This isn’t a rant about rating games with numbers. Conversations of that nature require a steady hand, an even temper, and a measure of restraint that I’m not capable of. Listeners of Bullshot! know that my expertise lies in beating the correct answer into your head as violently as it needs to be for you to comprehend it. This is a rant about defining numbers, and I’m about to commence the violence.
Most outlets, both in print and online, use a number system to rate their games. A lot of those outlets have chosen to use a 1-10 scale as their number system of choice. Not content with using their scale in the traditional manner, most of these outlets have also chosen to re-weigh the scale. Motivations vary, and I am not about to delve into any of them here. Instead I am going to attack the practice itself because it is maddening.
Numbers are a universal system. If I traveled to China and held a rock in each hand, everyone would know I was holding two rocks. Language is irrelevant, the concept of “two” is universal. If I were on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri and had the same payload, the natives would understand the concept of two. They would also know that five more identical payloads would be ten, and halving those payloads would result in five rocks. On a scale 1-10, the Alpha Centaurians would know that five was in the middle, regardless of what they called it.
And that is the problem. The publications that insist on telling us that seven is in the middle of the scale are literally trying to redefine numbers. Numbers are constant, this isn’t up for debate. You can say “Haha, three is now average,” but that just means you are wrong.
Yes, you read that right: You are wrong. This isn’t a matter of personal opinion or preference; this is science, literally science. You cannot argue the worth of the number five because it will always be worth five. If you are grading things on a scale from 1-10, five will always be in the middle. Numbers less than five will always be below average, and numbers greater than five will be above average. I know it’s getting redundant in here, but the more I repeat it, the greater chance you have of absorbing it.
To put it in different terms, have a look at the color spectrum below. On the left is yellow, and on the right is red. As the colors blend into each other, they eventually become orange in the middle of the spectrum. When a publication tries to tell you that 7/10 is their average, it’s like they are telling you that orange is actually red. Well, sort of red. Oven roasted tomato to be precise. Doesn’t matter, it’s not orange. Orange is in the middle; it is the average of yellow and red.
Of course, the most common rebuttal to this argument is, “We don’t use a 1-10 scale,” which is confusing. Are we just leasing the numbers individually? If so, why lease all of them? Why not just lease the ones you intend to use? Seems wasteful to get the whole scale when you don’t intend to use it. Listen, if you are grading things where “1” is the worst and “10” is the best, then you are using a 1-10 scale. Why do I even need to explain that? And if you are using a 1-10 scale, the middle is fiv...ok, you must understand by now.
Now the question is: What is the harm in repurposing numbers? The answer is the lack of a unified collection of data. Alex talked about this recently on Pixelosophy, but I’m going to take it to its inevitable end. Sites like Metacritic and Game Rankings pull your numerical rating and throw it into a pool with a lot of other sites. They boil the pool down until they have an average score, and then they pin a badge on the game with that score. When a site like Game Informer gives a game a seven (average for their scale) and a site like Eurogamer gives it a five (average for their scale), the game’s mean score becomes a six. You now have a score that is not only skewed because of the data, but it also isn’t an accurate representation of either publication from which the initial scores were taken. Does that strike you as being as stupid as it should? If not, read it again until you understand.
But what can we do about it? We could all sign an online petition, boycott publications, or just sit around and get real angry about it. Or, we could even get real crazy and open up a dialogue with the people who make these decisions. There isn’t really a good answer here, but the first step is realizing that it is a potential problem. Hell, maybe I’m wrong, and maybe people like seven being the new five. I think you are crazy and a scientific heretic, but that’s just one man’s opinion. I know that the tone of this article wasn’t the most pleasant, but sometimes that’s what you have to do. Over the years I’ve learned two very important things. First, never wipe towards Mecca. Second, if you want to get someone’s attention, you have to preface your statement with “Hey Motherfucker.” I hope that this got your attention.
Brendan is one of the co-founders of fourplayercoop.com. While his editorial musings are few and far between, he can be heard every week as the color commentator for Four Player Co-Op's Bullshot! podcast.
