I come to you at this late hour because I’ve been thinking about something and I need your help. This is a call both to the other writers of the site, and also those that read VGBlogger occasionally and would like to help shape it where possible.
With the recent acquisition of Greg and Matt as exclusive reviewers for the site, you’ll obviously see the articles under the “Review” category begin to increase. Currently we run things on a 10 point scale, increasing and decreasing by half-point increments. This is really a holdover from the BonusStage days and if you’d like more information on the review scale you can check it out here.
Now, there’s benefits to a number scale system, especially when it comes to review aggregation sites. Also it allows you to see a score quickly and immediately know if we liked a game or not. But there in lies the problem. As a writer, I spent time playing the game and a few hours writing a review in order to save you money or pick up that “must have” title. I want you to read what I wrote and not just see the score and pass the review over.
Continue Reading to help us out.
Additionally, what makes a game an 8 or an 8.5? While I’m up to debate this with readers of the site, I’ve seriously gotten into arguments with publishers before because we gave game X a 7 while the average on a site like Game Rankings may be a whole point higher and they wanted to know why our opinion was different. I shouldn’t have to debate my opinion with a publisher just so they can push the review’s final score a half-point higher.
So anyway, here’s what I’m proposing: Why not move to a three-tier reviewing system? The tiers would simply be Buy, Rent, or Avoid (with more elegant wordage of course). That way if we really like a game we can simply come out and say “You should buy this game because ___…” Same thing with renting or avoiding games completely that aren’t even worth your time. I feel that in the end, a system like this would get you to read more of our reviews while allowing us to focus less on dinging games a half-point due to a low draw distance and focus more on arguing our point on whether or not to purchase a title.
So now I leave it in your hands. Where do you want to see us run with this? Personally I think it would be a great change as not many sites (if any) are doing reviews this way since it’s such a radical departure from the status quo. Leave your feedback because I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this subject.
Having over 25 years of gaming experience, Zach knows a thing or two when it comes to one of his favorite entertainment activities. Additionally, he has also written many articles previewing and reviewing titles which can be found in various places around the net, including VGBlogger.com. 
Interesting proposal, but honestly I’d much rather keep the 10-point scale. Yeah some people just look at a score and leave it at that, but most read the content to know what the game is like. And changing the scale just to appease those who like to argue why a game got a certain rating seems like an easy way out. I’ve never once had to discuss why I gave a game a certain rating. Some form of three-tier scale as Buy, Rent or Avoid is far too vague I think, and personally it’d be way too tough to decide between giving a game a definitive buy or rent label since there’s often an in between on many games. I agree with you that the thought of trying something “different” is intriguing, but ultimately I just don’t think a review is a review without an actual score.
Personally, I like the idea of using the three-tier scale as WELL as the 10-point scale. The norm for review rating is so drastically dull. Also, I understand your point of what reviews have come to now and days. Everyone just looks at the score…I know that I do. I’m not gonna lie…I just looked at the score of Matt’s Virtua Tennis 3 review, then read the first couple of sentences. Why? Because, I saw 8.5…I know that’s a good game.
I think it should be that the initial thing that people see is the “Buy, Rent, or Avoid” thing. Why? Because, if people see that, they’ll say “well, what makes this game worth buying/renting/avoiding? What was it missing?” I think if people see the number, they already know what to expect.
Also…one thing I hate about reviews, and I hated them with BStage too, but it’s such a standard that it’s hard to avoid: intro paragraphs. UGGH!!! I know that the game is a franchise if it says the number “3” after the name, ya know? So why introduce that to me? And honestly, I don’t even care about the company’s history. Hit that in the basic review. Instead, I’d rather read “(insert game name here) is worth your money because of the great gameplay, smooth controls, attention to story, blah blah blah” and that’s the intro paragraph. Get into the description later, but give me the initial overview so that way, if I don’t wanna read the review, at least I can see “Buy/Rent/Avoid” and get the general gist of why the game is rated like that. Then give me the review, ya know?
I don’t know, just my thought. I’m a backwards thinker lately. But I like the idea of using both the three-tier and the 10-point, but make the 10 point the last thing people see.
well, a game can be rated a 9 or 10, but still a rental if it’s something everyone won’t like (dreamfall, a sports game, a kid’s movie license), but i see the point here. as for intro paragraphs, well… it’s a history lesson, man! particularly in the age of people getting stuff WRONG all the time about games. also, it adds a nice sense of why certain games are important other than “ohh, lookit– i get to kill stuff!”
still, some reviews get it a bit too wrong. there’s a review of one recent game that spends way too much time comparing it to one entry in the series that never came out here. the end result made me more interested in the older game than the newer one, even though the review was a positive recommendation for the new game!
anyway, it’s a case by case thing, so don’t expect all reviews here to fit into that stuffy profile…
Combining both scales is overkill and redundant. The number ratings already indicate whether a game is a must-buy, rental, somewhere in between, etc. (as does the actual review content), so to give it a score and then further label it on another scale seems unnecessary to me.
As for intro paragraphs, I agree with both sides, and I try to mix things up. For major releases I do think tying in some historical company or franchise points is a great way to start things off, but with some games it really isn’t necessary. Starting any type of article needs some type of intro to sort of ease the reader along I think.
I think Greg is understanding my point on why we should combine the two scales. I mean, I love so many games, but there are some that…I mean, they are great games, but they aren’t necessarily something you will go out and buy just because it’ll kill the fun. I mean, Mario Party 7,000 may be a great game, but it may not necessarily be something I have to buy. Still, does that mean that because it’s not worth buying, but rather renting when you need it…does that make it a bad game, ya know? See, that’s one of the problems that, as game reviewers, we’ve all come down to. If it isn’t worth just outright buying, we factor that into the total score. So I think it would be nice if we could, in the same box mind you…make it say like “8.5” for the score, then right underneath it, where some would say “good” or “excellent” or something like that, we put “buy” or “rent” or “avoid”…something like that. That way, we can still feel good about giving a game a good score without saying “Oh, go and buy this now” if it really isn’t a buyer, ya know? So, it would add variety to the review scores, as people would have to pay attention to more than just the number.
I mean, we could give God of War II something like a 9 or so, ya know, but I’d put “buy” underneath that. Well, at the same time, I liked WarioWare Smooth Moves…which I’d also give a 9…but I don’t want to necessarily own it. It’s a good party game, it’s a good game to play around with, but it’s not something with this super deep story and shit. So, it’d be a 9 “rent”, meaning it’s a great game, but it’s more than likely going to be something you don’t immediately throw into your library and will serve you better by just renting it when you need it. See my point?
Wario Ware: Smooth Moves is an excellent example. I liked the game and thought it was a great preview on things that developers can do with the controller, however it took me about 3 hours to finish the thing. It’s not a bad game and I think everyone that owns a Wii should definitely check it out, however you’ll play through it rather quickly.
My point to a T. Just use it as a helpful descriptor for the score…it draws better attention to the score and WHY it was scored that why, leading henceforth to the review.
Yeah, but a game that short-lived shouldn’t really get a 9 in the first place. Giving a game a 9 then labeling it a “rental” contradicts each other. I’m not seeing the point in adding a second layer of rating when the number score, rating description and actual review content already state the value of a game. WarioWare getting like an 8 indicates that it’s a great game, but not a definitive purchase. If it’s such a great game worth a 9 then why would it only be a rental? If it’s kinda gimmicky and only fun for a few hours, why would it score so high. From how I see it, merging both scales raises more questions and room for interpretation than the standard 10-point review scale.
But then, Matt…that brings up another point. What if WarioWare were to get scored as a 7, but it was still a great game…it’s just gotten knocked down a bit because it isn’t “worth buying” per say. Should we make that number detract from how good the game is?
What I’m thinking you and Zach and everyone else were saying is that the 10-point scale is extremely cosmetic. You see the score, that’s it, it makes your mind up. You don’t care about the details…you see that number and you say “alright, I know what that kind of score means”. So, in essence…I’m just saying that the buy/rent/avoid tag helps us to give the games a score it deserves while being able to label it where it needs to be. It’s basically a subdivision of the scoring, saying “It’s a great game, but it’s something you’ll more than likely rent more than buy”. Not all great games are ones you should own outright. Not all great games are ones that you’ll want to play forever and ever on every single day. I mean, Shadow of the Colossus was a great game…but personally, it’s not an owner for me. It’s a rental…I beat it quick, and after I finished the adventure, I didn’t want to go back and do it again necessarily. I mean, it’s like movies. Do you buy every movie that you really liked? No. You rent some of them because you don’t need them in your collection because they aren’t the super essentials, but they are still fucking awesome, ya know?
Either way, it’s whatever really. I’m just trying to add some spice to an old, dull scoring system that almost everyone uses.