[thinker]

http://www.adventuregamers.com/scoringsystem.php

I enjoy your site for its ratings but I believe you are very generous with the "3.5 to 4" phrasing on the 4 stars, maybe it has to be only for 4 stars and let people derive that 3.5 is just something between 3 and 4.

The reason for this is that I consistently see the games that you rate with 3.5 to be ..almost mediocre. They are ..good-ish, but really you can see the flaws easily.

For example, the first Back to the Future I just played was 3.5. It wasn't completely bad but I could see major flaws mainly in its monolithic gameplay, shallow story and even "just ok" characters.


I would definitely not recommend it to "anyone without hesitation" (which is what "3.5 to 4" states). I would put it closer to 3 or at least slightly better.

---

Actually BTTFuture 1 was rated 4 which means I disagree with your rating but I guess the above statement remains but I guess ignore the BTTF reference.

[Matt Berkeley]

I consistently see the games that you rate with 3.5 to be ..almost mediocre

And what's more it seems to be the default rating for just about every review.

So, yeah, "mediocre" or "mode (average)", "middling", "MOR". It is sort of an indicator of thems are generally uninspired but don't suck enough to "inspire" criticism either...

[Jackal]

Obviously a 3.5 rating is less recommended and not as "high quality" as 4 stars. That goes without saying, doesn't it? But the general principle remains. Any game that gets 3.5 here is still getting a solid recommendation, because we think more people will enjoy it than not. If you disagree with that assessment for a particular game, well, it really doesn't matter what the wording is. You'd still disagree with whatever we changed it to.

Originally Posted by Matt Berkeley

And what's more it seems to be the default rating for just about every review.

Totally rubbish statement. Of our last 15 reviews, two have gotten 3.5's.