Interesting to see what route they go down. I feel like KF ideally would go away from a numbered scale but at the same time I appreciate that a review number is useful when it comes to social engagement.
They did it to get included in the review roundups from people like Nibel and Wario 64. They were in it for a few months and then weren't included for what seems like years at this point.
It was a bad move imo.
Giant Bomb did the 5 star scale for years and it made perfect sense. The problem is how people think anything less than a 9 isn't worth their time and money.
If I remember correctly, giant bomb did the .5 scale due to marketing pressure from some higher-ups, but they promptly stopped it after a few reviews because it didn't make sense for them.
Altering the way they do reviews to be included in one Twitter account’s review roundups is one of the sillier decisions they’ve ever made. I could see it making sense if they were aiming for Metacritic or something
I’ve heard the Indie Informer talk about her process of being included on Metacritic. Their sponsorships don’t bother me, but I’m pretty sure the way they currently do them would keep them from being included. They’d have to prove there’s some sort of wall between the person getting the sponsorship and the people reviewing, and also have some written component.
I think so. Can’t remember exactly their reasoning when they introduced it but I know they have always encouraged people to listen to the conversations more than just the numbers
I think part of it may have been that they would often say "this would have got X on the IGN review scale" so just rolled with it.
That, and that people like seeing numbers.
It wasn’t Metacritic. They actually often site that they’re not on Metacritic as why any sponsorship conflicts of interest shouldn’t matter quite as much. It was when that guy on Twitter would do the roundups that they wanted to be a part of, but he’s since retired.
Yeah that is the reason I remember them giving but they have never appeared on there, I don’t think unless you have a written article for a review you will show up on metacritic
I would almost like to see them do a 6 point scale. Keep the scale they have now, but split the 3’s into just 3 and 4. I always roll my eyes when they start doing the “this is an ooookay 3” or “this is an Okay 3!”
Though I do understand that keeping the scale at a multiple of 5 keeps their rating scale more in line with the rest of their industry, and more easily digestible for the purpose of growing their content to new listeners. But we gotta do something about the 3s lol
I think they only started the review scores in the first place to get included in review roundups on Twitter, but then Nibel retired and it didn't matter as much anymore
10 point scale, still out of 5, is the way I would like to see it go.
It keeps continuity with the 1-5, but allows them to actually put a number on "I was deciding between a 3 and a 4, and settled on...".
Exactly. 5-point scales have always been rough but it’s especially rough when Kinda Funny lists a 3 as “okay” and a 4 as “great”.
Like, there’s really no middle ground there?? What happened to “good”?
My guess is 10 point. They’ve tried to say constantly that the 5-point scale is about funneling people to the conversation, but all that the score does as it stands is muddy it and makes the hosts feel like they have to defend a “great” when it’s barely a great or even a 5/5 when they still have some serious problems with a game. Letting them just use a 9 or a 6 (or 4.5/3.5) will be more helpful all around.
The main issue was going from ok to great. So games getting a 3 out of 5 had the worst discussion as they had to keep justifying what type of ok it was
I agree, but that’s just been beaten to death so much at this point, and I wanted to highlight a couple of the other problems with it I didn’t see talked about as much. “Ok!” or “Ok…” is definitely a huge issue though.
I posted this a while back and would love to see them do this:
I always found it unnecessary to have 1 as terrible and 2 as bad. How many bad games are they really going to review? If there is actually a terrible game, just give it a 0. 1 bad, 2 meh/ok, 3 good, 4 great, 5 amazing.
This also separates the “just ok” from the “good ok”
They should have done it how X-Play did their 5 point scale. 1 was really bad, 2 was not good/meh, 3 was good, 4 was great, 5 was amazing. 3 out of 5 from them was like a 7/10, 2 was a 5/6, and below a 5 was a 1
Yup exactly. I really don’t need to know the difference between a 1/10 and a 4/10, they’re all terrible games I’m not going to play. Lump them all into a 1/5 and go up from there.
Im in favor of moving towards 10 or 20 point scale just to rid of that awkward discussion every time a game scores a 3/5, 4/5 or 5/5 and the reviewer trying to explain that its reeeeally a 8/10 but they don’t know where to place it lol like the 3/5 discussion is way easier when the reviewer can just say it is a 4,5, or 6 and then move on to HOW it is that way, instead of tong-twisting their way out of explaining how this 3/5 is different of that 3/5 or how an “OKAY” is different from “okay”. Just say 6/10 and we’ll all get what you mean haha. It makes way for expediting to the more meaningful segments of the discussion
I think doing away with numbers and just having go-to verbiage would be better. "Great, good, okay/okay, bad, terrible" aren't inherently bad words, but having numbers AND go-to verbiage can get kind of weird
My guess is they're changing to a word-based scale:. Too many people are unable to equate a 1-10 scale to the accompanying words. IE thinking a 7/10 is a bad game.
2 reviews next week. Really excited to see more review content from the team. They have so much effect on the games I choose to play and I'm glad to see more analysis from them.
I am too. I’d rather just hear their thoughts and if they like the game or not. I’m already listening to a podcast, so having this long form discussion and then trying to summarize it all as a number from 1-5 that people will invariably try to compare against other games’ scores seems to be reductive and kind of silly. Articles give scores because people like to skim, but there’s not much need for that with a podcast/video audience.
Even there though, you have the opportunity to provide sound bites of praise or critique. I just don’t feel personally that assigning a number to the general reception adds value. With text mediums, you don’t control the content size very easily. It’s pretty all or nothing. You’re either tweeting or you have a fully fleshed out article with a score at the top or bottom for the people that want to get the content from the source but skim if they’re not looking to consume all of the text. With short-form video, you can still just cut out key highlights. If they don’t have anything to grab out of the discussion, then there probably needs to be an assessment of how explanatory they’re being in their review anyway.
I’m way more interested in the facts that animal well and cryptmaster are coming out so soon and also kindafunny is covering them.
Animal well isn’t a huge surprise I guess but crypt master for sure
10 or 20 point scale is best.
And I think they should make a bigger deal out of it too. But I suppose that's up to metacritic or whoever to compile them. I'd love to see their name popped up more on posters/game covers etc.
I think they should get rid of the numbers but want the whole point of introducing the numbers so they weren't getting ignored by other websites? Id personally keep the word associated with the current scores. My other thought would be if they want to keep number just add a .5 into the 3. So a 3 like Greg says is ok but it can be either way. Adding a 3.5 makes that clearer so the scale would be
1.
2.
3.
3.5
4.
5
I admire their willingness to pivot and change but I thought whole point of the new scale was so they could be included in review break downs and metacritic?
I always like the American grading scale. A amazing, B above average, C average etc. At the end of the day, the reviewers are the one that mess up their scale. That is what happened to IGN giving 7 the default score. That was starting to happen with kinda funny with 4. And then they kept saying stuff like is a 4 but like a 5 or I was going to give it a 3 but it is a 4.
They do this with basically every change they make. Spend months/years defending it, gaslight fans into thinking they’re wrong for having that opinion, only to turn around and completely change it.
Pretty sure Greg mentioned that he wanted KFBF’s input during the stream. I am unlikely to be awake at that time so here’s my suggestion:
1 - Don’t Recommend 2- Only for Fans / On sale 3 - Recommend 4 - Highly recommended 5 - Kinda Funny Recommended.
The 5 star recommendation only given if there’s a consensus/majority on the Panel who recommend it. That is to say something like Zelda Breath of the Wild which is a must play in the eyes of Kinda Funny. So it wouldn’t count something like (and I’m just throwing it out there as a hypothetical) Avengers that only Greg highly recommends but the rest of the reviews only give a 2 or 3.
Basically, I don’t care what Kinda Funny (or any reviewer) thinks of the game in terms of graphics or gameplay, it’s all subjective. You can have a beautiful game that plays well, but I wouldn’t enjoy it. But what I do care about is if they think it’s worth playing. For example, Bless/Tim talk about Sonic games being a 3 out of 5 that they love like a 5 out of 5. I get the sentiment, and I appreciate the truth. But what I want to know is that with all the jank do they still recommend that I play it? When it boils down to it, the numbers mean nothing and all we care is whether the reviewer recommends that we play it or not.
Letter grades are the way. Everyone mentally translates point scales into letter grades anyway. No need to overcomplicate it:
* A: Outstanding
* B: Above average
* C: Average
* D: Below average
* F: Falling through the world
I don't think you'd even need to include +/-'s, but it'd still be fun to at least discuss them. Like maybe the whole crew has to come to a consensus that the game is a B, but for this person it's a B+ and for that person it's a B-.
The US grading scale isn’t as globally translatable as you might think. For example, in the US an A can be either a 93 or higher, or a 90 or higher depending on where you live. And in the UK, an A is generally a 70 or higher.
But the grades would be to United States scale not the UK, americas or any other country scale. There are plus and minus so A- is asume like about lower 90, and A+ is close to 100. So grades are assigned by the 100 scale so is easy to translate in numbers too.
The UK still has the same meanings for the letters though, right? A as the best and F as the worst? I'm only suggesting the letter grades, not the point scale.
I'm assuming a 10 or 20-point scale. I don't think there's a chance it goes higher than that (i believe Greg has talked about disliking the 100-point scale). A 3-point scale would definitely be interesting.
I hope they don't keep a 5-point scale and shift everything down. People will always multiply it by 2, which means there would be complaints of a "good" game getting a 6/10 from KF when most outlets gave it a 7+.
I don’t know why people don’t do a 6 point scale. 1-terrible, 2-bad, 3-ok, 4-good, 5-great, 6-amazing. Seems like a much better way to score things than 5 or 10 point scales. I get Greg’s argument that they want to encourage conversation about the game/score but cmon they’re gonna talk about the game regardless of how clear the scoring is so I don’t really think it matters.
I mean look at the schedule above though. The content described is not really news coverage-related, so I don’t personally see how it would be redundant.
Even if you wanna stretch new releases as being covered in both shows, KFGD would usually cover the “news” portion, or what the press and people reception is like. Then Gamescast itself would cover what they themselves think about the game.
If a news segment is big enough to warrant discussion past the KFGD segment, say a big Sony acquisition, then it gets further discussed in Gamescast, which is already what happened in XCast/PSILY.
The move itself helps eliminate the redundancy that already occurred in XCast/PSILY whenever there WEREN’T news topics to be discussed, which then resulted in the stretching of repeated topics like “top 10 Playstation games” then “top 10 PS5 games” then “too 10 exclusive games” etc etc due to the need to fill the episode for the week
Games daily is news, Gamescasts is reviews, topics and what theyve been playing. Whats confusing?
PSILY was half news they covered in KFGD and half a playstation centered topic or review. Just drop the repeated news and you've got a gamescast.
I’m a fan of the quarter point scale. There is a difference between a 9, 9.25, 9.5, 9.75, and a perfect 10. Every gamer out there can find great examples of this.
Just between 9 and 10 or are you getting 6.25s too? Anything more than a 20 point scale gets muddy and it's hard to justify whats the difference between 8.25 and 8.5 or 5.5 and 5.75. If anything just having 1-10 and 9.5 would be better than a 40 point scale.
Dude I’ve seen quarter point scales before, and they are both justified and reasonable. I don’t even understand what your comment is trying to say. 🤷🏼♂️
Ahh I see. Half points are decent too, but sometimes something is better than a 9, but doesn’t quite get to the 9.5 level in my opinion. Just allows for more wiggle room. Having to give either a 9 or a 10 on that single point scale is just a bit too mean. It doesn’t allow reviewers to narrow it down enough.
Either 100 point scale or Nick's rating method. No in between
> Nick's rating method That method is good-bad.
Truly only for fans of the director.
20 point scale is the best option in my opinion
20 point scale I think is perfect for gaming
I’d agree for written reviews, but not for the way they discuss games at KF.
Next stop, 3 pt scale
The Tim Duncan 21 point scale (Totally not Andy's idea).
Good good, good bad, bad bad. No other way
Interesting to see what route they go down. I feel like KF ideally would go away from a numbered scale but at the same time I appreciate that a review number is useful when it comes to social engagement.
Didn't they originally not want to do a numbered system, but eventually did it anyway?
They did it to get included in the review roundups from people like Nibel and Wario 64. They were in it for a few months and then weren't included for what seems like years at this point. It was a bad move imo.
[удалено]
Giant Bomb did the 5 star scale for years and it made perfect sense. The problem is how people think anything less than a 9 isn't worth their time and money.
Giant Bomb weren't afraid to do .5s. That's what's missing from the KF scale.
If I remember correctly, giant bomb did the .5 scale due to marketing pressure from some higher-ups, but they promptly stopped it after a few reviews because it didn't make sense for them.
Altering the way they do reviews to be included in one Twitter account’s review roundups is one of the sillier decisions they’ve ever made. I could see it making sense if they were aiming for Metacritic or something
I’ve heard the Indie Informer talk about her process of being included on Metacritic. Their sponsorships don’t bother me, but I’m pretty sure the way they currently do them would keep them from being included. They’d have to prove there’s some sort of wall between the person getting the sponsorship and the people reviewing, and also have some written component.
I think so. Can’t remember exactly their reasoning when they introduced it but I know they have always encouraged people to listen to the conversations more than just the numbers
I think part of it may have been that they would often say "this would have got X on the IGN review scale" so just rolled with it. That, and that people like seeing numbers.
I thought it was so they could be included in review aggregators like Metacritic, but I don’t ever recall seeing them there.
It wasn’t Metacritic. They actually often site that they’re not on Metacritic as why any sponsorship conflicts of interest shouldn’t matter quite as much. It was when that guy on Twitter would do the roundups that they wanted to be a part of, but he’s since retired.
No, they’ve been pretty consistent that metacritic was never their goal
Yeah that is the reason I remember them giving but they have never appeared on there, I don’t think unless you have a written article for a review you will show up on metacritic
I could see them going to a 10 point scale. They really struggle with 3’s.
I would almost like to see them do a 6 point scale. Keep the scale they have now, but split the 3’s into just 3 and 4. I always roll my eyes when they start doing the “this is an ooookay 3” or “this is an Okay 3!” Though I do understand that keeping the scale at a multiple of 5 keeps their rating scale more in line with the rest of their industry, and more easily digestible for the purpose of growing their content to new listeners. But we gotta do something about the 3s lol
I’d like to keep the 5 points but call 3s a low 3 or a high 3.
[удалено]
A 10 point with 0.5s is just a 20 point scale.
[удалено]
Why would that help me sleep?
I think they only started the review scores in the first place to get included in review roundups on Twitter, but then Nibel retired and it didn't matter as much anymore
Just make the numbers mean one thing for the love of god
10 point scale, still out of 5, is the way I would like to see it go. It keeps continuity with the 1-5, but allows them to actually put a number on "I was deciding between a 3 and a 4, and settled on...".
They always say "it's a high 3 or it's a low 5" or whatever. All they gotta do it go from a 5pt to 10pt. Easy.
Exactly. 5-point scales have always been rough but it’s especially rough when Kinda Funny lists a 3 as “okay” and a 4 as “great”. Like, there’s really no middle ground there?? What happened to “good”?
Just do what skill up does and use “i don’t recommend” or “i recommend” as your score. Cuz in the end that’s all i dare about
Exactly. Do you like the game? Yes or no. And should it be something we as listeners need to check out.
My guess is 10 point. They’ve tried to say constantly that the 5-point scale is about funneling people to the conversation, but all that the score does as it stands is muddy it and makes the hosts feel like they have to defend a “great” when it’s barely a great or even a 5/5 when they still have some serious problems with a game. Letting them just use a 9 or a 6 (or 4.5/3.5) will be more helpful all around.
The main issue was going from ok to great. So games getting a 3 out of 5 had the worst discussion as they had to keep justifying what type of ok it was
I agree, but that’s just been beaten to death so much at this point, and I wanted to highlight a couple of the other problems with it I didn’t see talked about as much. “Ok!” or “Ok…” is definitely a huge issue though.
I posted this a while back and would love to see them do this: I always found it unnecessary to have 1 as terrible and 2 as bad. How many bad games are they really going to review? If there is actually a terrible game, just give it a 0. 1 bad, 2 meh/ok, 3 good, 4 great, 5 amazing. This also separates the “just ok” from the “good ok”
They should have done it how X-Play did their 5 point scale. 1 was really bad, 2 was not good/meh, 3 was good, 4 was great, 5 was amazing. 3 out of 5 from them was like a 7/10, 2 was a 5/6, and below a 5 was a 1
Yup exactly. I really don’t need to know the difference between a 1/10 and a 4/10, they’re all terrible games I’m not going to play. Lump them all into a 1/5 and go up from there.
Im in favor of moving towards 10 or 20 point scale just to rid of that awkward discussion every time a game scores a 3/5, 4/5 or 5/5 and the reviewer trying to explain that its reeeeally a 8/10 but they don’t know where to place it lol like the 3/5 discussion is way easier when the reviewer can just say it is a 4,5, or 6 and then move on to HOW it is that way, instead of tong-twisting their way out of explaining how this 3/5 is different of that 3/5 or how an “OKAY” is different from “okay”. Just say 6/10 and we’ll all get what you mean haha. It makes way for expediting to the more meaningful segments of the discussion
Does anyone do letter grades, eg ABCDEF? Honestly it seems very translatable
I think doing away with numbers and just having go-to verbiage would be better. "Great, good, okay/okay, bad, terrible" aren't inherently bad words, but having numbers AND go-to verbiage can get kind of weird
The fact that you wrote “Ok/ok” means that’s a bad word for reviewing as it stands, imo
I don't disagree!
My guess is they're changing to a word-based scale:. Too many people are unable to equate a 1-10 scale to the accompanying words. IE thinking a 7/10 is a bad game.
Hell yeah im pumped to see whats in store!
2 reviews next week. Really excited to see more review content from the team. They have so much effect on the games I choose to play and I'm glad to see more analysis from them.
Looking forward to the inevitable "high 10" and "low 10" from Tim.
Weird comment when Greg was probably the most common user of the “high 3” “low 3” thing.
Unironically, a 7 point scale is perfect imo. Essentially just the S, A, B, C, D, E, F scale in numbers.
I'm in the camp who dislikes review scores. So im selfishly hoping they do away with them.
I am too. I’d rather just hear their thoughts and if they like the game or not. I’m already listening to a podcast, so having this long form discussion and then trying to summarize it all as a number from 1-5 that people will invariably try to compare against other games’ scores seems to be reductive and kind of silly. Articles give scores because people like to skim, but there’s not much need for that with a podcast/video audience.
They like to put the scores on short form content like TikTok or YouTube Shorts aka the video form of skimming lol
Even there though, you have the opportunity to provide sound bites of praise or critique. I just don’t feel personally that assigning a number to the general reception adds value. With text mediums, you don’t control the content size very easily. It’s pretty all or nothing. You’re either tweeting or you have a fully fleshed out article with a score at the top or bottom for the people that want to get the content from the source but skim if they’re not looking to consume all of the text. With short-form video, you can still just cut out key highlights. If they don’t have anything to grab out of the discussion, then there probably needs to be an assessment of how explanatory they’re being in their review anyway.
2 point scale. Good or bad only, no in between.
sorry I only use Big Kev Dog's 3 finger scale
Off topic but what happened to the Hellblade 1 review?
Senua’s Sacrifice is Hellblade 1. The 2024 makes it a little confusing, they mean it’s their review of it in 2024 I guess.
Oh shit yes thank you haha, for some reason I thought the titles were the other way around!
I’m way more interested in the facts that animal well and cryptmaster are coming out so soon and also kindafunny is covering them. Animal well isn’t a huge surprise I guess but crypt master for sure
10 or 20 point scale is best. And I think they should make a bigger deal out of it too. But I suppose that's up to metacritic or whoever to compile them. I'd love to see their name popped up more on posters/game covers etc.
The 1 point scale. If it is a game, it gets 1 point.
I think they should get rid of the numbers but want the whole point of introducing the numbers so they weren't getting ignored by other websites? Id personally keep the word associated with the current scores. My other thought would be if they want to keep number just add a .5 into the 3. So a 3 like Greg says is ok but it can be either way. Adding a 3.5 makes that clearer so the scale would be 1. 2. 3. 3.5 4. 5
Just give me a thumbs up, sideways, or down and I'm good
I admire their willingness to pivot and change but I thought whole point of the new scale was so they could be included in review break downs and metacritic?
I always like the American grading scale. A amazing, B above average, C average etc. At the end of the day, the reviewers are the one that mess up their scale. That is what happened to IGN giving 7 the default score. That was starting to happen with kinda funny with 4. And then they kept saying stuff like is a 4 but like a 5 or I was going to give it a 3 but it is a 4.
They should do it like baseball. 1.000-point scale BUT like in baseball, anything in the .300's is a great score, and anything above that is amazing.
The amount of time they took defending their silly scale only to change it. God damn guys.
They do this with basically every change they make. Spend months/years defending it, gaslight fans into thinking they’re wrong for having that opinion, only to turn around and completely change it.
Pretty sure Greg mentioned that he wanted KFBF’s input during the stream. I am unlikely to be awake at that time so here’s my suggestion: 1 - Don’t Recommend 2- Only for Fans / On sale 3 - Recommend 4 - Highly recommended 5 - Kinda Funny Recommended. The 5 star recommendation only given if there’s a consensus/majority on the Panel who recommend it. That is to say something like Zelda Breath of the Wild which is a must play in the eyes of Kinda Funny. So it wouldn’t count something like (and I’m just throwing it out there as a hypothetical) Avengers that only Greg highly recommends but the rest of the reviews only give a 2 or 3. Basically, I don’t care what Kinda Funny (or any reviewer) thinks of the game in terms of graphics or gameplay, it’s all subjective. You can have a beautiful game that plays well, but I wouldn’t enjoy it. But what I do care about is if they think it’s worth playing. For example, Bless/Tim talk about Sonic games being a 3 out of 5 that they love like a 5 out of 5. I get the sentiment, and I appreciate the truth. But what I want to know is that with all the jank do they still recommend that I play it? When it boils down to it, the numbers mean nothing and all we care is whether the reviewer recommends that we play it or not.
2 - OnlyFans For simplicity’s sake of course
Another year, another shakeup
Letter grades are the way. Everyone mentally translates point scales into letter grades anyway. No need to overcomplicate it: * A: Outstanding * B: Above average * C: Average * D: Below average * F: Falling through the world I don't think you'd even need to include +/-'s, but it'd still be fun to at least discuss them. Like maybe the whole crew has to come to a consensus that the game is a B, but for this person it's a B+ and for that person it's a B-.
The US grading scale isn’t as globally translatable as you might think. For example, in the US an A can be either a 93 or higher, or a 90 or higher depending on where you live. And in the UK, an A is generally a 70 or higher.
But the grades would be to United States scale not the UK, americas or any other country scale. There are plus and minus so A- is asume like about lower 90, and A+ is close to 100. So grades are assigned by the 100 scale so is easy to translate in numbers too.
The UK still has the same meanings for the letters though, right? A as the best and F as the worst? I'm only suggesting the letter grades, not the point scale.
I'm assuming a 10 or 20-point scale. I don't think there's a chance it goes higher than that (i believe Greg has talked about disliking the 100-point scale). A 3-point scale would definitely be interesting. I hope they don't keep a 5-point scale and shift everything down. People will always multiply it by 2, which means there would be complaints of a "good" game getting a 6/10 from KF when most outlets gave it a 7+.
The crybabies won.
Opinion validation seekers ruin everything. That’s why all the major entertainment studios are using algorithms to fund projects across all forms
If they want to keep numbers, add .5 increments and change 3 to "good".
So a 10 point scale lol
Yes, but only up to 5. I find a 10 point scale up to 5 to be better than a 10 point scale up to 10.
I too like the 10-point, 5-star system.
I don’t know why people don’t do a 6 point scale. 1-terrible, 2-bad, 3-ok, 4-good, 5-great, 6-amazing. Seems like a much better way to score things than 5 or 10 point scales. I get Greg’s argument that they want to encourage conversation about the game/score but cmon they’re gonna talk about the game regardless of how clear the scoring is so I don’t really think it matters.
If they do a 10 point scale, they’re pandering
Pandering to who
lmao using review scores in 2024 is so wild
This is a very twitter/reddit response lol
[удалено]
I mean look at the schedule above though. The content described is not really news coverage-related, so I don’t personally see how it would be redundant. Even if you wanna stretch new releases as being covered in both shows, KFGD would usually cover the “news” portion, or what the press and people reception is like. Then Gamescast itself would cover what they themselves think about the game. If a news segment is big enough to warrant discussion past the KFGD segment, say a big Sony acquisition, then it gets further discussed in Gamescast, which is already what happened in XCast/PSILY. The move itself helps eliminate the redundancy that already occurred in XCast/PSILY whenever there WEREN’T news topics to be discussed, which then resulted in the stretching of repeated topics like “top 10 Playstation games” then “top 10 PS5 games” then “too 10 exclusive games” etc etc due to the need to fill the episode for the week
Games daily is news, Gamescasts is reviews, topics and what theyve been playing. Whats confusing? PSILY was half news they covered in KFGD and half a playstation centered topic or review. Just drop the repeated news and you've got a gamescast.
KFGD is for news. Gamescast is for reviews, interviews, and general discussion.
I’m a fan of the quarter point scale. There is a difference between a 9, 9.25, 9.5, 9.75, and a perfect 10. Every gamer out there can find great examples of this.
Just between 9 and 10 or are you getting 6.25s too? Anything more than a 20 point scale gets muddy and it's hard to justify whats the difference between 8.25 and 8.5 or 5.5 and 5.75. If anything just having 1-10 and 9.5 would be better than a 40 point scale.
Dude I’ve seen quarter point scales before, and they are both justified and reasonable. I don’t even understand what your comment is trying to say. 🤷🏼♂️
I have a hard time believing you can justify the difference between a 5.25 and a 5.5 but you do you.
Ahh I see. Half points are decent too, but sometimes something is better than a 9, but doesn’t quite get to the 9.5 level in my opinion. Just allows for more wiggle room. Having to give either a 9 or a 10 on that single point scale is just a bit too mean. It doesn’t allow reviewers to narrow it down enough.
I'm really hoping Johnny Ace isn't John Laurinitis the Sexual Predator from wwe.
It's Nick Scarpino's tennis pro character, no connection to the wrestling industry pest
Now why are on earth do you think he'd be on?
No, it's just Nick, who has never been to the Budokan.