Let's talk rating systems

All numerical/star rating systems are trash. The only one that works is the classic Siskel & Ebert thumbs up/thumbs down one. This is because either a work is reviewed favorably or it is not, all degrees of value, details and fine points should be supplied by the critic's language. Games should literally be rated either with a "yes" or "no" metric- zero or 100. If it's 100, it's recommended because of reasons A, B and C. If it's 0, it's not recommended because of reasons X, Y and Z. The end.

This shit ain't rocket science.

Michael Barnes wrote: All numerical/star rating systems are trash.

Depending on your perspective, sales numbers is a pretty solid indication of value. Generally that doesn't apply to end-users.

I'm more of a ranking guy. But even that is fleeting.

S.

Funny, I was just writing about this myself.

I think the main reason to use a rating system is to quickly tell the reader how the writer felt about a game and help them find articles they are interested in more easily.

For example, I wrote about an obscure game called A-Train 9 which was trashed by most mainstream reviewers and ignored by the majority of the populace. If I didn't attach it an score, nobody would care about it. "Just another game I kind of heard was terrible". They aren't even going to read my review and I don't blame them.

But I gave it a very high score, as high as the one I gave to Chicago Express. And I've noticed that many boardgamers who have played Chicago Express think "Chicago Express was great and this dude says A-Train 9 is as good as it, perhaps I should check it out" and read my A-Train review.

And it's also great for dissenting opinions. Most people won't read yet another Arkham Horror review, since they already know the game is good. But I don't think the game is good and gave it a negative review. Now, I have a dissenting opinion and there's value in that, perhaps it can help my readers understand the game better. Without a score attached, most people wouldn't noticed I have a dissenting opinion and would simply ignore the article.

It also comes handy for those times where just words don't quite convey how "better" or "worse" a game was compared to another. It is very difficult to explain why Super Jump Game gets 4 stars and Platformer King only gets 3 when the answers are "level design", "tightness" or "interesting enemy patterns" and often you don't even want to explain those differences too much because it would make the review totally unfocused. So having a score comes very handy.



The bad side is that many readers focus very heavily on that aspect, perhaps more than it would be desired. Some critics blame them for it and it's not like they don't deserve some blame but c'mon, you are the one explaining things, complaining that the reader "doesn't get it" doesn't seeem to productive to me.

Hence my recommendation is: If you want to use a rating system try not to ram that focus head-on because most people won't get it and it's more educative to try another approach. So..if you are going to avoid the "A seven means bad game" phenomenon don't use the 10 point or 100 point scale because you will only confuse your readers.



I use letters instead of stars right now because I don't know how to use Wordpress but this is the scale I want to use. It's basically a 5 star scale with a sixth "no star" rating so buggy and other completely awful games don't take a good chunk of the scale and put the "average" significantly above 2.5 Stars.


No Stars (20)- Extremely dull or barely working. There's often very little reason to play these games, much less write about them and so this rating goes mostly unused.

Example: LCR. You simply don't want it no matter how soft you are.

1 Star (38) - The game is more defined by its flaws than by its good side. These games often have poor ideas, a bad execution or just dull premises but they can be enjoyed with some work.

Example: Munchkin. It's not good but it's not like it's going to kill your parents. You may be happy to own it.

2 Stars (52) - Good games that don't quite make it. They are interesting, they are fun but they lack something important and can't quite stand to the competition.

Example. Eurocube 34. It works well, but it won't make you jump out of your seat. It may become a personal favourite.

3 Stars (68) - Three star games are games that stand out. They are well-made, with very interesting aspects and while they aren't perfect, they are more than worthwhile.

Example: Martin's Wallace Eurocube. It's like Eurocube but without the boring parts. Totally worth owning if you like it.

4 Stars (84) - A genre classic. The game will endure as a great example of what a good game is.

Example: Chicago Express. One of the best train games around. But it's not one of the best games in the market. (IMHO)

5 Stars (100) - Everything else.
Example: Steam. It's not just one of the best train games, it's one of the best boardgames you can get right now.

I still haven't written the definitions, I want them to sound very positive instead of "LOLZ THIS GAME SUCKS".

I chose a 5+1 star scale because it's the lowest number of categories I'm confortable with. My recommendation is to get a bunch of games you think are significantly different in quality from each other and see in how few categories you can split them.

If you have too few categories, there will be more cases where two games of very different quality have the same rating. If you have too many, you get the 7 point scale.

So yeah, that's what I think, I guess. Hope that helps.

I've always felt the three tier of:

Weak 7
Solid 7
Strong 7

Really tells me all that I need to know about a game.

If im reading an engaging review i don't expect a score. If i'm looking through what someone thinks of the games in their collection to try and gauge their interests, or if i want crowd consensus on whether people liked a game or not scores are helpful.

Ska_baron wrote: I'd prefer a 4 point scale. Something's either:
1) terrible
2) bad side of mediocre
3) good side of mediocre
4) great

And yes, then you're writing fills in the details and nuances more than a decimal place would.

Another vote for a small number of even-number of ranking bins! The reason you see so many 7s is because it's the safe bet. You're not really saying anything with a 7 on a 1-10 scale. You're saying it's above average, but not great. Then you use it so much that 7 is the new average. You might as well be using a 5-10 scale at that point.

Using a small number of even number of ranking bins like Ska_baron put out there forces you to make a choice. There is no safe middle. You need to commit to it being better than average or below average, and you need to justify it. 1-star, 2-star, 3-star, 4-star, no fucking half-stars. You provide the half-stars and the reasons in your writing, where it belongs.

Like Nate I love ranking games on BGG too. But if I'm going to use a 1-10 scale than 5 is the average. If it isn't I'm mis-using the scale and diminishing its usefulness. Looking at my ratings on my profile page I've got a pretty good bell-curve thing going. I looked at Nate's ratings too out of curiosity and I see a fair-looking bell curve there too. And it pleases me.

If I were to setup a rating system it would be:
-Bad
-Meh
-Good
-11

Bad is bad, there aren't many games that would hit there, but there are games that I feel should have never been printed.

Meh games are the games that fall into that "7" region. Games that are designed well but no talons that latch on and draw me back. Ones that I didn't hate playing, but ones that I won't seek out again.

Good are the games that I'd consider obtaining a copy for myself because I'd like to have it around and at hand.

11 are the games that are the Top Shelf, Crème de la crème, Keepers, Perma-shelf. Those games that you'd go to and save if your house was on fire (assuming the kids were safely out).

So it'd be a three-star system with a potential absence of stars as a fourth option.

5 is the fewest I'll work with.

I use 5 for my movie reviews and I don't really like it. I know I would hate out of 10 and 100 even more tho.

I think a thumbs system is perfect. Something is either good or it isn't. If you're in the middle, then it isn't good. You then use qualitative notes to describe how much of a thumbs up it is. I would give Gravity and Hunger Games both a thumbs up but they're not exactly in the same league.

Then, as an aggregate, you could really get telling information by what the percentage of people (you trust) have given thumbs up. The only problem with this is that the divisive stuff will get really underrated (like something like GTAV which some people like to give thumbs down but when you aggregate actual scores, it comes close to 100 and is very much GOTY).

I'm on the same page as VonTush, if and when I bother to rank games, here's how I break them down on BGG:

9 - Fun/Interesting

5 - Okay, I'll play.

1 - Kindling

I've also given a few games a 10, but it truly has to be a game I never tire of playing.