ok, my 2-bits as associate editor. For whatever that counts (nothing?)
Yes, books and movies and music have different "formulas" for rating. But there really isn't a standardized reviewing formula for games. So we had to make one.
and yeah, they have different methods, but they also have different AUDIENCES. People who usually write and read movie reviews don't go to a gaming site for their material. And, like it or not, as much as we like movies and books, TWG's primarily identity is that of a site for gamers and games.
It seems to me that simplifying anything is for the better. I dislike the idea of experimenting with 2 different systems because that adds to the complexity. It means there's more you have to become familiar with to make any judgement. I think it is not selfish or mean to ask our reviewers, especially frequent contributors, to try to understand the system we already use rather than try to impose their own. That seems absurd. It would be more user and editor friendly for writers to at least try to understand our system rather than go with their own.
And, for the record,
this article is linked to from the submission page. At the top. It's not like it's hidden from reviewers. Nor is the language complex, imo.
On the other hand, the 6 clock system is not exactly a continuum as described. It is not one that is easily grasped by the average reader. I feel compelled to quote sections of that rating description to publishers whenever I tell them we've reviewed their stuff. I don't think it's remotely fair to expect readers or publishers to have to read our rating description in depth to understand our system. Four clocks is a darn good game. But in terms of percentage, it's only 66%. Where I went to high school, that was nearly a failing grade. And, whatever we've said it really means, that's the impression I believe most people get.
What's the answer then?
I don't think we should do two systems, as I said, but the current system isn't working for everyone.
I think we should change the system. I think a five clock system, where 5 entire clocks are extremely rare, is the best answer. Readers and publishers will understand this system intuitively. Reviewers may need to get used to it, but that's the perils of writing.
I think that editors should have carte blanche to change a reviews score based on the impression they get from the text. If they get the wrong impression, I'm thinking the reviewer should have been more clear. This can be argued about later and changed, but esp. with reviewers who haven't tried to understand the nuances of our scoring system against other systems, it's easier for an editor to change the clocks than to have to wait for a lot of responses to get it cleared up.
I am not for conforming to some other existing system. the 4 stars of movies and the 1 star of books and the 1-10 scale for music doesn't work for everything. We don't review restaurants or hotels. We need our own system, and unless someone comes up with something better, I believe my previous paragraph is the closest anyone has come.
Another thought I had was to at least put some sort of label on the clocks. Vertical text or something that gives a word to go with it. 4 being "pretty darn good" or soemthing, 5 being "nearly perfect," 5.5 being "perfect" and 6 being "beyond perfect"
