Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

In Defense of the 6.0

By: Tom Mc Shea, GameSpot - Posted on Feb 1, 2012

Tom explains why you shouldn't ignore games in the middle of the rating spectrum.

What is it about the number six that causes people to scurry away in fear?

Yesterday, I posted my review for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game NeverDead. To put it bluntly, there are two sections in this game that are so aggravating I had to physically remove myself from their presence lest I smash my controller, television, and everything else of value residing near my desk into millions of pieces. Yet, despite the anger that it caused deep inside me, I actually liked it. In fact, after finishing one version of the game, I gleefully played through the first half on the other system in one sitting. Is it flawed? Oh yes, very much so. But like many games that my colleagues and I give a six to, it's ultimately a lot of fun and definitely worth playing.

Basketball might never be the same.

We all have limits on how low we're willing to go when it comes to review scores. When a game that I'm interested in gets a six from GameSpot or one of the other sites I frequent, such a score manifests a shred of doubt in my mind. Considering how skewed scores often are--I've seen many jokes about the supposed 7-10 scale reviewers employ--a game has to be close to putrid to crash below that magic threshold, right? Well, yes and no.

Forgive me for just one second. There is a word that GameSpot has banned from its lexicon because its overuse through the years has devalued its impact. However, falling back on an old standby is the easiest way for me to communicate my thoughts. Polish. It's one of those words that encompass an idea so vast that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it means, but I'll give it a try. A game that's considered to be "polished" generally avoids technical pitfalls that can pull you out of the experience. These include visual glitches (collision detection, wonky camera, inhuman animations), presentation snafus (bad lip syncing, lousy voice acting, indecipherable story), or gameplay hindrances (finicky controls, uneven difficulty, severe repetition).

A game has to be close to putrid to crash below that magic threshold, right? Well, yes and no. For many of us, so much time is spent playing extremely polished games that when we sully our hands with something rough around the edges, it feels downright archaic. "There are standards!" I want to yell at the television. "How can you possibly mess up one of the fundamental qualities of a good game?" In fact, when my temper gets the better of me, I do yell nasty things at these seemingly incomplete games. But, you know what? I would often rather spend time with a work in progress than a big-budget affair that lacks any discernable problems--but also lacks any soul.

Take, for instance, a novel real-time strategy game Kevin VanOrd reviewed last year: Achron. After playing this PC exclusive, you begin to realize how important artificial intelligence and pathfinding are; things you often take for granted. But Achron glossed over these fundamental elements to focus on its one huge innovation: time manipulation. To explain how a match functions in this game would require a Ph.D. in time travel, so I won't bother with the details. But just know that a game out there exists where you can fight your opponent in the past, future, and present all at one time, which actually works like it should. Yes, this is a real thing.

Just because you can't see time manipulation doesn't mean it's not there.

Every game must adhere to a finite budget. And, with limited funding, there is only so much time available to work on core values when you're trying to reinvent the wheel. So, in NeverDead, you can play fetch with a demonic hound using your arm and then detonate your arm to kill an entire pack of the beasts. But, you have to deal with horrible difficulty spikes. Alpha Protocol has an incredibly in-depth and flexible conversation system, but the gameplay is kind of crappy. Flower, Sun, and Rain has imaginatively twisted puzzles, but you get lost every few minutes. These games all offer unique experiences, but you have to put up with a lot of jank. Is the trade-off worth it? Often times, yes.

The fact that so many of these games are worth playing despite their "low" scores (I haven't even mentioned Disney Epic Mickey, Alone in the Dark, Wanted: Weapons of Fate, or many others) shows how tricky it can be to properly rate games. For better or worse, we use scores as an objective measurement of a game's quality. I realize this is a ridiculous statement (objectively analyzing art), but bear with me. When a game is saddled with noteworthy flaws, we have to lower the score in turn; we can't just ignore problems. But because so many games hover around an eight, it's hard to take something drastically lower than that seriously. Ultimately, we have to fight against the perception of what scores mean. Polish, at least in my eyes, is not the most important element of a game. Innovation is what fuels the industry. New ideas are what make me excited to come to work each day.

Games that score a six or--heaven forbid!--a five can still be a lot of fun. I really hope that people (myself included) can look past a score that seems a tad low. The games I have mentioned in this editorial are not for everyone. It's difficult to look past some of their problems because they infect every other part of the game, even the good stuff. But please don't turn up your nose when you see a six plastered at the top of the screen. Who knows? It may turn out to be one of your guilty pleasures.

531 Comments

  • Objio24

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 8:39 pm GMT

    I think the same thing Gelugon_baat , when Gamespot is giving a 6 or less I think, well, maybe the developer couldn't pay enough to receive a good grade here and then i check in metacritic if the score is close of I*N , why i come to gamespot? because is more friendly than others website out there

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 8:10 pm GMT

    @ryzrocks

    You wrote:
    Tom has a sickness which I like to call Number Disorder which basically means that a 7.5=9.5 and a 6.0=8.0...well that's not how we see it but I think this is how "Tom C's it" :p

    I would say that I find that an amusingly different spin on the usual "add 2 and you get the real score" jab at Tom McShea and some other GameSpot reviewers.

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 8:07 pm GMT

    @sorin_ro

    You wrote:
    you gave Doom 3 8.5 and Halo Combat Evolved 9.0. ill never forgive you gamespot. never.

    GameSpot doesn't need your forgiveness. GameSpot needs your Internet traffic.

    And by coming here, you have already fed GameSpot. Good f***ing job!

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 8:02 pm GMT

    @kcluffy

    You wrote:
    people need to stop saying not trusting GS review. First off, if you dun trust it, then why are you in this website?

    Because they are people who can't take opinions different from their own and love to b**** out loud?

    (P.S. If it's any consolation to you though, they are still helping GameSpot by contributing to the Internet traffic going into it - and they don't realize that. )

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 8:00 pm GMT

    @calvinsora

    You wrote:
    Solution: get rid of the numerical system.

    That will never happen.

    Oh, do believe me when I say that - I had wanted to believe that this solution can happen, and have even badgered some GameSpot staffers on this. I suppose you had, and if so, perhaps you should be reminded about the gist of their response:

    "I wish we can."

    GameSpot needs the Internet traffic from the lazy, unfortunately.

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:56 pm GMT

    @Dswiss

    You wrote:
    gamestop reviews are flawed anyway...

    No more flawed than your proof-reading.

    You wrote:
    its all about the players reviews

    It's all about filtering out the noise, I would say.

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:54 pm GMT

    @Double_Wide

    You wrote:
    Anything below a 7.5, I ignore your feedback and concentrate more on what users have to say.

    Good luck on sifting out the coherent ones from the fawns of fans and rants of haters then.

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:49 pm GMT

    @hotdiddykong

    You wrote:
    What i mean is that Mature games like myself should step outside their comfort zone and try other bizarre things that the usually high praised ones.

    And I would repeat again what I had implied: experimenting comes with risks, and one of those risks is regret.

    Of course, if you are talking about obscure games that few gave attention to, then I would concede to what you said - but the risk of regret is still there. The only consolation for trying out something different and obscure but finding it a waste of time and money is that no other warned oneself about it.

    However, if you are referring to games that others have given warnings about, that's a different matter.

    Having others tell you "I told you so" is no fun.

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:43 pm GMT

    @dalua360

    You wrote:
    Well, it's simple, I see Gamespot giving a 6, and I think, well, maybe the developer couldn't pay enough to receive a good grade here, so I just go to METACRITIC and check if it's another case where Gamespot is lying( like always ).

    The irony is that Metacritic is owned by the same corporation that owns GameSpot, and its metascore also includes GameSpot's. You do know that, do you?

  • fend_oblivion

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:23 pm GMT

    Alpha Protocol...

  • hotdiddykong

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 6:52 pm GMT

    @Gelugon_baat
    Thats not what i intentionally mean per-sey, there are games that most people will easily throw off despite their score because of its first look and concept but has attracted ALLOT of crowds. If you dont know what i mean, here's an example: OBJECTION!

    What i mean is that Mature gamers should step outside their comfort zone and try other bizarre things other than the usually high praised ones.

  • quiksilvergbr

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 6:07 pm GMT

    Why cant we just have ratings such as Terrible, Below Average, Average, Good, and Exceptional ???? Then we all know where we stand..... I mean there's no need to knit pick between 2 Exceptional games to say which is better is there?? Skyrim and Dark Souls both Exceptional games for different reasons..... Do we really need one to be 9.0 and the other 9.5??

  • BladeStrike1234

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 5:45 pm GMT

    The "Out of 10" rating system is really flawed. I already knew that though :/

  • Aletunda

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 5:07 pm GMT

    i can appreciate any game that is trying to implement new elements and concepts in a game, whatever their score. for example mind jack was scored a 5, and yeah the game wasnt that great but it had some interesting ideas in it. even fable 3 was a poor addition to the franchise in my opinion, but it was doing something different to- just kill the final boss and thats it, it was only half the game really the rest of your time was spent being king, being that hero. great in theory but lacking in its execution

  • Meteor7

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 4:41 pm GMT

    Gamespot gave several games that I love 6s or 7s... Doesn't bother me at all it's just a matter of opinion. Gamespot gave Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn 6.5 and I love that game.

  • jpw2

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 4:23 pm GMT

    Aliens versus Predator!!, what did it get? like a 5? or something. Sure not the perfect game by a way, but I LOVED it and the multiplayer was just awesome fun!. Very underrated imo

  • Dark_Infinite

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 4:18 pm GMT

    all the games i have have atleast 7.0 rating and plus...6.0 and below wont do for me lol

  • MauriceSherwood

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 4:14 pm GMT

    just saying. if i see a game with a 6 or lower, i will never play it. or just try to find out why it scored so low.

  • SciFiCat

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 4:03 pm GMT

    King's Field IV, From Software's spiritual predecessor to the Dark/Demon Souls Saga, scored by GS in the 6 range. Simply one of the most engrossing and immersive RPGs I've ever played. It has his flaws and even understand why the game was scored as it was but had I not learnt to deal with its shortcomings, I would have missed on a game that really catered to my tastes as someone who enjoys that kind of genre.

  • Connor728

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 4:03 pm GMT

    It's like I've always said, a number really can't express personal opinion.

  • H0rr0rG4m3r

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 3:51 pm GMT

    There are a few games which scored 6 or 6.5 that I actually enjoyed. This man speaks the truth.

  • jcouch2020

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 3:27 pm GMT

    halo wars got a 6.5 and its the only game that i consistently have played for the last 4 years. campaign sucked, but multiplayer is super fun.

  • hostX9

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 3:24 pm GMT

    A year or so back I realize that scores are not sacred when you decide which game you should buy or play. Much more important then scores is the question what type of games do you enjoy. For example I really love 3D platformers which are dieing out and although the low rating of Disney Epic Mickey I enjoyed playing it very much because I love the genre and don't care about the ratings. Next good question: what is the most important factor of a game to you personally? Some people are wowing to hi-edge graphic others to good stories now the third category focus only on gameplay etc. For example I love good stories which are pulling me forward to play something and then usually don't care about anything else (like graphics, gameplay etc.) like one of the old games called The Neverhood It's true some aspects were terrible but in those times some things were quite innovating and the story quite unusual and interesting.

    Also I played games like Emergency 2012 and give to it a 6 but sometimes I think to play it again. On the other hand sometimes it happens that we rate a very well rated game much lover then the average. Why? Because rating games is way too subjective then it appears, this are only orientational values of the overall product performance, usually not mirroring your personal taste.

  • LordRork

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 3:12 pm GMT

    My eyes just couldn't handle the hacking games in Alpha Protocol, while very specific, that mini-game was just trying too hard to be authentic in its approach. But I've had decent fun with "middling" games like Transformers: WFC (although I found the controls too clunky) and NFS: The Run and grew to hate much-lauded games like Dragon Age: Origins and Battlefield 3. A game may define its genre, but it doesn't mean everyone is going to like it (or with the 6.0s, hate it!).

  • Draken_Domingo

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 2:11 pm GMT

    To be fair, review scores are something that can't be taken to heart anyways. Each person is just too different. Reviews are meant to give you a bit of insight of a game, not a total "don't play this game because I don't llke!" message.

    However...Tom, I have to call you out on one thing...Simpsons Arcade? I'm sorry, but that review HAD to be a troll, unless you just hate everything Beat-em Up. Personally, I love the Simpsons Arcade, it's a good ole beat-em up. Yes, part of it is nostalgia, where you and your friends gathered around the pizza-greased cabinet at Chuck-e-Cheese and beat up some baddies, but in general it's a blast to play

  • flashn00b

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 1:29 pm GMT

    I still think Serious Sam 3 is a game for those who are tired of Modern Rehash 3.

  • megakick

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 1:18 pm GMT

    Not paying \$60 for a game with technically issues not matter what the score is.

  • jetaj1

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 1:07 pm GMT

    I'm guilty of this as well. I remember before I started reading reviews I had a ton of fun on many games that got low scores. But then when I discovered Gamespot and IGN I began to only play games with at least a rating of 8, or rarely a 7. I began to completely ignore games with scores too low for me to "waste" my time on. Now however I'm trying to ignore ratings a little more and play games that look genuinely interesting to me. Wish me luck XD

  • Gliave

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 12:42 pm GMT

    Ehm....I really get where this article tries to come from...

    But however, and especially when attempting to wrap up such an article with the notion that a rate of 5-6 in score DOESN'T mean it's not good....Well, that defeats the purpose of scoring in the first place...Doesn't it...

    Not to add, and in the other direction of what's claimed in the previous posts below, this is exactly the meaning of using the rating system altogether....Where 1 = poor, and 10 = Impeccable....

    What's to be got at however, and which should've been posed in a more calculated form as well, is that there is the concept of "Fun" that should be considered, which isn't deterred at times by low scores...

    And therefore, I present a new category to Good / Bad or Pros / Cons approach in GS' as well as all reviews, the category of "Fun".

    Say for instance, Graphics: 5, Camera: 4...Overall and final Fun category: 7.

    I think that gets the core of this article's aim through, which I personally find highly unlikely, but possible to happen at times.

    More importantly though, just hope this article isn't just a reflection of Tom suffering from a guilty conscience :/

  • Daavpuke

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 12:22 pm GMT

    I don't necessarily agree a lot with Tom, but I think he's right on the money on this one. There's a scoring range for a reason; to fully use it. Especially the last part: Games with a 6 or a 5 still have a very specified audience. Hell, I've even bought multiple 4 games on a budget, because they catered specifically to my interests, homed in to what I'd find enjoyable in a game. If a review comes back unfavorable and you weren't really piqued, then sure, you can pass; you don't need to buy every game. But if a game really has you pumped and it doesn't come back with a perfect rating, you can still actually read (or watch) if the parts that apply to you are done right. If so, chances are you'll still enjoy the game greatly.

  • maguiar

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:59 am GMT

    Playboy: The Mansion

  • DARKNESSxEAGLE

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:54 am GMT

    Ok, so it's entirely understandable that this should be the way things run, but when something like Skyrim which, ultimately, lacked a good level of polish, gets a 9 as its score, the thoughts behind the value of the 6s and 7s are put into relation of the 9. If a 9 is riddled with occassional bugs and glitches, then a 6 and 7 must be unplayable. Don't read this the wrong way, if all the reviews on this site were written by Tom (or any other singular GS staff member) then this problem would be much less pervasive, however the opinions on what a 9 is, what a 6 is an so on are so varied that what one professional would give an 8, another would give a 10, and another might even give a 3.

  • sdcazares1980

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:47 am GMT

    Yeah, and then we'll get scolded by getting the "Worst Game Everyone Played Award" for that game.

    I have three words "Legend of Dragoon." And that game kicked ass! Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

  • maguiar

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:45 am GMT

    Hospital Tycoon

  • maguiar

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:39 am GMT

    Chaos Legion

  • maguiar

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:36 am GMT

    The Incredible Hulk

  • maguiar

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:35 am GMT

    The Golden Compass

  • bsnimunf

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 11:22 am GMT

    The reason i tend to ignore games that get a 6 is that there are so many awfull games that get an 8-9 out of ten. If I think half the games that get an 8 out of 10 are bad why would I bother trying a game that gets a 6.

  • Kyrylo

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 10:19 am GMT

    There are huge amount commercial games that doesn't got any lower in score: Skyrim is buggy as hell, as well boring; Batman: AC doesn't live up to it predecessor and about Assasin's Creed and it's boredom I just don't want to start. Guess in the end it only matters who's paying.

  • biagio55

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 10:14 am GMT

    i think tht the scroing system isnt that bad, but you need to put back scores to decimal points, i dont know why they removed that... also get rid of the 10 score because no game ie MGS4 or GTAIV is perfect, there is always a law somewhere. there are even flaws given in the reviews so they cant be perfect!!! also use metacritic more often, that is the best way of dtermining a games score.

  • chyng85

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 9:32 am GMT

    6.0 is not that bad~

  • godfather830

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 9:28 am GMT

    Alpha Protocol definitely deserved more than the 6 it got, in my opinion. I even liked the gameplay. To be fair though, the review itself was pretty reasonable. I read it and still wanted to buy the game.

  • jwsoul

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 9:11 am GMT

    Great Article.

    I base my purchases quite often off of being a fan of a genre rather than the actual rating. Try playing Temple of Elemental Evil the thing is ruined unless you get a patch or 2 for it and being old this is easier said than done! But it must be one of the best D&D; games I have ever had the pleasure of playing. Personally i think a percentage system would be a better way to work out scores. Its just more flexible and you have less games getting a generic 8 or 7 and actually getting a High 78% or a low 72%.

  • ryzrocks

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 8:06 am GMT

    he gave infamous 2 a 7.5, so what is Tom's problem u might wonder....then allow me to shed some light on this situation...Tom has a sickness which I like to call Number Disorder which basically means that a 7.5=9.5 and a 6.0=8.0...well that's not how we see it but I think this is how "Tom C's it" :p

  • StockpileThomas

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:56 am GMT

    Tom could give a 10 and still sound like he hated the game in his review.

  • jinseinoseikou

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:49 am GMT

    Years ago I played many games without reading reviews first. I played many games and enjoyed pretty much every last one; Legend of Dragoon on Playstation (which got 6.4), as one example. That's a game that, while not perfect, was a load of fun. I enjoyed every minute of it and cherish the moments as a teen when I was playing it. It's not the only game like that either. A bunch of games on N64 got poor reviews but at that time I just bought on a whim and enjooyed them; many of the Turok's, some racing games, a fighting game I forget the name of but of which I played for hours on end, as well as more recent games. Reviews aren't everything, and some lower rated games pave the way for the "better" games, without being a complete waste of time. I'm a critic at times, but I definitely keep an open mind when playing games.

  • u1tradt

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:28 am GMT

    I agree with the poster below. Separate the reviews into two categories of 'Single-Player' and 'Multi-Player' or at least give two separate scores based on this. It won't solve everything but it sure will solve a lot.

  • tataaaar

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:25 am GMT

    why tom has problem for rating games? to remind you there 's infamous 2

  • JBjazzbo

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 6:48 am GMT

    Very nice to see a website that reviews games addressing one of the biggest flaws of games reviews. A lil' bit bold. Good read

  • gabeb

    Posted Feb 4, 2012 5:06 am GMT

    Actually you shouldn't ignore games even bottom of the rating spectrum:[URL\]http://www.gamespot.com/street-cleaning-simulator/platform/pc/[/URL]

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel