I'm changing profiles everybody. I just let this one go too long without being a good tennant. Plus I'm changing alot of things in my life and this actually made the cut. So even though I rarely commented on blogs and forums and unions, I'll be on here more on the new profile. I feel sorry that I wasn't as good a Gamespot citizen that I should of been, because I tracked all of you because I thought you were all interesting, and I still think that. So this is start of my goodbye/change/new beginning. For those of you that are interested in my new profile, here is the link http://www.gamespot.com/users/Lexxzilla/ , If not you'll definitely see me on the forums and in the unions.
ONE LOVE!!!
Users whine and complain about the ratings system all the time, and while everyone is too busy whining no one comes up with a solution. I was watching X-Play a few months back and they got a question about their ratings system in comparison to a 10 point rating system,and Sessler's answer was half right.
I'm not saying that Gamespot needs to change the system to 5 points instead of 10, because I feel that 5 points offers little differentiation. Sessler was right though about how one tenth of a point means nothing, and is in fact useless. What I think Gamespot should do is streamline the ratings system.
Right now any game that comes out has the possibility of receiving 1 of 90 possible ratings starting from 1.0 to 10.0.90! Now would it be better and easier for Gamespot to cut it down from 90 to 19? For example games would be rated on this scale: 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5......etc. It would make more sense rating two games of similar quality within the same level, instead of separating them by one tenth of a point. How much value does that tenth mean anyway? For example lets look at some recent ratings.Dawn of Mana scored 5.1, while Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End scored 5.4. Does the 0.3 point difference mean that much? No not really, now if it was 5.0 and 5.5 then I would be sure that one game sucked significantly more than the other.
Other examples: WarTech: Senko no Ronde - 5.2, Rampage World Tour - 5.3, Legend of the Dragon : 5.3. All of those games suck. Now tell me how much different is 5.2 from 5.3? All it says to me is that they both are bad, and that one may be just a little bit better, but not enough that anyone might notice it so why not give them the same rating?
Less rating levels make it easier for users to know if their is any marked difference between two products.That way I'm sure the complaints will stop, and best of all no more fanboys will be whining about why a game on the X360 gets a 4.4 and the same game gets a 4.3 on PS3.
And the weirdest thing about the ratings is that people actually argue over the tenth of the point.
