I thought The Escapist was against awarding points (or stars, if you will) to games?

Edit: Oh bugger, just saw the aptly named "Why We're Using Review Scores." That explains that.

1 star: broken, unplayable.

2 stars: Diehard fans of the genre might find something to like.

That's an awfully big jump, ya think?

I've always felt that games that were "broken, unplayable" should just plain not be reviewed. 1 star should be a game that is playable, has no crippling technical errors, but also has very limited appeal or just does enough to be called a video game: in other words, 1 star should be average.

With today's talent pool and technology, average is easy to pull off; so "average" should be the least that a reviewer is willing to accept. Anything below average shouldn't get a reviewer's time of day.

When you set "average" as the middle of your scale, that dilutes the five-star rating.

Granted, I understand that you don't know a game's quality until you've played it, but I'm of the mind set that you don't have to finish a game to know how good it is. True, many games have started off with a bang and ended with a whimper, but I generally know an hour or two in if a game is total garbage or even just "average."

In short, with a review staff as well-versed in games as that of the Escapist, it's okay to be a bit snobby. You know your games. Be brutally honest in demanding quality. At least that's how I am when I talk about games.

level250geek:
1 star: broken, unplayable.

2 stars: Diehard fans of the genre might find something to like.

That's an awfully big jump, ya think?

Thats why I don't like review scores. I just don't see how you can condense an experience like Mass Effect into a number.

But like I said in the "Why we're using review scores" post, so long as it doesn't reduce the quality of the reviews, I don't mind.

But I'm still not going to pay any attention to the review score.

Well, here's hoping that this site gives the occasional 1, 2, or 5 star rating to games. I hate sites or shows or magazines or whatever that only use average and good reviews while avoiding great, bad, and shit scores.

How original of you. Good thing you had to explain it since the concept of 1 to 5 seems so cutting edge as to confuse us all.

And it is ALWAYS stars...

Another four-star system with no zero star rating. *Sigh* My maths are sad.

So, Big Rigs got 1 star?

OT: Interesting...

You really need to have a no-star rating. You know, to drive the point home even further. ;-)

yes,
1 star should be: Barely playable, not worth the money
0 Star should be added an it should be: So broken as to be unplayable. Not even worth picking up in the bargain bin.

Echolocating:
You really need to have a no-star rating. You know, to drive the point home even further. ;-)

I'l second that, 0 should be the unplayable broken train wreck.

I'm not sure I like the incorporation of an actual 'rating' into your reviews, I've never liked rating systems much, I far prefer an objective piece of prose that lets the reader take in information and make up their own mind. I think it makes a better review as well, as the reviewer wont be thinking throughout the review 'hmmm should I give this 2or3 or 3or4' and structuring the review accordingly. My two cents anyhow

EDIT: Just read the full article on the reasoning behind the scores and I'l just say fair enough. I for one will always read the full review (which I know will be written to the highest standard if its on this site) and take the stars with a pinch of salt

With this system, we should expect most of the games reviewed to be:

5 stars-game has a huge annoying fanbase as to imply it's "good" (see MW2 or any overhyped shooting game, really).
4 stars-PERFECT. Modest yet lives up to it's rating.
3 stars-Similar to 4 stars. It's probably actually better than its rating.
2 stars-Probably sequel quality ("Rehash Rehash: Legend of the Rehash" or anything else by Nintendo, really).
1 stars-SSBB, essentially.

I genuinely look forward to it, although no rating could ever tell me whether or not to buy a game.

I like the explanation of 5 stars, I'm so sick of outlets refusing to give a 'full' score because no game is 'perfect', or readers getting angry over the very same point.

Interesting how the step between 5 and 4 could be a single noticable flaw, but the step between 2 and 1 is between a no good game and no game at all. Logarithmic!

It would be nice to have examples of what the editors feel is a 0-5 star game before assigning these ratings in a review.

Saying a game is "average" or "flawed" doesn't really give me any context.

Also, to know that game X is of quality "3 stars" can help in a review.

I like the idea of establishing a system of who would actually like the game
(that was my idea of what the rating system meant)

5 stars -- genre busting game... fans of all genres can enjoy
4 stars -- really good version of this specific type of game
3 stars -- Ok, but Nothing new in this type of game
2 stars -- Not good and Nothing new in this type
1 star -- Not worth playing at all

I also don't get why an editor would write a review on something that is not worth spending your time on. You could easily just have a list of those 1 star games and save yourself a review. If the game is as bad as you say, I'll take your word for it. I don't need you to explain to me why it is garbage :)

banthesun:
Interesting how the step between 5 and 4 could be a single noticable flaw, but the step between 2 and 1 is between a no good game and no game at all. Logarithmic!

But there's no point in having precision in how bad a game is. It's crud, unplayable, that's all you need to know. This way, every game above 1 star is still worth playing, it just depends on who you are. You need to REALLY dig a genre to get enjoyment out of a 2 star, 3 star is for standard genre fans, 5 star is for everyone.

Also, diggin the Private Sleuth avatar.