Today's Lesson: Imaginary Numbers, Without the Math

Any time you think about getting a game, what is the first thing you do? Do you rush down to WalMart try out a demo? Or ask your friends how they liked it? Maybe even rent the game? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be in the wrong decade. With today's technology, one can easily jump onto any browser (that isn't Internet Explorer), and find let's plays, reviews, and ratings for the game in consideration in less than 5 minutes. But what does that 1 to 10 scale even mean? If different games are meant for different people, how can we justify that "Grand Theft Auto IV" and "Mario Golf" are both "10 out of 10 masterpieces"?

Some review sites like IGN break a game down and give seperate reviews for individual parts. For example, they will give different scores for categories like Graphics, Music, Gameplay, etc., such as this snip of their review of Crash Boom Bang for DS:

While this may sound like a good rating system, this doesn't rate the actual game itself, except for 1 sentence that may seem completely out of context for someone new to this type of game. The review only touches on the specs of the the game, not the quality of the experience. If I have a hyper realistic man sitting in a hyper realistic chair with a soundtrack that came from Lord of the Rings in the background, the Graphics, Presentation and Music would get a 10 out of 10, but it's still just a man sitting in a chair, there is no gameplay, no one would have fun with this game, if it can even be considered as such. With their more recent reveiws, IGN will give a rating number with some positive and negative aspects, such as this screen snip from their review of Shantae and the Pirate's Curse for 3DS:

I feel this review is far more helpful than a breakdown of the graphics and music. By simply putting a plus or minus with 3 words or less on the side, a potential player can already get a feel for what to expect. I have never played this game, and by the name of it, I thought it was a dark, rogue-like dungeon crawler sort of game, but with this review, I can tell that it is a light-hearted platform game with some puzzles and exploration elements. For me, this game now sounds like something I would like to play (matter of fact, I'll probably buy this game when my next pay check comes in), but for someone who doesn't like Metroidvania-type games, they will stay away from it. But this "staying away" is a good thing. If that person were to only see the "8.5" on the side, or in the format of the Crash Boom Bang review, they may consider buying the game, after all, it got a good rating. But when they go to play the game, because it does not suit their tastes, they won't like it, despite the high rating.

If the rating system was completely abolished, we would have a better idea of what to expect from our games. If IGN only gave the middle and right sections of the review above as the review, readers would know what to expect. Games that are incomplete would still have this reflected when a review says things like "- Character consistently glitched out" or "- Level would crash the game", and games that would be for specific crowds would have important key features brought to light, it may even entice new people to play the game. If reviews were presented in this type of manner, the quality of the game wouldn't be quantified, and the experience would still be evaluated.