Darklord Rooke Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 17 minutes ago, Kaguya said: Sure, but where's the harm in making it as accurate as possible when we already use the 1/100 format? :/ No harm. Just not as much salt ... Accuracy is good, but a system designed to be taken as an accurate system (out of a hundred to two decimal places) gives the impression of something to be taken seriously. "We are accurate and have this rating malarky down to a science." But because such a system gives off the impression of accuracy, and taking into account that no rating system is actually accurate, what it does do is just encourage people to throw tantrums when the score given doesn't match their impression. Whereas something that's just meant to give a 'ballpark indicator' and is clearly designed to just be a 'ballpark indicator' shouldn't have nearly as many complaints because it's designed to be a little vaguer. So if someone complains, a valid response would be "eh, it just felt like a 3 star game" whereas a score of 83.27/100 with 20.1 for art and 15.22 for writing (etc) requires much more of a justification.
solidbatman Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 Thanks for all of the input guys! I'm going to request the thread be closed now, and I'll be discussing proposals with the staff and reviews team. When we decide on a new system, I'll be sure to let everyone know, and detail it, so that you all can bitch about it too
Recommended Posts