In our Live episode I came to a realization-- we aren't really putting out reviews, we're putting out critiques. I akin our style much more to a film or restaurant critic than to a review.
Cam and Talen- your viewpoints are appreciated and noted. There are pieces of the feedback we'll take into consideration and pieces that we'll pass on because it doesn't support our goal and mission.
We will continue to use a numerical system- but my hope is that it's balanced with qualitative analysis which is the actual episode. If we were going purely quantitative we'd just have a post with a game and a number attached. But having both I'm hoping we're hitting both sides of the audience.
However, we agree that a straight "3 out of 8 lightbulbs" is far too subjective.
On the point of subjectiveness- I really get in a knot when I hear the argument Cam is making. It's prevalent and it's so counterproductive in my view. Total pet peeve but us saying "we're trying to be more objective with the review process" and the first reaction is "how can any review be 100% objective?? Of course my opinion plays into it! Rar Rar Rar! Huffle and Puffle!" This was the whole ENnies issue and it frustrated me to no end.
More objective does not equal 100% objective? Why go with the extremes? I'd like to be more fit than I am now. If I say that is your first reaction going to be "Why would you want to be a body builder? Those women are hideous! Why would you do that to yourself?" More does not imply absolute.
3 out of 8 lightbulbs is too subjective. Recommending a game for purchase is slightly more objective.
And to think of these as a critique- of course there are objective pieces of a review. A resturant reviewer has several criteria that they use in every restaurant to compare somewhat equally. Except, instead of reviewing cleanliness, service, and value, we have peritextual elements, writing quality, and well, value. The pieces more subjective in a restaurant would be food quality and environment. We have instead "does the game meet its goal" and a review of mechanics and gameplay. That's where our opinions come in stronger.
I'm still married to our rating scale. I think the only adjustment that needs to be made is that of scale.
1= the minimum amount of books you would buy in a year (that isn't zero).
3= the low average amount of books you would buy in a year
10= the most books you've bought in a year.
So if you, on average, purchase 5 books, our 1 is still a 1, our 3 is more like a 2 and our 10 equals a 5. Or, you could look at it without adjusting for scale- and instead think, "I may only check out books that rate a 1 or a 3 because I'm not going to buy 10 books." Our 10's are books that may be good to have, but they won't sustain game play, so only get them as long as you have other games to play throughout the year.