Scoring System for Reviews

Ratings scale

10 – Must buy, must play, must own period. A classic in every sense of the word

9 – Amazing, wonderful. A game that only a few minor things keep it from being a 10.

8 – Solid and well done. A game that really belongs in your library, blemishes and all.

7 – Great. This is a game that you'll enjoy, but maybe have to meet certain requirements (love of the IP or concept)

6 – Good. These are not bad games by any stretch, but maybe it's not for everyone.

5 – Alright, OK. A game that you really should be a fan of to get, otherwise you might be disappointed.

4 – Meh, so-so. A game that just doesn't run on all cylinders. Maybe game play or bugs hold it back.

3 – Bad, terrible. A game that can't overcome it's own faults.

2 – Oh boy... A game that really shouldn't have been released into the wild.

1 – Why bother. A game that is flawed top to bottom and is an affront to have on the shelf.

One of the things I want to do is use the entire scale. It seems that most “blockbuster” titles rarely fall below an 8. Heck, look at IGN and you'll see that %90 of the games fall into the 8 to 9 range. That's their system, and it works for them. But, I see comments all the time saying, “But this game got the same score and it sucked in my opinion.” That's what I'm here to do. Offer alternatives. Other sites will rate games and a majority will fall into the top 1/3 or bottom 1/3 of the scale. That's fine and looks good on Metacritic (or bad, in the latter case). From my perspective, anything above a 5 is worth looking into. Maybe rent 5s and 6s before buying, or look for them used or on sale. I shall point out that 5s are by no means “avoid at all costs!” They are just games that really have a lot of criteria to meet before the full thumbs up.

Some examples:

10: Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Katamari Damacy

9: Deus Ex: Human Revolution, inFamous, Uncharted, Borderlands

8: Mass Effect, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Alan Wake, Red Dead Redemption

7: Alice: Madness Returns, Alpha Protocol, Metro 2033

6: Fallout: New Vegas, Mafia II

5: Dark Void, EDF, Enslaved

4: Time Hollow, Henry Hatsworth, Front Mission: Evolved

3: Silent Hill 4, Tokobot, Gungrave

2: Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, Gangs of London, Damnation

1: Wii Play, Pain! (PSN)

Now, I know: “OMGZ Fallout: New Vegas is way better than Alpha Protocol! Flames of nerd-rage!!!11!” But, hear me out. I'm not saying that FONV is bad, at all. It's a good game, but there are some things about it that make it super hard to universally recommend. Things like bugs. Things like too much to do but no real direction/hook. Things like “Oh, I just lost hours of wandering cause I didn't manually save and found a rogue landmine.” For some that's why they want in. For others that's a reason to hold off. With Alpha Protocol, it's simpler: “Are you looking for Mass Effect: Spy Version? Or are you looking for Splinter Cell: The RPG?” If the former, keep walking. If the latter, welcome to it and enjoy. I had much more fun playing AP than I did FO3 (and I loathed NV, but that was before the more recent patches, so I'll have to try again). That's the thing about reviews, they're subjective. Think of the “non-review” Destructiod gave to Metro: 2033. The reviewer quit three missions in because it was “too difficult and frustrating.” They have since gone back and corrected the review and done a proper one, but still. Even major outlets have foibles with reviews. I've always tried to be fair, and I'll nearly always find things to recommend about the games. So, if while reading my review you say, “Oh, he loved that? Well, that's a deal-breaker in my opinion,” well, then you know to move on. If I say, “I wasn't a fan of the world being too open/too little direction...” and you get hot and bothered, you know to pick it up. Like I said, I'm going to try to use the whole scale, so anything 5 OR HIGHER is a GOOD GAME WORTH PLAYING. There just may be some strings attached.