without scores in general. Even Roger Ebert hated giving star ratings, and only did it because he was required by the newspaper.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

But the content is the individual reviewer's opinion. Not that the website's opinion matters, but the score is more likely to reflect the collective opinion of the website - either that or the scores are meaningless because different reviewers have different standards and a 7 from one reviewer is not the same as a 7 from another reviewer.

Either way professional game reviews suck.

Duh. Thats why its important to read what they actually say in the review than going by the score at the very end or reading some shitty pro/cons at the end without context.

---

gna647 posted...

IGNs scoring means bothing

they play it safe not to piss off any companies so they give all games a 7 and above. Trash reviewers

Death Stranding - 6.8

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yes...

In fact, that isn't a good comparison either. Do you think 70% of people in the world are ugly? Looks are much more likely to follow a normal curve where there are a lot of average-looking people and you are equally likely to find amazingly beautiful and horribly ugly people.

You must have only been with dogs if you think a 5 is average. Im sorry for your luck.
---

Conception616 posted...

You must have only been with dogs if you think a 5 is average. Im sorry for your luck.

Um they are literally just made up numbers
---

Now they only need to ditch selling the fucking game they are supposed to be reviewing with links plastered to their store where they make money off of selling the game they are reviewing... in their damn review!

---

Decimals in review scores always strike me as super try hard. Like they're weighting several subsections of the game to reach a median score.

But that's stupid because the total value of an entertainment product is not a median of the visuals, the music, the acting, the whatever arbitrary criteria you wanna throw in there. The whole isn't always greater than the sum of its parts, but it is always different to that sum.
---