Topic: IGN Changes Scoring System--Irritating Arguments Cease Forever

Same here, I prefer scores out of 100.

I think a scoring system with just three options, much like Adam said, is all you really need. Maybe not good, decent, bad, as that may start up some arguments as well, but something more like Buy It, Buy It if You're the Right Audience, and Don't Buy It. While I'm fully aware that this would stir up some arguments as well, I think one of these two "scales" would do the trick.

Let me put it this way: Metacritic already HAS three groups of score values, marked by number color. 100-75 is green, 74-50 is yellow, anything lower is red. The Sonic Unleashed page has a wide variety of scores within each range, with attached reviews that are significantly different from each other. If I didn't have the numbers to tell them apart, I wouldn't be able to tell without reading every single review that Hardcore Gamer Magazine thinks so much more of the game than Console Monster, when it was only the MOST positive outlook I was looking for. Therefore, the scores had value to me that a three-point system simply cannot convey.

I don't know why games need scores anyway. If you read the review it lets you know what you want to know and if you'll like it. I mean the review may say "it has this, this and this in it" - wow, exactly what you wanted! However they give the game 5/10 - that seems a bit average so you don't bother getting it despite actually having everything you want from it.

Just try not to worry about scores. An example for me would be Silent Hill Shattered Memories - the first reviews I read of it didn't give it such favourable scores but it ended up being one of my favourite games of all time.

I like the 5-star review system, as it gives a good general idea of where a game stands.
But i prefer to actually read a game's review rather than just bank on a score. A reviewer might give a game a mediocre score for different reasons, such as for graphics or sound, which mean little to me personally. In fact, when i see a review with a middle of the road kinda score (like say, 6/10), it makes me pay more attention to the actual review to see what the reviewer thought was lacking, and if those points impact what i personally look for in a game.

And thus begins the birth of even more irritating arguments

And once again, you're wrong in thinking that the highest score means that they recommend it the most. Each reviewer and each website have vastly different criteria to determin the overall score. A person can give a game a 100%, yet still find plenty more faults with it than someone who gave the game a 95%. It's all up to the individual, the scores mean nothing when compared to completely unrelated sites and individuals. It's the fundamental flaw of review aggregators, and it makes me wonder why so many people put so much faith in those things.

I can guarantee you the guys who gave it a 90 recommend it more than the ones that only gave it a 75...or do you really think that 15-point differences are automatically as trivial as 5-point differences can be?

Anyway, the fact remains that in this example, the 90-score review did, in fact, contain the information I was looking for, and it would have been much harder to find that review without the score and Metacritic to guide me.

I agree that looking at JUST scores is plain stupid, but I do firmly believe they have a purpose if used correctly. I'm partial to either 10- or 20-point systems (generally meaning how NLife does it, or equal to what IGN is changing to with the 10 scale and .5 markers). Fewer options aren't detailed enough and the excess IGN is dumping is just plain absurd and will not be missed.

I want them to get rid of scores entirely. The mean nothing, and if the reviewer can't tell you whether you'll enjoy the game or not through the text body, than an arbitrary score isn't going to magically turn it into a good review.

Unfortunately we live in a world where websites need hits, and aggrigates deliver those hits in spades, and aggrigates only care for game scores. Stupid system.

I need scores!!!! Seriously ,It helps sort the wheat from the chaff IMO. For instance if I'm in the mood for downloading a VC game, WW etc then I just come here to NL Sort the reviews by score then read the top rated titles that I might have forgotten about.I will then read the reviews to see if its a game I may enjoy and make my purchase.If there were no scores though how would I ever sort through the reviews,Read them all? I don't have much time to play games at the moment as it is! Keep the scores,just don't rely on that alone IMO.
I'm glad IGN have narrowed their scoring system though,theres nothing worse than reading through the comments of people saying 'Why was this a 8.7 and such and such was a 8.6? IGN sux' etc...

Oh noes! Reading?! But that could eat up like ... 10 minutes! Oy. x)

But seriously, to each their own i guess. All i know is no matter how many 9's or 10's Resident Evil 5 gets, i still think it's an absolutely horrible, horrible, horrible game.
^{I shall always bash Resident Evil 5, even when it's not at all necessary. And even if i somehow end up in the Mirror Universe and am forced to enjoy it while being imprisoned by Bearded Spock.}

@the shpydar: There are over 500 games available for download on the Wii. If we assume ten minutes per review, that's over 80 HOURS of reading. Or we could just skip the low-scored crap and spend a few hours comparing the reviews of the GOOD stuff.

Why not just look up the ones that interest you? That takes up even less time.

@Mickeymac: idk, you kinda get to the point where you've already got all the ones you wanted on-sight, and you'd like to look through what's left of the 'good' or 'midrange' games to see if there's anything that pops out at you a little, y'know?

@TBD: That's it exactly. I'm the kind of guy who enjoys looking into games he doesn't really know too much about, but I'm not about to read every single review on a site to see what might be good. On this site, it can be fun to read the REALLY low scores just for kicks, but that's still a far cry from EVERYTHING.

Here's an interesting example: I'd never have bought Shantae if I hadn't read positive reviews I wouldn't have looked at if the SCORES weren't so high. Y'know, because it doesn't really LOOK like something a grown man would want at first glance (I was ridiculed by uninitiated coworkers for being excited to get a copy for only $3, too).

You know back in the day I wanted Shantae but it appeared in mid 2002, and with the GBA and the GC being fresh I basically had to just stop buying GBC games as I really had too much going on, also was at the time working like 60hrs a week and the games I did get ended up going to work and using the systems at work (worked in the gaming ind) or bringing mine in and jacking into the tv to do stuff, also was sporting a NGPC, DC, PSone+LCD, PS2, Saturn as well then and the Sega handhelds(GG and Nomad.)

Funny thing is, today I got Shantae in fantastic shape for just $5 at a swap meet (Cannon Fodder for $5 too.) Time to make up for lost time eh? 8 years too late perhaps but whatever.

I don't like ign scoring system. I wish they have something like x-play by giving star ratings on videogames, like Super Mario Galaxy got a 5/5 stars.

Nice! Excellent find, since it can go for well over $100 on eBay and such.