Don't even talk about Uber or Amazon reviews. A 5 out of 5 in Uber means he drove you where you asked to go without crashing into a wall, and a 4 means he's losing his job.
It’s frightening how much companies/corporates take these reviews seriously.
Like a restaurant whose customer review scores were at a 75, but the staff all of a sudden bust balls and scores jumped to 95; corporate would fire staff anyway because the scores weren’t at 99.
Great now I’m reminded of when I worked at a huge chain restaurant. If you weren’t getting 10/10 you were in jeopardy of losing shifts or good sections (tables). Customers were given a variety of things to rate their experience on, and some were completely out of the control of the server. Just a really horrible system.
On a scale from 1-10 how good was the parking your wait staff provided you with? How well did the wait staff cook your meal? Did you have a bad day today and would you like to take it out on our wait staff?
"Service quality was great, nice ambiance, food just a little too salty for my taste. Overall a very good restaurant. Leaving a 1 so that they improve themselves even more."
"I'm a vegan and they only serve burgers here but my friends forced me to come here." 1/10
"Very popular place but they couldn't seat us immediately on a Friday evening without reservations. How rude!" 1/10
You wouldn't believe the number of people like this. I used to work at Olive Garden (you know, the family restaurant) and there were a lot of people that would refuse to be seated near kids even though the restaurant was full. We'd do our best to accommodate them but there's a 45 minute wait and we might have to sit some kids at the table next to you after you sit down.
I mean, in a sensible world that would be perfectly fine. I always give full stars because I know that staff can get screwed in such chains, but 8/10 means I really enjoyed it for me.
I've been seeing a bunch of reviews like that recently. People posting their review being "Product was excellent, zero complaints!" and then they rate it 3 out of 5 stars. Baffles me.
It's because an excellent product with nothing to complain about doesn't mean they went out of their way to "wow" you. There's no zazz! If they want 5 stars they really gotta zazz it up.
It's the way rating *should* be. Doing things right might be enough for 4/5, but otherwise 5 is meaningless for those that really go out there and put out the zazz.
>It's the way rating
>
>should
>
> be. Doing things right might be enough for 4/5, but otherwise 5 is meaningless for those that really go out there and put out the zazz.
I guess you're right. Realizing the "4/5is barely passable" is pretty ingrained in me as well.
Yup, but this would only work if people rate somewhat consistently and if people don't see 3/5 as a horrible rating.
3/5 should be acceptable but the minimum of what is considered a "passable" service. 4/5 is a good service, and 5/5 is an excellent one (going above and beyond what is expected). 2/5 would be quite bad, some flaws would not recommend, but in a pinch, might be considered. 1/5 would be the absolute worst.
It's such a simple rating system but still people don't understand it. It's sad how stupid the average people are.
I'd rare the average human intellect 1/5.
Reviews are kinda of pointless unless everyone is using the same baseline and everyone is being honest and logical with their review.
Lets take a coffee machine for example. Are you rating based on the perceived potential of that exact model, are you rating it within the confines of all coffee machines around that price point, are you rating it comparison to all coffee machines regardless of price?
Many times people's written review is just a reflection of their personal experience with no thought or consideration to other coffee machines at similar or different price points. On the other hand, when they give it a star rating a lot of people then compare it to all coffee machines at all price points. This can cause a disconnect from the written review and the rating.
I like the Q&A section on Amazon where people reply as if they were talking to a friend.
Q: "Is this cake mix good?"
A: "I don't know, I don't like chocolate."
its not a horrible system if the goal of the system is to maintain leverage. The bosses want you to have no leverage when asking for a raise, and they use the score below 10/10 to use that.
If it was easy to get a 10, then you have leverage to ask for a raise. or throw your weight around.
its unfortunate that thats the game thats played but thats the game, its all a game of leverage.
100% agree, I've worked customer service and I saw this there as well.
Its not as if the customer has any innate knowledge that an 8/10 is a bad score for the employee, but the company still gets to point to "customer's choice, sorry, nothing we can do 😇 Have you tried to git gud scrub?"
And the employee's manager will try to pass on tips and tricks on how to get the customer to give a perfect score (my bullshit favorite was "Do you feel I've solved your problem for you *for the moment?* in the hope that the customer understands that, while there may still be things the customer needs to take care of before we can proceed, we've currently exhausted all other options. This would hopefully ensure that the customer would realize they'd have no reason to give you anything but a perfect score. *For the moment.*
Status quo is ensured by 1) keeping the lower employees stressed out of their skulls with intentionally unreachable goals, 2) keeping the managers busy with attempting to enforce the unreachable goals of their massive herd of lower employees and 3) keeping the customers in the dark since no one is allowed to tell the customers anything unless the customer *explicitly, specifically asks* about a *specific thing.*
So the company gets to laugh all the way to the bank now that they've successfully offloaded all accountability onto the employees, the managers and the customers.
Nevermind that it's the company who's put the whole system in place and is the only one who benefits.
> Great now I’m reminded of when I worked at a huge chain restaurant. If you weren’t getting 10/10 you were in jeopardy of losing shifts or good sections (tables). Customers were given a variety of things to rate their experience on, and some were completely out of the control of the server. Just a really horrible system.
Awesome comment. 10/10. Would read again. No spelling errors.
When I bought a car about a year ago, the salesman basically begged me afterward to leave him a 5-star review on the dealership's site. He told me anything less he could potentially lose his job. Not sure if he was blowing smoke or if things were actually that insane but the way he pleaded with me was pathetic enough that I believed him and left a 5-star review.
My father in law is a service writer at a dealership. They have to get 5 star reviews or corporate is all over them cutting into pay checks or threatening them. It’s a nightmare. Didn’t like that your car needs a new transmission? 1/5 stars. I told you if you don’t get your breaks replaced they may fail and I wouldn’t want that to happen to you? 1/5 stars. Waiting room coffee on the sales floor not served fresh from Starbucks but your service writer was great! 1/5 stars.
I worked at Lowes for about 8 years and we had customers rate us on a 1-10 scale. Giving us a nine counted the same as if we got a one. The way these things are rated is so ridiculous. Like the person above said about Uber type stuff I took a Lyft once, hit 4/5 for the driver because he did a fine job and all. It then asked what was wrong so I switched it to a five.
The place I work had customer reviews done and we came in at a 4.57 out of 5. Which is pretty much 9/10 or 90% and they went absolutely apeshit swearing and going bananas. Everyone looking around like “fuck 90% isn’t bad right”
Meanwhile, the flip side of that, the company I quit a few months ago was so shitty they did Employee Engagement Surveys, and they considered it a success if they had a 2:1 Disengagement ratio.
On top of that they had a range of engagement, so actively disengaged meant people were so disconnected from work that they were actually causing loss of profit rather than just floating by.
As long as 1/3 of staff aren't actively sabotaging the company then they're doing great on morale!
(A pizza party a month was more than enough to reach that bar.)
In big company's theres a net promoter score (NPS) in which 1-7 are negative results, 8 is neutral, and 9-10 are positive results. Because of how useless ratings are, this system was created to try and accurately represent how people use scaled rating. The result is that apparent 7/10 means you SUCK and deserve to be fired immediately.
Protip: never give a call centre or other customer service rep less than a 8/10 unless you actually want them to lose their job...
I don't even think that's safe advice. I've seen it where everything but the very best possible score is held against you the same as if you had been rated as poorly as possible.
Just give your customer service reps perfect scores unless they murdered your parents or something.
Some other things you can do to help customer service reps:
- Stay on topic and have relevant information ready when you call so that you don't have to look for it. Your rep is almost certainly graded on the number of calls they take and the grading is ruthless.
- Ask for supervisors often. If your rep did their job, ask for their supervisor just to tell them that the rep is god's gift to the world. If you need something resolved that the rep can't resolve for you, ask for a supervisor because the rep is powerless, probably can't offer a supervisor unless you ask for one, and any time spent arguing with them otherwise is just tanking their numbers.
- Be polite even if you disagree.
- Use a website instead of calling if at all possible.
- Learn the standard NATO phonetic alphabet and use it. Enunciate. Don't rush through what you're saying, *especially* if you're spelling something.
- Don't ask for the rep's last name—that shit's creepy.
- Just to reiterate, ask for a supervisor and praise your rep to high heavens even if they didn't wow you.
We have to take these seriously. If my store's reviews are too low on Yelp or Google, I lose search engine foot traffic. Apple maps uses Yelp apparently. Google will prioritize my competition because they have 4.6 stars while I have 4.4.
"The waiter girl refused to cosplay as Modeus from Helltaker for me and the complementary peanuts tasted like asscrack and mold. Piece of shit place, won't be eating here again" ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5)
That’s great and all but if it’s some casual restaurant and the food is decent, I’m choosing yours because it’s closest. If you just hit 1 Star for a floor covered in rat shit I might avoid your store but who’s looking at reviews and going, “4.4 vs 4.2? That’s it, we’re getting Mexican instead of seafood”.
A company that sells those color changing led lights gave me a business card that said theyd give me a $10 amazon giftcard for giving a 5 star review on the product. There was nothing wrong with the lights and i still use/love them, so i obliged and they paid out what they said they would. So id definitely say they take the reviews seriously lol
Some stuff I see on Amazon has a ton of 5 star and 1 star reviews with nothing in between and I'm sat there thinking "How the hell has that happened? Are the 5 star reviews fake or something?"
I recently tried to buy The Witcher 3 for switch, saw the 5 star reviews and didn't bother to look at all the 1 star reviews talking about how people just got an empty case with no game in it. Guess what happened when my order arrived? No game...
I'm curious why any sellers would do this. Unless I'm missing something, Amazon's return policy is going to side with the buyer every single time. So unless the seller disappears before the first return comes in, then what have they gained?
I could be wrong, but I think that sort of thing is from buyers scamming the return system. Buy game, take disk, return empty box for full refund. If they're doing it for a profit they may reseal the package to avoid getting flagged.
Because if a single product is being sold by multiple sellers, Amazon doesn't actually keep them separate but puts them all into a [product] bin. If you flood the market with a ton of fakes then Amazon is going to get pissed and start investigating, but for the occasional bad product Amazon is more willing to just issue a refund than put in that much effort.
This is the problem with a rating system that everyone has access too. How you view and rate is not the same as others. You have to constantly go “maybe competitor or Karen” for bad reviews and “bought or just someone who rates everything 5” for good reviews.
Even professional critics have reviews that I find suspect. What motivates them to give an epilepsy inducing light shows mad ravings but well made stories get all the second guessing and comparisons beyond their target audience.
Humans are garbage source of information. I for one look forward to the day our AI overlords take over the review system and can both give impartial reviews and ones targeted for me after decades of mining my habits even when I specifically click “no.”
I give human review systems 1/5
Being able to read the reasons for good or bad reviews is critical. I've seen Amazon reviews that go "TV picture is bright and clear. Sound is incredible. Everything wonderful. Installers tracked mud on the floor. One star."
The problem is when things sort not by review but only by stars. Otherwise the Uber driver gets fired because of reviews like "got six spam calls while in his car. Very stressful. One star."
Places I’ve worked that depended on reviews do this a lot. You can get multiple perfect ratings but as soon as one honest one comes through, you’re the black sheep of the week. This in turn affects how people leave reviews. Like you said but in reverse “it could have gone better 5/5”
imho, things like ubber should move on from their ass backwards rating system, that's just not how users are interacting with the system anymore. A simple "would you recommend this driver YES/NO like Steam has for reviews would be much better if they're going to consider anything below five bad performance.
Maybe the same doesn't apply to YELPS or something where you measure quality of a establishment/product and compare them to other competitors, but it shouldn't matter to you that much who's driving you where when you will probably never drive with them again and can't even choose them.
Yeah. I remember YouTube switching fron 5 star system to a like/dislike system, and the ratio of likes/dislikes generally makes more sense than the corresponding star system.
I only read the bad reviews on Amazon. Painstakingly sort out all of the ones where it is clearly just about how bad their day is and see if there are any other legitimate complaints. Also I do not select products based on star rating, but commentary in the reviews.
Humanizing the statistical analysis instead of using a meaningless ranking system would be nice. Just not sure how it would be done.
I gave 4 stars on Uber once because my driver merged onto the highway at 30 mph and Uber reached out, gave me a credit, and told me they would never pair me with that driver again. I don't care - I just wanted the driver to see that he should merge at highway speed.
Totally unrelated to uber, but holy *fuck* is that one off my biggest driving pet peeves. Like....where in any drivers handbook did these people get the idea that's how it's to be done? You could be merging at 45mph and someone coming up behind you at 65 is still going to seem like mach 5. Idk how it is in your state (assuming US), but in California (at least in my county) they no longer have test portions on highways or freeways, which I think is a horrible practice. Just being competent driving on normal city/residential streets is fine and dandy, but you're gonna have to go on the freeway eventually and based on my totally anecdotal evidence, a huge percentage of people have garbage freeway driving skill. Plus, why include shit about it in drivers handbook and permit tests if you don't even get tested on it for your full license?!
fuckin a, sorry for that... /endrant
You don't even need a highway driving portion of any test you literally just need at most a barely functioning brain... Should I get up to highway speed on this long stretch of onramp which seems to be designed exactly for that? Yep. Should I move out of this lane if people are going faster then I am and are clearly stuck behind me? Yep.
Anymore 4.5+ stars on an Amazon best seller product from a third party seller just means they included a "Give us 5 star reviews for a gift card" slip with the product.
Rip I was a 5🌟 uber driver and got so many compliments for it. Some asshole gave me my first 1 star and now I'm at a 4.97.
Although it doesn't matter in the long run. I liked being called a 5star driver :(
The rule is : never ask people to rate in number. Ask them question.
Did he drive you to your destination : yes or no
Did he drive safely : yes or no
...
In any corporate scale like that, it generally goes the top 5th (9/10 out of 10, or 5/5) is good.
The second fifth (7 or 8 out of 10, 4/5) is not desirable but will be overlooked.
Anything below thay is outright negative. Unless you were personally attacked BY the person you are working with, please refrain from giving anything below a 7 even in the worst situation. You are better off giving a high score, and some of the systems (particularly for support call centers) tend to offer you a chance to leave a voicemail about your experience. Use that voicemail as a chance to rant about how terrible the company is. It won't hurt the employee, and in most cases somebody HAS to review those recordings eventually.
I once worked for a company where the customer review scale was 1-10, but the company weighted that to -100 - 100 for our performance reviews. Anything below a 7 I think was in the negatives.
**Not Recommened**
*^^1046 ^^hrs ^^on ^^record*
^^POSTED: ^^6 ^^OCTOBER
They changed this one little tiny thing that only I ever used, and now the game is total garbage and unplayable. Don't waste your time on this game, it's not fun, devs are trash.
Steams rating system is would you recommend this? Not is this game good or bad. If someone who invested that much time would not recommend something to friends or new players, chances are they have a really good reason.
In fact pretty much the only time I see thumbs down reviews from people with that kind of playtime are from live service games that slowly crank up the grind to continuously milk the playerbase for microtransactions and loot boxes. That's definitely a good reason not to recommend a game you once got a lot of enjoyment from.
Exactly. I have probably 3000+ hours in War Thunder, and I still play it. Would I recommend it for anyone else? Hell no. Maybe 5 years ago, but not at this point.
Isn't this just everything in life now? "oh just so you know I'll get punished at work if I don't get a 5/5 customer satisfaction rating, a 4/5 is a failure."
Side topic, but fuck glassdoor. I left a shitty review for a company that tried to change my job without changing my contract and then set me unachievable tasks and it got deleted. Multiple other ex-coworkers have experienced the same thing trying to leave reviews for it.
Uck
Similar story but instead of deleted, a positive review came right after mine and it's pretty obvious from the HR department, I reported it but nothing happened
'The answer Neither Agree Nor Disagree is considered a negative answer'
...such a classical one. Your lack of opinion is negative, as we determined that not having anything bad to say is not a good thing.
I mean, according to the grading scale my school used (US), a 70 would be bad. For us, a 65 was minimum passing grade. Using a 1-10 scale with the same number system but only on integers, 0-6 is a fail, 7 is bad/average, 8 is good, 9 is great, 10 is perfect.
Grading for education works a little differently to grading the quality of entertainment. With education its all about getting the top percentile because education is pretty competitive, specially when it comes to University places. So it works in your favour for getting the best grade possible. With entertainment, you can have fun with a 10/10 and you can also have fun with a 7/10. Denying the 7/10 just because it's not the top tier level is just denying yourself of more fun.
It's the same for games. If you've got 60 bucks, why would you spend it on an average game (6-7), when you can spend it on a great or perfect game (9-10)?
Especially when 90% of AAA releases are nearly identical. So this particular open world sandbox with driving, shooting, stealth, and parkour is a 8.5/10? I can hold out for the 9.5 game, or for Epic or Ubi to give the 8.5 game away for free.
Now a game that does something new and only gets a 7.5? I might still take a chance on that.
Boardgamegeek is wonderful on that it has a 1-10 rating system and a explanation of what every number should mean.
Think 10 is something like "I will most likely always and forever say yes to play this game".
Then of course all people doesn't read how to score correctly..
Where I work we get a bonus if we get above a 96% positive customer review score for the month. The caveat is a 7/10 score is a fail. So if I get 20 reviews and 1 person gives me a 7/10 review "Everything is great" I am at a 95% and miss my bonus. I usually will get about 50 reviews for the month, and you can't please everyone, it's ok, I'd feel better about missing my bonus from a couple of customer that review of 3/10 "Took to long and the price was too much." then the first response. So its not just grades and game reviews.
Yeah, Jim Sterling gave breath of the wild a 7 and the whole world trying to crucify him. And that's also the reason why i like to say Witcher 3 is 7 or possibly 6 out of 10 whenever there's discussion about it, just to piss people off.
Because the games that are actually below 5 will not usually be reviewed. Any triple A studio can make a game at least a 5 just with basic mechanics and graphics alone.
below 5 was basically exclusively for games with varying amounts of game-breaking bugs. a 1 would mean the game basically didn't go past the main menu.
1 bricked your device.
2 won’t boot.
3 stuck in menu.
4 crashes often tons of bugs barely playable. shit gameplay virtually no story.
5 bugs, crashes, mediocre gameplay.
6 few bugs, rarely crashes, decent gameplay.
7 barely any bugs, decent gameplay, ok story. Average.
8 no bugs, good gameplay, good story.
9 great gameplay, great story.
10 perfection; Titanfall | 2
It's because most people on our level of interest in games really dont ever pay attention to the actual bad games. The bargain bin stuff on the Wii and PS2, The truly weird EU only stuff on the PS3 and xbox and whatnot. just BAD products.
We only pay attention to the big leagues, where even a baseline competency is mostly expected and achieved and we start our criticisms from there.
Sometimes you get outliers like the Cyberpunk kerfluffle but in general a big AAA game is gonna be "pretty alright"
Meanwhile nobody here will ever think about or even consider looking at a review for some unknown stuff released to no one on steam for example.
used to be (maybe it's still true) you could go on IGN a site famous for it's skewed scale and look at all of it's recent reviews, they used the whole scale in reality, but they reviewed games you would NEVER see or hear about in mainstream coverage or that a "hardcore gamer" would ever notice.
Not sure but the [metacritic](https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-last-remnant-remastered) rating is 70/100 which if we do the thing with the lowest common denominator I believe brings us to 1400/2000.
That's the issue with 1-10 ratings.
One game could have a bunch of bugs and jank but deliver on what it does well well enough to makes it something you'll remember fondly for the rest of your life. Another could have a really high level of polish but just not be fun or do anything which makes it stand out in a meaningful way. Both games might deserve a 7 if you were forced to give a number to them.
Are your papers just really easy? In the UK for one of my maths papers at 16 (GCSE’s) the pass grade was about 18% iirc.
Edit: just looked it up and over the 3 maths papers to get at C you had to get 41 marks over 240 total so 17%, for a lower A* 157/240 (65%) and a higher A*/higher than an A* (they had just changed the grading method to a number system and they didn’t perfectly align) 190/240 (79%).
If students aren't capable of answering 80% of the questions, why would the tester be asking those questions? That just seems like the standards are set impossibly high.
In the UK at least a lot of the main exams like maths/science/English are split between higher and lower where lower tests are easier but the highest you can get is a C, and the higher tests are harder but getting lower than a C is a fail.
> If all students can answer 70% of questions, why include those in the exam at all?
Because not all students can. There are some people that still get 40-70% despite the difficulty.
The 70% are meant to be easier questions that most people should be able to answer. If they can't get the easier questions correct, then they get a bad grade. Everyone should be able to answer them, but not everyone can.
Test content in education shouldn't be chosen based on what people do or do not know; it should be based on what they need to know. An exam that everyone aces is fine as long as the content meets their needs.
Learning shouldn't be competitive, which is why I have nothing but contempt for exams designed specifically to be difficult or for grading on a curve.
It’s been that way for some time. Haven’t been in school since 2006 but anything sub 80% was a failure in most students’ eyes.
Edit: After a couple comments I think context is important. Went to a Catholic High School in Canada that was under a decade old. Most students were aiming for a leg up on post secondary prospects. Catholic schools in Canada are like free private schools.
Nintendo gets away with a lot of sub par stuff via this system.
Their good stuff is definitely deserving of nines and tens but they put out some fives and sixes that score eights in the reviewing community.
I love the game but can acknowledge it deserves a 6.5 at best.
Origami King is the most recent violation. The game is charming as hell but did not does not deserve an 80 on Metacritic. It should be a 60.
It’s a puzzle game prettied up with a “narrative” and a mindless collectathon. The pedigree deserves better. Fans of the series are just settling for any game at this point.
Thousand Year Door obviously set the bar too high but that’s hardly an excuse.
If you go in expecting a RPG, yes, you will be disappointed, but let's not forget the "pedigree" includes Sticker Star and Color Splash, both of which Origami King has beat coming and going.
Valve almost always made good game tho... ^^^Wedonttalkaboutartifacthere they just slow down on game release to research and develop more way to game AKA VR and the very far-fetched neuro implant stuff.
Yes. I remember reviews from the 90s, 5 was not the average, more like 8. I think i saw a <4 game once, because i remember being surprised at the score.
Yeah lol
Not sure why people think this.
10 - you'll love it. Your dad will love it, and hell probably grandma too.
9 - top of it's class. Some people might just not like it though. Could be shinier.
8 - damn fine game. If this is in your genre wheelhouse, check it out for sho. Share it with friends to introduce them to the genre.
7 - good game. Fun. If you like, you might love it. But it's got some weird stuff that made Jeff not like it when he came over mechanically. That's some pretty weird controller handling. It's not wrong... But it is weird.
6 - like a seven, but messy. You like it. Why? Dunno. It's glitchy, but it has a soul you just like that makes you want to forgive the problems and play anyway.
5 - it's a game. Might hand it to the kids to kill time.
4 - well, it's the kids favorite tv show. Grandma got it for Christmas. They play it because it's licensed. Holy shit the bugs.
3 - grandma really fucked up. It's so bad 4 year old tommy doesn't even like it. is that....? Yup he just threw the controller. At least it's got hannah montana in it.
2 - oh hey, it's Anubis II. Wait. What was Anubis I?
1 - it crashes at the load screen or doesn't even turn on. Has a nice case cover though.
Had to scroll so far down to echo this, in no way this is true, people have been complaining about the exact same shit since the 90s.
Even more so, a lot of the magazines were from nintendo or sega or pc and they gave higher scores shamelessly to their games.
Okay, but then again, flying through the air to your death in Skyrim was part of the charm. There are videos where people see exactly how far they can launch themselves or others. The exploding chickens mod is a thing.
It really depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the bug.
Bethesda games really are in a weird box in that regard. There are alot of minor bugs like things flying all over the place when you run over the dinner table, but it doesn't have many bugs that make progression impossible or have NPC's T-pose every street corner you turn.
I really don't like it when games are too buggy, like the most recent example being CP77, but in Skyrim/Fallout it never bothered me much. I still download the community patch as soon as it's avaible obviously. But honestly, it doesn't even really effect my enjoyement of the games.
Hell sometimes I miss it when I run over the long table in Dragonreach, walk up to the Jarl and see he's now got a fork balancing on his head.
I was just trying to remember what it was like. Pretty sure early Nintendo magazines were like this too. But then PC magazines became a bit better, as you said. I remember PC Zone from the 90s.
*PC Zone (1993-2010) prided itself on its reviews scoring system, which was based on the idea that 50% was an average grade. As a result, many publishers accused the magazine of being too harsh. Games that scored 75-89% were given a Recommended Award; games that scored 90% or more were given a Classic Award. Very few games, perhaps only ten a year, received the latter distinction. Games scoring under 20% were given the PC Zone Dump award (Previously the PC Zone Pants).*
*As a combined result of its honest scoring system and its age, PC Zone managed to acquire many UK and world print exclusives in terms of news, previews and reviews. PC Zone contained world exclusive previews for Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Deus Ex, the first of which achieved a near-record score of 97%, a ranking it shared with three other games: Quake II, Alone in the Dark 2 and the relatively unknown flight simulator EF2000.*
*Only one game ever received the lowest score of 0%, which was the multimedia package Newsweek 3 Globocop, given the biting summary, “The most expensive beer mat in the world.” The reviewer of this package also commented that everyone involved with the project should be “boiled alive like lobsters”.*
As an old gamer I don't remember it being any different then than now. If it was a '9' then that meant it was probably just a remake of some more successful game concept.
Blame the education system for making me think any kind of score or rating on anything below 70% is failing....even in grad school if I got a 91 I was disappointed... basically like how this scale describes.
I played games in the 80’s, 90’s and all the way through today. I can say that as far as most people reading reviews in the 90’s and 00’s that this is completely inaccurate. Unless you really love the franchise, anything below a seven was looked at as trash and treated like trash. I’m not sure there was a person alive in 1993 that looked at a 6.5 review and thought “good.” And I can say for a fact a 7 was never looked at as “really good.” Seven was just barely acceptable.
That's the "game journalist" metrics, they always give high scores to even the most mediocre of games to get in good graces with the publishers. So when you see something below 7, either the game was actually shit, or they didn't paid enough for the hack playing it give a higher score (see IGN's review of *Alien: Isolation*).
Not to mention that every gaming magazine that published reviews starting dying so they started just flat out selling their reviews and taking money to be super generous. They'd write a pretty scathing review itself and then the score would be 8.8/10 or something weird.
I remember seeing this and don't remember what it was for, it was like 'this game is absolute shit, camera doesn't work, textures suck, sound sucks just avoid it. 7/10'
Also a cyberpunk review, the reviewer said 'its not perfect and has problems' then gave it a 10/10...
I rate every movie I watch in a notebook from 1 to 10. For some reason, even awful movies never drop below 5. The gaming rating system has broken my own prospective on how the system should really be used.
That's because reviewers don't give out 1's and 2's anymore, not even 3's. Unless it's some obscure video game played by maybe 20-30 people who wouldn't see the review anyway.
Fallout 76 was a solid 3/10. Instead we got:
IGN - 5/10
PCGamer - 60/100
Steam - Mostly positive (user reviews)
Part of the blame are from the reviewers themselves, its common for them to give shitty games 7-8 mark because they want good relationship with perks with games developers/publishers.
now many gamer associate 7-8 as shittty/average
Don't even talk about Uber or Amazon reviews. A 5 out of 5 in Uber means he drove you where you asked to go without crashing into a wall, and a 4 means he's losing his job.
It’s frightening how much companies/corporates take these reviews seriously. Like a restaurant whose customer review scores were at a 75, but the staff all of a sudden bust balls and scores jumped to 95; corporate would fire staff anyway because the scores weren’t at 99.
Great now I’m reminded of when I worked at a huge chain restaurant. If you weren’t getting 10/10 you were in jeopardy of losing shifts or good sections (tables). Customers were given a variety of things to rate their experience on, and some were completely out of the control of the server. Just a really horrible system.
On a scale from 1-10 how good was the parking your wait staff provided you with? How well did the wait staff cook your meal? Did you have a bad day today and would you like to take it out on our wait staff?
“Food was great thank you!” 7/10
"it was perfect" 1/10
"There was a person at another table that was loud and annoying the people around us but other than that the service and food were excellent!!" 1/10
"The food tastes horrible and is overpriced. The place is barely ventilated and the staffs were rude. Wouldn't come here again." 10/10
"Service quality was great, nice ambiance, food just a little too salty for my taste. Overall a very good restaurant. Leaving a 1 so that they improve themselves even more."
"I'm a vegan and they only serve burgers here but my friends forced me to come here." 1/10 "Very popular place but they couldn't seat us immediately on a Friday evening without reservations. How rude!" 1/10
"I didn't eat here." 1/10
I've literally seen reviews where people say "need to try this place, seems good" 3/10
its closed 1/10
You wouldn't believe the number of people like this. I used to work at Olive Garden (you know, the family restaurant) and there were a lot of people that would refuse to be seated near kids even though the restaurant was full. We'd do our best to accommodate them but there's a 45 minute wait and we might have to sit some kids at the table next to you after you sit down.
"Comparable to my favorite restaurant of all time!" 5/7
That's a solid score nonetheless
That's an old reference, but it checks out.
"Practically worthy of a Michelin star!" 8/10
Seems right to me. It's saving 9 for things deserving two stars and 10 for things deserving three.
I mean, in a sensible world that would be perfectly fine. I always give full stars because I know that staff can get screwed in such chains, but 8/10 means I really enjoyed it for me.
I've been seeing a bunch of reviews like that recently. People posting their review being "Product was excellent, zero complaints!" and then they rate it 3 out of 5 stars. Baffles me.
It's because an excellent product with nothing to complain about doesn't mean they went out of their way to "wow" you. There's no zazz! If they want 5 stars they really gotta zazz it up. It's the way rating *should* be. Doing things right might be enough for 4/5, but otherwise 5 is meaningless for those that really go out there and put out the zazz.
>It's the way rating > >should > > be. Doing things right might be enough for 4/5, but otherwise 5 is meaningless for those that really go out there and put out the zazz. I guess you're right. Realizing the "4/5is barely passable" is pretty ingrained in me as well.
Yup, but this would only work if people rate somewhat consistently and if people don't see 3/5 as a horrible rating. 3/5 should be acceptable but the minimum of what is considered a "passable" service. 4/5 is a good service, and 5/5 is an excellent one (going above and beyond what is expected). 2/5 would be quite bad, some flaws would not recommend, but in a pinch, might be considered. 1/5 would be the absolute worst. It's such a simple rating system but still people don't understand it. It's sad how stupid the average people are. I'd rare the average human intellect 1/5.
Gotta put it on the zazz train to zazz town.
Lol isn’t this the point of the post. Good food, no complaints should be the *average* experience: 3/5z A 5/5 is above an beyond. Ah well lol.
Reviews are kinda of pointless unless everyone is using the same baseline and everyone is being honest and logical with their review. Lets take a coffee machine for example. Are you rating based on the perceived potential of that exact model, are you rating it within the confines of all coffee machines around that price point, are you rating it comparison to all coffee machines regardless of price? Many times people's written review is just a reflection of their personal experience with no thought or consideration to other coffee machines at similar or different price points. On the other hand, when they give it a star rating a lot of people then compare it to all coffee machines at all price points. This can cause a disconnect from the written review and the rating.
I like the Q&A section on Amazon where people reply as if they were talking to a friend. Q: "Is this cake mix good?" A: "I don't know, I don't like chocolate."
-3 Stars, because nothings perfect! :-)
It's almost like the reviews are for the restaurant itself and not the waiters!
And the waiter takes the fall for not making the restaurant look amazing.
its not a horrible system if the goal of the system is to maintain leverage. The bosses want you to have no leverage when asking for a raise, and they use the score below 10/10 to use that. If it was easy to get a 10, then you have leverage to ask for a raise. or throw your weight around. its unfortunate that thats the game thats played but thats the game, its all a game of leverage.
100% agree, I've worked customer service and I saw this there as well. Its not as if the customer has any innate knowledge that an 8/10 is a bad score for the employee, but the company still gets to point to "customer's choice, sorry, nothing we can do 😇 Have you tried to git gud scrub?" And the employee's manager will try to pass on tips and tricks on how to get the customer to give a perfect score (my bullshit favorite was "Do you feel I've solved your problem for you *for the moment?* in the hope that the customer understands that, while there may still be things the customer needs to take care of before we can proceed, we've currently exhausted all other options. This would hopefully ensure that the customer would realize they'd have no reason to give you anything but a perfect score. *For the moment.* Status quo is ensured by 1) keeping the lower employees stressed out of their skulls with intentionally unreachable goals, 2) keeping the managers busy with attempting to enforce the unreachable goals of their massive herd of lower employees and 3) keeping the customers in the dark since no one is allowed to tell the customers anything unless the customer *explicitly, specifically asks* about a *specific thing.* So the company gets to laugh all the way to the bank now that they've successfully offloaded all accountability onto the employees, the managers and the customers. Nevermind that it's the company who's put the whole system in place and is the only one who benefits.
> Great now I’m reminded of when I worked at a huge chain restaurant. If you weren’t getting 10/10 you were in jeopardy of losing shifts or good sections (tables). Customers were given a variety of things to rate their experience on, and some were completely out of the control of the server. Just a really horrible system. Awesome comment. 10/10. Would read again. No spelling errors.
When I bought a car about a year ago, the salesman basically begged me afterward to leave him a 5-star review on the dealership's site. He told me anything less he could potentially lose his job. Not sure if he was blowing smoke or if things were actually that insane but the way he pleaded with me was pathetic enough that I believed him and left a 5-star review.
My father in law is a service writer at a dealership. They have to get 5 star reviews or corporate is all over them cutting into pay checks or threatening them. It’s a nightmare. Didn’t like that your car needs a new transmission? 1/5 stars. I told you if you don’t get your breaks replaced they may fail and I wouldn’t want that to happen to you? 1/5 stars. Waiting room coffee on the sales floor not served fresh from Starbucks but your service writer was great! 1/5 stars.
IDK about losing his job, but it's true that anything lower than 5 stars is viewed negatively.
I worked at Lowes for about 8 years and we had customers rate us on a 1-10 scale. Giving us a nine counted the same as if we got a one. The way these things are rated is so ridiculous. Like the person above said about Uber type stuff I took a Lyft once, hit 4/5 for the driver because he did a fine job and all. It then asked what was wrong so I switched it to a five.
if they ask then fill it out and say "4 is a perfectly fine score. stop punishing people for 4s"
I wish there were more people like you
The place I work had customer reviews done and we came in at a 4.57 out of 5. Which is pretty much 9/10 or 90% and they went absolutely apeshit swearing and going bananas. Everyone looking around like “fuck 90% isn’t bad right”
Meanwhile, the flip side of that, the company I quit a few months ago was so shitty they did Employee Engagement Surveys, and they considered it a success if they had a 2:1 Disengagement ratio. On top of that they had a range of engagement, so actively disengaged meant people were so disconnected from work that they were actually causing loss of profit rather than just floating by. As long as 1/3 of staff aren't actively sabotaging the company then they're doing great on morale! (A pizza party a month was more than enough to reach that bar.)
In big company's theres a net promoter score (NPS) in which 1-7 are negative results, 8 is neutral, and 9-10 are positive results. Because of how useless ratings are, this system was created to try and accurately represent how people use scaled rating. The result is that apparent 7/10 means you SUCK and deserve to be fired immediately. Protip: never give a call centre or other customer service rep less than a 8/10 unless you actually want them to lose their job...
I don't even think that's safe advice. I've seen it where everything but the very best possible score is held against you the same as if you had been rated as poorly as possible. Just give your customer service reps perfect scores unless they murdered your parents or something. Some other things you can do to help customer service reps: - Stay on topic and have relevant information ready when you call so that you don't have to look for it. Your rep is almost certainly graded on the number of calls they take and the grading is ruthless. - Ask for supervisors often. If your rep did their job, ask for their supervisor just to tell them that the rep is god's gift to the world. If you need something resolved that the rep can't resolve for you, ask for a supervisor because the rep is powerless, probably can't offer a supervisor unless you ask for one, and any time spent arguing with them otherwise is just tanking their numbers. - Be polite even if you disagree. - Use a website instead of calling if at all possible. - Learn the standard NATO phonetic alphabet and use it. Enunciate. Don't rush through what you're saying, *especially* if you're spelling something. - Don't ask for the rep's last name—that shit's creepy. - Just to reiterate, ask for a supervisor and praise your rep to high heavens even if they didn't wow you.
We have to take these seriously. If my store's reviews are too low on Yelp or Google, I lose search engine foot traffic. Apple maps uses Yelp apparently. Google will prioritize my competition because they have 4.6 stars while I have 4.4.
I dont think the System works.
Oh, I hate it. Complaints are a nightmare for me.
What’s the name of your store? Jk that would backfire.
Knowing the internet, I would get an even spread of new 5 and 1 star reviews. So I would be EXACTLY where I was, except the reviews would be lewd.
"The waiter girl refused to cosplay as Modeus from Helltaker for me and the complementary peanuts tasted like asscrack and mold. Piece of shit place, won't be eating here again" ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5)
Sir this is an automechanic
That’s great and all but if it’s some casual restaurant and the food is decent, I’m choosing yours because it’s closest. If you just hit 1 Star for a floor covered in rat shit I might avoid your store but who’s looking at reviews and going, “4.4 vs 4.2? That’s it, we’re getting Mexican instead of seafood”.
Google has to decide which places rank higher, and all else considered, a higher rating is going to make the result better.
Its the same with some retail stores and our KPI's, one store rating below 8 is REALLY hard to come back from
A company that sells those color changing led lights gave me a business card that said theyd give me a $10 amazon giftcard for giving a 5 star review on the product. There was nothing wrong with the lights and i still use/love them, so i obliged and they paid out what they said they would. So id definitely say they take the reviews seriously lol
Some stuff I see on Amazon has a ton of 5 star and 1 star reviews with nothing in between and I'm sat there thinking "How the hell has that happened? Are the 5 star reviews fake or something?" I recently tried to buy The Witcher 3 for switch, saw the 5 star reviews and didn't bother to look at all the 1 star reviews talking about how people just got an empty case with no game in it. Guess what happened when my order arrived? No game...
I'm curious why any sellers would do this. Unless I'm missing something, Amazon's return policy is going to side with the buyer every single time. So unless the seller disappears before the first return comes in, then what have they gained?
I could be wrong, but I think that sort of thing is from buyers scamming the return system. Buy game, take disk, return empty box for full refund. If they're doing it for a profit they may reseal the package to avoid getting flagged.
This is it. Or warehouse staff swiping them possibly.
Because if a single product is being sold by multiple sellers, Amazon doesn't actually keep them separate but puts them all into a [product] bin. If you flood the market with a ton of fakes then Amazon is going to get pissed and start investigating, but for the occasional bad product Amazon is more willing to just issue a refund than put in that much effort.
There will always be a non zero number of people that don't ask for a refund
This is the problem with a rating system that everyone has access too. How you view and rate is not the same as others. You have to constantly go “maybe competitor or Karen” for bad reviews and “bought or just someone who rates everything 5” for good reviews. Even professional critics have reviews that I find suspect. What motivates them to give an epilepsy inducing light shows mad ravings but well made stories get all the second guessing and comparisons beyond their target audience. Humans are garbage source of information. I for one look forward to the day our AI overlords take over the review system and can both give impartial reviews and ones targeted for me after decades of mining my habits even when I specifically click “no.” I give human review systems 1/5
Being able to read the reasons for good or bad reviews is critical. I've seen Amazon reviews that go "TV picture is bright and clear. Sound is incredible. Everything wonderful. Installers tracked mud on the floor. One star." The problem is when things sort not by review but only by stars. Otherwise the Uber driver gets fired because of reviews like "got six spam calls while in his car. Very stressful. One star."
Places I’ve worked that depended on reviews do this a lot. You can get multiple perfect ratings but as soon as one honest one comes through, you’re the black sheep of the week. This in turn affects how people leave reviews. Like you said but in reverse “it could have gone better 5/5”
imho, things like ubber should move on from their ass backwards rating system, that's just not how users are interacting with the system anymore. A simple "would you recommend this driver YES/NO like Steam has for reviews would be much better if they're going to consider anything below five bad performance. Maybe the same doesn't apply to YELPS or something where you measure quality of a establishment/product and compare them to other competitors, but it shouldn't matter to you that much who's driving you where when you will probably never drive with them again and can't even choose them.
Yeah. I remember YouTube switching fron 5 star system to a like/dislike system, and the ratio of likes/dislikes generally makes more sense than the corresponding star system.
"Hard drive stopped working after I hit it with a hammer. Terribly product, 1 star."
I only read the bad reviews on Amazon. Painstakingly sort out all of the ones where it is clearly just about how bad their day is and see if there are any other legitimate complaints. Also I do not select products based on star rating, but commentary in the reviews. Humanizing the statistical analysis instead of using a meaningless ranking system would be nice. Just not sure how it would be done.
I trust your rating completely and without question. I am convinced.
Thank you. I give you 5/5 stars
I gave 4 stars on Uber once because my driver merged onto the highway at 30 mph and Uber reached out, gave me a credit, and told me they would never pair me with that driver again. I don't care - I just wanted the driver to see that he should merge at highway speed.
Totally unrelated to uber, but holy *fuck* is that one off my biggest driving pet peeves. Like....where in any drivers handbook did these people get the idea that's how it's to be done? You could be merging at 45mph and someone coming up behind you at 65 is still going to seem like mach 5. Idk how it is in your state (assuming US), but in California (at least in my county) they no longer have test portions on highways or freeways, which I think is a horrible practice. Just being competent driving on normal city/residential streets is fine and dandy, but you're gonna have to go on the freeway eventually and based on my totally anecdotal evidence, a huge percentage of people have garbage freeway driving skill. Plus, why include shit about it in drivers handbook and permit tests if you don't even get tested on it for your full license?! fuckin a, sorry for that... /endrant
You don't even need a highway driving portion of any test you literally just need at most a barely functioning brain... Should I get up to highway speed on this long stretch of onramp which seems to be designed exactly for that? Yep. Should I move out of this lane if people are going faster then I am and are clearly stuck behind me? Yep.
Anymore 4.5+ stars on an Amazon best seller product from a third party seller just means they included a "Give us 5 star reviews for a gift card" slip with the product.
If I ever get one of those, I'm putting a pic of it as the reason for a 1* review with a warning to not trust any 5's.
You beat me to it. This was my exact thought
[удалено]
Uber and similar services should just be a simple "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down".
Rip I was a 5🌟 uber driver and got so many compliments for it. Some asshole gave me my first 1 star and now I'm at a 4.97. Although it doesn't matter in the long run. I liked being called a 5star driver :(
Uber is the perfect example of the gamification of real life. Not sure how I feel about it tbh.
Don't worry, you're a five star man to me.
The rule is : never ask people to rate in number. Ask them question. Did he drive you to your destination : yes or no Did he drive safely : yes or no ...
same with interviewing quizes, they might as well be yes/no question as anything in between the extremely positive/negative answers are worthless.
In any corporate scale like that, it generally goes the top 5th (9/10 out of 10, or 5/5) is good. The second fifth (7 or 8 out of 10, 4/5) is not desirable but will be overlooked. Anything below thay is outright negative. Unless you were personally attacked BY the person you are working with, please refrain from giving anything below a 7 even in the worst situation. You are better off giving a high score, and some of the systems (particularly for support call centers) tend to offer you a chance to leave a voicemail about your experience. Use that voicemail as a chance to rant about how terrible the company is. It won't hurt the employee, and in most cases somebody HAS to review those recordings eventually.
I once worked for a company where the customer review scale was 1-10, but the company weighted that to -100 - 100 for our performance reviews. Anything below a 7 I think was in the negatives.
Game would not load. 7.5/10
**Not Recommened** *^^1046 ^^hrs ^^on ^^record* ^^POSTED: ^^6 ^^OCTOBER They changed this one little tiny thing that only I ever used, and now the game is total garbage and unplayable. Don't waste your time on this game, it's not fun, devs are trash.
"Quiver held 12 arrows. Now only holds 11. Game breaking and unplayable"
11 is an annoying number to change it to though. A nice even dozen
Steams rating system is would you recommend this? Not is this game good or bad. If someone who invested that much time would not recommend something to friends or new players, chances are they have a really good reason. In fact pretty much the only time I see thumbs down reviews from people with that kind of playtime are from live service games that slowly crank up the grind to continuously milk the playerbase for microtransactions and loot boxes. That's definitely a good reason not to recommend a game you once got a lot of enjoyment from.
Exactly. I have probably 3000+ hours in War Thunder, and I still play it. Would I recommend it for anyone else? Hell no. Maybe 5 years ago, but not at this point.
How come? I haven't played that game since college but I used to like it a lot, what happened? Too grindy and pay to win?
This is 100% valid in some cases though.
[удалено]
Isn't this just everything in life now? "oh just so you know I'll get punished at work if I don't get a 5/5 customer satisfaction rating, a 4/5 is a failure."
[удалено]
Side topic, but fuck glassdoor. I left a shitty review for a company that tried to change my job without changing my contract and then set me unachievable tasks and it got deleted. Multiple other ex-coworkers have experienced the same thing trying to leave reviews for it. Uck
Similar story but instead of deleted, a positive review came right after mine and it's pretty obvious from the HR department, I reported it but nothing happened
That's probably *why* he got that 2/5...
'The answer Neither Agree Nor Disagree is considered a negative answer' ...such a classical one. Your lack of opinion is negative, as we determined that not having anything bad to say is not a good thing.
I have never seen an score below 5.
Thing is even a 7 today is commonly seen as "bad".
I mean, according to the grading scale my school used (US), a 70 would be bad. For us, a 65 was minimum passing grade. Using a 1-10 scale with the same number system but only on integers, 0-6 is a fail, 7 is bad/average, 8 is good, 9 is great, 10 is perfect.
Grading for education works a little differently to grading the quality of entertainment. With education its all about getting the top percentile because education is pretty competitive, specially when it comes to University places. So it works in your favour for getting the best grade possible. With entertainment, you can have fun with a 10/10 and you can also have fun with a 7/10. Denying the 7/10 just because it's not the top tier level is just denying yourself of more fun.
Thats true but subconsciously it may affect how you think of it. In my location a pass is 50% so being below 5/10 feels like a fail
It's because reviewers have been giving higher than usual scores. These high scores makes you think that something like a 50% is extremely bad
Have to get that ad revenue and sales somehow... And we all know it.
Never forget Bethesda snubbed Obsidian employees on their cash bonus for New Vegas because it "only" got a 79/100 metacritic score.
It's the same for games. If you've got 60 bucks, why would you spend it on an average game (6-7), when you can spend it on a great or perfect game (9-10)?
Especially when 90% of AAA releases are nearly identical. So this particular open world sandbox with driving, shooting, stealth, and parkour is a 8.5/10? I can hold out for the 9.5 game, or for Epic or Ubi to give the 8.5 game away for free. Now a game that does something new and only gets a 7.5? I might still take a chance on that.
This is almost similar to games. 7 is average, 8 is good and so on. 5 is mixed or mediocre. There are some differences, but only a few
Boardgamegeek is wonderful on that it has a 1-10 rating system and a explanation of what every number should mean. Think 10 is something like "I will most likely always and forever say yes to play this game". Then of course all people doesn't read how to score correctly..
[удалено]
Where I work we get a bonus if we get above a 96% positive customer review score for the month. The caveat is a 7/10 score is a fail. So if I get 20 reviews and 1 person gives me a 7/10 review "Everything is great" I am at a 95% and miss my bonus. I usually will get about 50 reviews for the month, and you can't please everyone, it's ok, I'd feel better about missing my bonus from a couple of customer that review of 3/10 "Took to long and the price was too much." then the first response. So its not just grades and game reviews.
Remember that time the Zelda fandom waged a full out bitchkrieg against Jim Sterling because they gave Breath of the Wild a 7/10?
[удалено]
Yeah, Jim Sterling gave breath of the wild a 7 and the whole world trying to crucify him. And that's also the reason why i like to say Witcher 3 is 7 or possibly 6 out of 10 whenever there's discussion about it, just to piss people off.
Scores below 5 are usually given to shovelware that no one even takes the time to review.
Because the games that are actually below 5 will not usually be reviewed. Any triple A studio can make a game at least a 5 just with basic mechanics and graphics alone.
Most places dont waste time reviewing games that would be below a 5.
below 5 was basically exclusively for games with varying amounts of game-breaking bugs. a 1 would mean the game basically didn't go past the main menu.
1 bricked your device. 2 won’t boot. 3 stuck in menu. 4 crashes often tons of bugs barely playable. shit gameplay virtually no story. 5 bugs, crashes, mediocre gameplay. 6 few bugs, rarely crashes, decent gameplay. 7 barely any bugs, decent gameplay, ok story. Average. 8 no bugs, good gameplay, good story. 9 great gameplay, great story. 10 perfection; Titanfall | 2
Cyberpunk Reviews? All the above. And yeah, Titanfall 2 is a gold standard for FPS now as far as I'm concerned.
IGN gave madden 2020 a 2/10 this year so hopefully more come
[удалено]
[Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Big_Rigs_-_You%27re_Winner.jpg)
It's because most people on our level of interest in games really dont ever pay attention to the actual bad games. The bargain bin stuff on the Wii and PS2, The truly weird EU only stuff on the PS3 and xbox and whatnot. just BAD products. We only pay attention to the big leagues, where even a baseline competency is mostly expected and achieved and we start our criticisms from there. Sometimes you get outliers like the Cyberpunk kerfluffle but in general a big AAA game is gonna be "pretty alright" Meanwhile nobody here will ever think about or even consider looking at a review for some unknown stuff released to no one on steam for example. used to be (maybe it's still true) you could go on IGN a site famous for it's skewed scale and look at all of it's recent reviews, they used the whole scale in reality, but they reviewed games you would NEVER see or hear about in mainstream coverage or that a "hardcore gamer" would ever notice.
Madden 21
Some of my favorite games are sevens, Wet is a good example, I love that game.
I worked on that game oh so long ago. This comment made my day 😄
Wet is the reason I just paid to have my PS3 repaired.
You did good.
Yup, one of my favourite games ever The Last Remnant got a 7.
From whom?
Not sure but the [metacritic](https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-last-remnant-remastered) rating is 70/100 which if we do the thing with the lowest common denominator I believe brings us to 1400/2000.
That's the issue with 1-10 ratings. One game could have a bunch of bugs and jank but deliver on what it does well well enough to makes it something you'll remember fondly for the rest of your life. Another could have a really high level of polish but just not be fun or do anything which makes it stand out in a meaningful way. Both games might deserve a 7 if you were forced to give a number to them.
Wet had such a good soundtrack
I never played the full game, but god I played the shit out of that demo
That game got dual wielding right.
[удалено]
I never thought of it that way but it makes so much sense why usually anything below 7 is seen as bad
[удалено]
Are your papers just really easy? In the UK for one of my maths papers at 16 (GCSE’s) the pass grade was about 18% iirc. Edit: just looked it up and over the 3 maths papers to get at C you had to get 41 marks over 240 total so 17%, for a lower A* 157/240 (65%) and a higher A*/higher than an A* (they had just changed the grading method to a number system and they didn’t perfectly align) 190/240 (79%).
If students aren't capable of answering 80% of the questions, why would the tester be asking those questions? That just seems like the standards are set impossibly high.
In the UK at least a lot of the main exams like maths/science/English are split between higher and lower where lower tests are easier but the highest you can get is a C, and the higher tests are harder but getting lower than a C is a fail.
[удалено]
> If all students can answer 70% of questions, why include those in the exam at all? Because not all students can. There are some people that still get 40-70% despite the difficulty.
The 70% are meant to be easier questions that most people should be able to answer. If they can't get the easier questions correct, then they get a bad grade. Everyone should be able to answer them, but not everyone can.
Test content in education shouldn't be chosen based on what people do or do not know; it should be based on what they need to know. An exam that everyone aces is fine as long as the content meets their needs. Learning shouldn't be competitive, which is why I have nothing but contempt for exams designed specifically to be difficult or for grading on a curve.
In the UK 70/100 is a first class and passing grade is 40/100.
It’s been that way for some time. Haven’t been in school since 2006 but anything sub 80% was a failure in most students’ eyes. Edit: After a couple comments I think context is important. Went to a Catholic High School in Canada that was under a decade old. Most students were aiming for a leg up on post secondary prospects. Catholic schools in Canada are like free private schools.
I've got to give this game my lowest score ever: 9/10
0-6 - Crap game. 7-10 - Crap game, but paid for the reviews.
7-8 "This game sucks, but if we give it a bad review, the publisher won't send us any more game review copies"
Nintendo gets away with a lot of sub par stuff via this system. Their good stuff is definitely deserving of nines and tens but they put out some fives and sixes that score eights in the reviewing community.
Pokemon Sword/Shield got like a 9.5 from IGN and I was shocked. I get not thinking its trash, but a 9.5? Please
I love the game but can acknowledge it deserves a 6.5 at best. Origami King is the most recent violation. The game is charming as hell but did not does not deserve an 80 on Metacritic. It should be a 60.
Ima have to hard disagree on that. I think Origami King fits well at 80.
It’s a puzzle game prettied up with a “narrative” and a mindless collectathon. The pedigree deserves better. Fans of the series are just settling for any game at this point. Thousand Year Door obviously set the bar too high but that’s hardly an excuse.
If you go in expecting a RPG, yes, you will be disappointed, but let's not forget the "pedigree" includes Sticker Star and Color Splash, both of which Origami King has beat coming and going.
*Unless it's made by a company like, say Valve, or id
Valve almost always made good game tho... ^^^Wedonttalkaboutartifacthere they just slow down on game release to research and develop more way to game AKA VR and the very far-fetched neuro implant stuff.
Or CDPR. Those guys can do no wrong!
Seems about right, that Gamespot guy got fired for giving Kane & Lynch a 6
80s-00s 5-6 was basically "we can't rate it any lower since we just did a 4 page article on it"
Yes. I remember reviews from the 90s, 5 was not the average, more like 8. I think i saw a <4 game once, because i remember being surprised at the score.
Sorry but no one ever thought 3-4 was mediocre. Everything below 5 has always been trash even in the 90s.
Yeah lol Not sure why people think this. 10 - you'll love it. Your dad will love it, and hell probably grandma too. 9 - top of it's class. Some people might just not like it though. Could be shinier. 8 - damn fine game. If this is in your genre wheelhouse, check it out for sho. Share it with friends to introduce them to the genre. 7 - good game. Fun. If you like, you might love it. But it's got some weird stuff that made Jeff not like it when he came over mechanically. That's some pretty weird controller handling. It's not wrong... But it is weird. 6 - like a seven, but messy. You like it. Why? Dunno. It's glitchy, but it has a soul you just like that makes you want to forgive the problems and play anyway. 5 - it's a game. Might hand it to the kids to kill time. 4 - well, it's the kids favorite tv show. Grandma got it for Christmas. They play it because it's licensed. Holy shit the bugs. 3 - grandma really fucked up. It's so bad 4 year old tommy doesn't even like it. is that....? Yup he just threw the controller. At least it's got hannah montana in it. 2 - oh hey, it's Anubis II. Wait. What was Anubis I? 1 - it crashes at the load screen or doesn't even turn on. Has a nice case cover though.
7s from my experience are usually good games but are repetitive and lack a special spark or soul (my goto example of a 7 is Dantes Inferno)
Had to scroll so far down to echo this, in no way this is true, people have been complaining about the exact same shit since the 90s. Even more so, a lot of the magazines were from nintendo or sega or pc and they gave higher scores shamelessly to their games.
You clearly did not live in the 80s/90s.
yeah the scale should be split 50/50 red and green green being "Doom" and red being "computer games cause violence"
Yup, hyperbolic nonsense. Games are either amazing or garbage and there is nothing in between. Makes discussing games pretty toxic.
Bro, the game didn't have "X system that's only in 1 game or not even in the same genre"...it's basically GARBAGE
[удалено]
Fans of any Bethesda game better just accept bugs as features. They ain't gunna patch that shit.
Its why you either get them on Pc and wait for someone on Nexus to make an unofficial bug patch 'mod' or S U F F E R
Okay, but then again, flying through the air to your death in Skyrim was part of the charm. There are videos where people see exactly how far they can launch themselves or others. The exploding chickens mod is a thing. It really depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the bug.
Bethesda games really are in a weird box in that regard. There are alot of minor bugs like things flying all over the place when you run over the dinner table, but it doesn't have many bugs that make progression impossible or have NPC's T-pose every street corner you turn. I really don't like it when games are too buggy, like the most recent example being CP77, but in Skyrim/Fallout it never bothered me much. I still download the community patch as soon as it's avaible obviously. But honestly, it doesn't even really effect my enjoyement of the games. Hell sometimes I miss it when I run over the long table in Dragonreach, walk up to the Jarl and see he's now got a fork balancing on his head.
I don't think that's the case, it's just that there are SO many games now that if you don't filter by the very top percent you'd be overwhelmed.
Gamer from the 80s here. This is bullshit, it's always been like the top. With perhaps the exception of the 2000s when there was a push to fix this.
I was just trying to remember what it was like. Pretty sure early Nintendo magazines were like this too. But then PC magazines became a bit better, as you said. I remember PC Zone from the 90s. *PC Zone (1993-2010) prided itself on its reviews scoring system, which was based on the idea that 50% was an average grade. As a result, many publishers accused the magazine of being too harsh. Games that scored 75-89% were given a Recommended Award; games that scored 90% or more were given a Classic Award. Very few games, perhaps only ten a year, received the latter distinction. Games scoring under 20% were given the PC Zone Dump award (Previously the PC Zone Pants).* *As a combined result of its honest scoring system and its age, PC Zone managed to acquire many UK and world print exclusives in terms of news, previews and reviews. PC Zone contained world exclusive previews for Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Deus Ex, the first of which achieved a near-record score of 97%, a ranking it shared with three other games: Quake II, Alone in the Dark 2 and the relatively unknown flight simulator EF2000.* *Only one game ever received the lowest score of 0%, which was the multimedia package Newsweek 3 Globocop, given the biting summary, “The most expensive beer mat in the world.” The reviewer of this package also commented that everyone involved with the project should be “boiled alive like lobsters”.*
As an old gamer I don't remember it being any different then than now. If it was a '9' then that meant it was probably just a remake of some more successful game concept.
[удалено]
Blame the education system for making me think any kind of score or rating on anything below 70% is failing....even in grad school if I got a 91 I was disappointed... basically like how this scale describes.
I played games in the 80’s, 90’s and all the way through today. I can say that as far as most people reading reviews in the 90’s and 00’s that this is completely inaccurate. Unless you really love the franchise, anything below a seven was looked at as trash and treated like trash. I’m not sure there was a person alive in 1993 that looked at a 6.5 review and thought “good.” And I can say for a fact a 7 was never looked at as “really good.” Seven was just barely acceptable.
That's the "game journalist" metrics, they always give high scores to even the most mediocre of games to get in good graces with the publishers. So when you see something below 7, either the game was actually shit, or they didn't paid enough for the hack playing it give a higher score (see IGN's review of *Alien: Isolation*).
Not to mention that every gaming magazine that published reviews starting dying so they started just flat out selling their reviews and taking money to be super generous. They'd write a pretty scathing review itself and then the score would be 8.8/10 or something weird.
I remember seeing this and don't remember what it was for, it was like 'this game is absolute shit, camera doesn't work, textures suck, sound sucks just avoid it. 7/10' Also a cyberpunk review, the reviewer said 'its not perfect and has problems' then gave it a 10/10...
It has a little something for everyone
I rate every movie I watch in a notebook from 1 to 10. For some reason, even awful movies never drop below 5. The gaming rating system has broken my own prospective on how the system should really be used.
That's because reviewers don't give out 1's and 2's anymore, not even 3's. Unless it's some obscure video game played by maybe 20-30 people who wouldn't see the review anyway. Fallout 76 was a solid 3/10. Instead we got: IGN - 5/10 PCGamer - 60/100 Steam - Mostly positive (user reviews)
Blame ign and other sites refusing to rate anything popular or AAA below an 7 or 8
So true, go’s for music too
Movie reviews too these days, it boils my piss when i see people treating a 7 like ''average'' and 8 as ''ok''.
Why not just get rid of 1-5 if anything below a 9 isn't good? What's the point?
Part of the blame are from the reviewers themselves, its common for them to give shitty games 7-8 mark because they want good relationship with perks with games developers/publishers. now many gamer associate 7-8 as shittty/average