Shared publicly  - 
George Lara's profile photoAl Washburn's profile photoEdson Chilundo's profile photoJimmy Sieben's profile photo
I kind of object to "ratings" on games in general.  The text should be descriptive enough that I can read it and know whether or not I want to see it.  Putting ratings on games encourages people to skip the text and wonder why X was rated higher than Y.  Explain to me what's good and what's not and let me decide.  At that point, the rating is only necessary for metacritic.
One of the big problems with video game reviews are the relationships between game publishers and the content companies that do reviews.  A negative review can get you blacklisted from advertising, pre launch events, etc.  There is a lot of ethics reform that needs to happen in game coverage.
I'm not sure what you're asking for is really legitimate. I think the problem comes in the fact that a movie that's reviewed poorly may still have some intrinsic value to some viewers. Maybe they really like a director or an actor or are fans of poorly reviewed campy horror movies. Furthermore a movie has a MUCH lower initial time and money investment component.

As a prime example I have a couple aunts that are in love with Johnny Depp and will watch anything he's in no matter how bad it is. They liked Once Upon a Time In Mexico.

Video games don't have the same type of actor creator loyalty except for certain game publishers which doesn't really present itself the same way at all...

I recognize that there often realistically isn't a difference between a hypothetical game that scores 20 and one that scores 30 in that they're both probably unplayable. I "get" that if a everything below 60 is unplayable the scale SHOULD be 1 to 40 and skip the rest or move to a star system like you're proposing...but games are just perceived differently from movies. No matter how much you want them seen the same way.

If a game is below an 8 or a 9 it's a game that's not fleshed out, has an annoying UI component or awkward play control. Things that make a movie bad are often objective and artistic. Things that make a video game bad often more subjective and make the game unplayable.

I guess the point is, while the 100 or 10 point scale definitely doesn't work for video games, trying to shoehorn video game ratings into a movie-like rating system isn't the way to go.
Pretty much what Michael said. Arstechnica does a great job with reviews (buy, rent, etc). I think Kotaku does too. Joystiq only implemented a rating system last year because (presumably management) wanted to be included in Metacritic.

The other problem with reviews, that Al pointed out is the time necessary to really delve into it. The quality of reviews suffers a lot, as was the case with Mass Effect 3. A lot of reviewers did not finish the game, or perhaps they were paid to omit the ending backlash. But that's another debate.

Since I've only slightly expanded upon what others have said, I wanted to add that there is yet another problem with reviews. Upon reading many, I can tell the reviewer did not really enjoy the game. So we have reviewers either biased towards or against the game, which again affects the quality. And the end, they give a 4/5 (for example) after a scathing review! They're nuts! Or paid..

Happy thanksgiving to those who celebrate it!
Add a comment...