Hello! I'm Tom. I designed a game called Gunpoint, about rewiring things and punching people, and now I'm working on a new one called Heat Signature, about sneaking aboard randomly generated spaceships. Here's some more info on all the games I've worked on, here's the podcast I do, here are the videos I make on YouTube, here are some of the articles I wrote for PC Gamer, and here are two short stories I wrote for the Machine of Death collections.
And start marking games out of nineteen. Nineteen.
The scale still goes up to 10.0, the stupidest number in the world, but no game is permitted to score less than 1.0. Reviewers can still score to one decimal point, but only if they want to give it .5. And if they do, it can’t be a 0.5.
One of the many, many things I love about this announcement is editor Jeff’s thinly veiled astonishment and disgust at the surreal new system. “While I’ll personally miss the ability to give games a 6.8, I look forward to eliminating quibbles about the quality differences between games that are only a tenth of a point apart.”
I agree. I don’t know how we ever worked out which was better out of 7.9 and 8.0. It was baffling. And they were out of ten? What is this ‘ten’?
“You’re busy. You don’t have time to stare at one game that got a 5.2 and another that got a 5.3 and puzzle out what the big difference is.”
It was the ULTIMATE MYSTERY. There was no way of knowing. Nothing short of looking at the score could get you that information.
“We’ve been working on this update for quite some time now…” Here, this is your first tip-off that your planned scoring system is insane. If a way of rating something takes “some time” to work on, that is because it is not in fact mathematics but rather some sort of beat poetry with numbers.
In case I haven’t made this clear yet, I loathe everyone’s scoring system except ours and those identical to ours. This is because I am numerate.
7.5/10 is a decimal atop a fraction and never made a lick of sense, but this is a country mile further from Sanesville Tennessee. If Gamespot give something 7.5 now, that’s not 7.5 out of 10. It doesn’t translate to 75%. This, honest-to-god, is the equation you now have to put Gamespot scores through: (G – 1) * 10 / 9 = S, where G is the Gamespot score and S is any kind of rational system.
I once came across a website that marked out of twenty, but allowed quarter-points. They come close – close – to being as dumb as this, but it’s that fatal 1.0 minimum that just can’t be beat. This is, officially, the stupidest scoring system on the internet. And I say that as a man who gave a film “Bat out of bat.”
Oh wait, it’s cool. Now they’ve got a medal for “Xtreme Baditude.”
I leave you with a Daily Show-style moment of zen that is at once beyond, beneath and beside parody.
“With fewer scores to choose from, our review team will be able to speak more definitively about games. By eliminating scores like 7.9, we’re no longer able to say “this game is almost great, but not quite. Now our choices will be to say “yes, this is a great game” and give it an 8.0, or say “this game is good, but not great” and go with a 7.5.”
Score: (1.0 – 1) * 10 / 9
Rossignol: I've long contended that all games should be marked out of 12,000. More numbers means more journalism!
Also, what about this scoring system: http://www.spaaace.c... ...cope/?p=46
Iain: Skog and I came up with a hugely pretentious marking scheme for the (now sadly defunct) Truth Lasers blog.
It was based on the marking scheme Robin Williams calls "excrement" in Dead Poets Society, where you plot a graph of perfection versus importance and use the area to "greatness". We did it using arbitrarily large numbers, 300 for each axis (if I recall correctly) so that you had an "area" score out of 90,000. Clearly the way forward...
Tom Francis: Jim: the angels and devils thing is ace, we should totally go with that. Who is that guy?
Iain: I started to think I might be a geek when, while watching the Dead Poets Society, I found myself thinking "What an awesome rating system! That totally quantifies greatness in a really logical way."
I talk like that in my thoughts.
Tom Francis: In fact, if you drew the angel and devil faces inside the shaded block, you'd have more or less the perfect scoring system.
For me, though, the axes would have to be 0 to 1. That way the area would produce a result within the same range. You'd probably want to square-root it to be on the safe side, too. Well, I would.
James Wallis: "Who is that guy?"
I've been asking myself that for several decades and I've still not got a decent answer.
Iain: If you *really* wanted to screw people up, you should have a hexadecimal rating system, with a range of scores from 00 to FF...
Base 10 scoring systems are *so* last millennium.
The_B: Binary systems are clearly the way forward!
*(Note: this may be extreme sarcasam and not actually represent the true feelings of The_B or indeed anyone who knows him...)
Rob: Gamespot are on to something here. Why restrict ourselves to base ten? Decimal is the past; it's scratches on rock, it's Roman numerals. The future? The future is fractions of Pi, and all scores being expressed in the golden ratio. I see no other way forward for game journalism.
(Cynic Mode Engaged: Or, you could just view the removal of everything between 0.0 and 1.0 as simply a step towards honesty. Maybe soon GameSpot will get around to removing everything below 5.0, thus giving a true reflection of their scoring system? ;) )
icouldbeahero: Now we are going to be unable to accurate tell the difference between a 9 and a 9.5, so we will have to remove the decimal choices.
But then, what is there to distinguish between an 8 and a 9? Clearly the even numbers will have to be culled as well.
Oh, but I can decide between this game which got a 6 and this other one that got an 8...
Patrick Rose: Review scores annoy me and they should be culled and replaced with a word scale. Since you want the review to tell you whats good about the game, not the score.