Nice.

Wobblivision! Suck on that Penny Arcade.

I can't believe there was no swearing in that comic.

Does anyone else think that rating games on a 1 to 100 scale (or even, gag me, 1 to 1000!) is plain moronic? Do you suppose any of the reviewers could tell you the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3 game? Idiots. As far as I'm concerned, give me a 1-3 rating:

1 - Crap
2 - Worth it if you like the genre, otherwise stay away
3 - Get It Now

There - what more do you need to know? If you wanted to go crazy on the numbers, I'd even be willing to accept a 1-5 rating:

1 - Crap
2 - Rent or steal it if you like the genre
3 - Buy it if you like the genre, otherwise, play a buddy's copy
4 - Most will like it
5 - Everyone should buy it

Now the reviewers won't have to strain to figure out if a game is worth an 8.70 or an 8.75 rating, bending their pea brains.

A couple sites, you know, certain sites, run their reviews unscored. They just haven't been around long enough or written enough reviews that people notice this  ¬ ¬ . Loonygames didn't score their reviews either. It was refreshing.

Right on!  I hope more come.

Haha that was pretty funny. I hope you do more!

The 1-100 is more useful when comparing games though, not to mention helping you choose, a 93% game against an 85% is fairly easy, but what to do when they're both 5 Stars?

Oh, and the comic was good, sorry, got distracted

I don't get it.

so?

"Do you suppose any of the reviewers could tell you the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3 game?"

Yes, it's .1 better. Duh.

People get worked up over ratings, and while I think the 100 point system is dumb because it offers too much granularity (I'd be more interested in the difference of suck between a 1% game and a 49% one), a rating has no actual meaning without the context provided by the text. It's the main justification for the number/star/cups of drool/etc., and can provide  qualifiers.

And all along I thought reviews were based on personal opinions, and could not, by definition, be 100% (on a scale from 1-100) objective.

I give my comment an 7.25332 out of 10.00000


Hey, I dont even buy cds based on "music journalists' " roll of dice. Ok, once, but that was the exception that confirms the rule.

Perhaps this is also some commentary on how many online reviewers seem to generally give mediocre and low end games an 8.x score?

In response to all the comments, it's my opinion that ratings are a necessary "evil," though not really evil at all.  While many people like to actually read the review, many lazier people like to jump to the end and instantly see some sort of arbitrary rating of the game.  At that point, they might look at the screenshots, read a few blurbs, and continue on.  These people WANT ratings.

As for specific ratin methods, as a reader I don't mind the 100% ratings, 1-10, 4 stars, 5 stars, etc...  As Steve said, it's the actual text, the written reinforcement, that clearly indicates what the ratings mean.  I think the best rating system is one that breaks the review down into specific conclusions, giving brief summaries of and reasons for the rating.  Then, picking the correct rating model for your publication would take a lot of consideration.  I'm partial to one that has a possible "F" score.  That way I can say:

You get an F!!  An F, for FAILURE!!

Cartoon wise, I love Dr. Katz style animation.  Mmmm, shaky...

Warner Bros. is proposing setting their licensing fees based on the overall numerical review that a game gets from http://www.GameRankings.com or http://www.MetaCritic.com.  So the numbers do have meaning separate from the text.  Any game that gets less than a 70% overall ranking has to pay penalty money to Warner Bros. (if it uses a Warner Bros. license obviously).

And as everyone knows, punishing people for doing bad is much more effective than rewarding them for doing well.  Yay for Warner Bros!