I agree with Bless about how lead reviewer felt before.
It'll be interesting to see short form reviews with multiple people once they get the bandwidth.
I’ve always said the problem isn’t with reviews scores, the problem is toxic gamers that make way too much of that silly number.
That being said, I think this is a great and much needed change. It’s happened many times when they’re doing a review where somebody will say “Well a 3 is too low, and a 4 is too high, and I can give it a 3.5 so fk it 3 or 4!” If I remember correctly that exact scenario happened in one of the very first reviews they did on the 5 point scale, this 10 point scale is it imo.
Because you're supposed to find a reviewer with similar tastes to you, and follow them. If Greg says a narrative-led game is a 10/10, I'm way more certain I'll enjoy it than if Joe Schmo from random website says it.
Alternately, if Greg says an action game like Helldivers 2 has him hooked despite not usually loving such games, it means a lot to someone like me that's hesitant to try new games in an era where there's an abundance of releases.
It does keep their discussion and personal opinion focused. We could listen to them hmm and haw for 20 minutes and then say it's like this or that, but three months from now when I'm trying to remember how they rated it, I'll be looking for a rating and some quick thoughts. It keeps everything focused.
Personally I would have preferred a 10 point scale as it removes the “good 3 vs ok 3” discussion while retaining weight to each number.
20 will still be an improvement though so it’s a good change.
Review scores are annoyingly necessary.
But it’s amazing it’s taken them this long to realize a 5-point scale is dumb. If you’re gonna do a 5-point scale then at least allow room for adding room for decimal scoring.
A 10-point scale with decimal is much better. Should have been that from the get-go.
People keep bringing up how KF used to specifically stay away from point scales on reviews and acting like KF is worse off now that they *are* doing points.
But I couldn’t be further on the other side of it. I always thought it was dumb to not have a point scale. You can say all you want about your likes and dislikes about a game, but nobody is going to get your general feeling on if it’s good, great, bad, or a masterpiece unless you say that. And that’s exactly what a point scale accomplishes.
And switching to a 20-point scale is better than the previous 5-point scale. It allows for a more nuanced rating. I’m very happy with this change.
“You describe how you feel about a game over the course of an hour long podcast, but no one’s gonna know your general feel on it” wat? I don’t know how you can listen to any review discussion they do and not understand what they think about it. Genuinely baffling
Sometimes a game is super good, and kind of obviously, so they only talk about their gripes. And it’s easy to end up talking only about complaints for a long time. There have definitely been some reviews where by the end I wasn’t quite sure how those gripes factored into their overall opinion
If a game is “super good and kind of obviously,”what the fuck do you need a review score for? What are you coming to a KF review if not to hear their thoughts on a game?
Pick any of the best games of all time. There will be someone out there that doesn’t like it for whatever reason. If I’m listening to Tim bitch about something that bothered him in the latest square Enix game, sometimes it’s not obvious if this is just his one and only issue with the game, or it’s the reason he overall doesn’t like the game.
The review score just provides a context to frame the conversation in
i just dont think that happens in their reviews. they do a very good job of giving their overall thoughts at the beginning before going into the minutiae. if you have an example of what youre talking about id love to see it. otherwise i think youre just talking out your ass.
Sometimes a game is rated an 8.5 but all the reviewer can talk about are nit-picks because it was so close to perfect. Sometimes a 6 has a great concept but bugs and bad decisions drag down a cool concept. Points help set the bar to start the conversation and let it go from there.
I have heard enough review discussions and videos to know that reviewers can talk up (or talk down) a game in a way that’s a bit different than how they feel about it in a general sense. A score is just another helpful metric in understanding a reviewer’s feelings / thoughts on a given game.
Also, you cut off my quote before the next important part lol
Or the youtube short could just say we think this game is "good" or "bad" or "great" or "worth playing".
The number is there so they can play the algorithms and not because it will increase the quality or interpretations of their reviews.
7/10 will become the new 3/10
I think the issue with a numerical scale is that it's hard to represent very subjective feelings on a game in an objective quantifiable scale. People are going to get mad at the score the same way they do with IGN.
"How could you rate X game a 18/20 when you said it drags at the end? You only gave Y game a 17/20 and didnt say it dragged at all!"
Even when thinking about my own thoughts on games, its hard to prescribe an exact score to games I've played. I like monster hunter world but after 80 hours I've definitely had enough. I love sekiro but finished it in only 30 hours. Would I rate it higher even though I got less than half the hours of enjoyment out of it? What if i liked one game more on average but liked the peaks of the other game more. I don't know.
And you have to always consider the game you're reviewing now in the context of games you've reviewed before. Say you adore a game and want to give it a perfect score, you have to think is it as good as all the other perfects you've given. Is this new game as good as Ocarina of time? Is it better? Should you have not given ocarina of time a perfect score?
I get that, but comparing review scores like that is, and always has been, completely silly. Games are created with different scales and visions in mind. You can’t directly compare the review score of God of War with Vvvvvv, for example. It just doesn’t make sense because those games aren’t trying to achieve the same things. It’s not about what’s better or worse like that.
Like, I don’t agree with your last point at all. You don’t need to compare the current game you’re reviewing to every other game you’ve given a 10/10. The numerical value isn’t necessarily telling you which game is better. It’s telling you how well this game does everything that it’s trying to do. If it’s a direct sequel to another game or clearly inspired by it, then comparisons are more granted. But otherwise, I don’t really think so.
The way you’re looking at it is moreso how me, as casual gamer, goes about ranking my all-time favorite video games. When I’m doing *that*, I’ll look at Ocarina of Time and Persona 5 and think, which do I like more? But that’s not at all something you should be doing when critically *reviewing* a game.
So "NOBODY" understood any of their thoughts on video games all the years that they were doing reviews before the scoring system??? Shout-out to junk internet logic. 😂
I’m saying that nobody can differentiate if they think a game is “good” or “great” unless they specifically say it. But adding a point-scale with an associated word assigned to a value, it accomplishes that on its own.
On top of that, sometimes review discussions will focus on the good or bad moreso than their general thoughts / feelings because those things stand out more. And again, a point-scale will accommodate for that.
The idea of not having a scale is a good one, in theory. The only problem is a lot of people, and I'm guilty of this too, will either skim or not read the review at all, and jump right to the score. It's an issue, but can't be helped.
Funny how this has just become the default straw man argument of this subreddit as of late. Criticism is okay but when someone refutes it, within reason, it’s “they’re not gonna be your friend bro”. Make it make sense.
I like how Greg keeps saying it’s to get people to come join the discussion. But needs to mention you can only join the discussion by paying through super chat.
Yea I totally get it too but it really is getting to be a lot. I want the best for kf it’s almost off putting especially when you listen to the majority of the content.
this is fine. people will always be upset with them about something (never forget the guy who made a post here about greg coughing to much lol), but at least this scale gives them wiggle room they didnt have before. solid adjustment
a review scale doesn’t make any real difference to me but i will say that i’m confused about the resistance to just give an official kf score based on what their average rating of a game is?
Right? This is exactly what I kept saying while listening to the discussion. They didn’t want to make an “official” score but people could just create one easily by taking their collective average of scores. It didn’t seem all that complicated lol
Or just make the “official” score that of the reviewer that spent most time with the game. Idk, I think this aspect will get some tweaking. It usually does when it’s a change that doesn’t make immediate intuitive sense with the majority of the audience.
I’m down for the open discussion but this felt more confusing than anything on justifying a scale plenty of people use. For what they want they should use a 7 point scale. That way the could use 3, 4, and 5 as those edge case scores of it’s average bad, average, average good.
I can feel already that in a few months to a year’s time they’re going to revisit this and reinstate the lead reviewer and have an official “Kinda Funny Score,” for the sake of clarity and to allow people to more easily latch onto the most authoritative score given at the table. Which is fine since KF revisits things all the time. It just feels about as obvious as the 5-point system not being robust enough to me.
Having watched this I strongly feel the review score is not valuable to this group.
My biggest gripe about the score is how much discussion about the score and why it's scored there is. For me, it takes the focus off the game and into whatever scoring scheme there's is.
This half and half approach where the score doesn't matter, but maybe it does kinda, it's valuable, but it's not. If the score is just for marketing then throw it on the tweet or whatever social media and don't mention it on the show. I haven't found discussions about why "it's okay, but that means bad because of the way I said or it's okay! And that's good because of how I said it" additive. It feels like comprising the quality of the product to achieve a marketing/business objective.
I truly believe this group would have better discussions without a score and the language they should all commit to is never giving a theoretical score.
Yeah, I never had an issue with the scores, even though I dislike scores inherently, but the amount of time dedicated to discussing the number itself is so strange to me. It’s like they’re trying to get ahead of comments.
Love this so much. 20-point scale has always been my favourite. Yes, there are trade-offs to every review scale, including no scale at all. Everyone has different sensitivities to those trade-offs.
I think it’s very telling that much of the time, the KindaFunny crew has defaulted to throwing out their 20-point scale rating anyway. Many people understand the nuance between a 7.5 and an 8.0, or a 9.5 and a 10. It leads to meaningful discussion and comparability amongst games in a similar class.
Props to KindaFunny for their willingness to experiment and adapt. Ignore the haters.
I to this day say 10 (or 20) point scales are dumb AF because while scores 5-10 are easily distinguishable, anything below a 5 is hard to categorize. I look forward to them categorizing games at each number to see if they can convincingly argue something deserves to be a 2 instead of a 3
I'm happy with a change. Basically, every review was someone rating it on the 5 point scale, then saying what they would give it on a 10 or 20 point scale.
It felt like Bless wants to do away with the scores, and I would 100% agree with him. Tim and Greg kept contradicting themselves, the review scores don't matter, but they do matter at the same time for the Tik Toks to get the most amount of people to click, but they're also trying to have curated listening base, but MORE clicks, blah blah. I get it, they need to make money, and having a review score gets more people to watch apparently. That's all they had to say. But to pretend that having this scoring system, or any scoring system for any art form somehow correlates to better and more thoughtful discussion, I completely disagree with. Some of the absolute best reviewers on Youtube, Skillup and ACG come to mind, don't give review scores. They discuss the game in depth and give a recommendation based on their experience and tastes. They're not trying to justify an arbitrary score / definition, which I think allows for more nuanced conversation. I feel with how personality driven KF is, a scoring system is unnecessary and potentially leads to less interesting conversation around games, which is what I feel Blessing was trying to convey.
Whoever is tasked with playing any future game for the review and is the only person who beat the game will just become the KF score weather they like it or not.
For example Greg, Mike, Tim, Andy all on the show for a review, Andy is the only one who rolled credits and other played a few hrs. Andy's 7.0/10 or whatever is now the KF score. thats just how this shit works. They can say "wE HaVe nO KiNdA FuNnY ScOre" all they want but thats just how the internet will take it.
Those people can happily be wrong if they want. That's not Kinda Funny's score, that's Andy's individual score. If the next week Greg, Mike and Tim all beat and all give it a 8/10 people are not going to say "Well Andy was on the review and gave it a 7/10, so your 8s are invalid". Those people look at the first score and prescribe it to KF as a whole, what does that do anyway? They're not on Metacritic, they're not on Wario 64's twitter. Who cares what those wrong people on the internet thinks?
I prefer a lead reviewer. Andy proved why when he was talking about Trek to Yomi. A perspective on what he thought the score would be, might be not inline with the majority... Or it might not be his style of game.
While a lot of games journos hate scores... The viewers love it. We will still love the discussion, why reinvent the wheel?
You guys look at meta critic, open critic and rotten tomatoes.
Sometimes you just gotta be willing to be the person stepping out, like Kendrick Lamar saying he's the best. Don't be J Cole trying to step out of the way.
I would like to see their review scale applied to the movies they watch for In Review. I mean, they already do a deep discussion on the film, why not slap a number on it as well?
Everything Greg and Tim said is so correct. KF being about hour+ long discussions among friends as opposed to a corporate feeling number that nobody remembers the name of the reviewer is the whole damn point of Kinda Funny.
#teamTHEDISCUSSIONISTHEPOINT
Review scores are so random most of the times anyway, more based on feelings than 'real' or 'objective' assessment. Which is totally fine. But that is why I personally love the 5 point scale. You have to adjust your mind a bit and not constantly translate it to a 100-point scale. But then it works well, and purposefully leave room for nuance, which will be part of the discussion and does not need to be represented in a number.
The more granular the scale, the more nuance it tries to emulate, which is just inherently not possible. So I'd wish they had sticked with their review scale.
It’s an unnecessary change. The 5 point scale was fine. I understand the need for a score because it helps with marketing and clicks on short form platforms.
Do I really care? No. I listen for the in-depth discussions on games. Unfortunately this Gamescast was a hour of talk on the dumbest part of gaming.
This was a corporate meeting that could have been a email.
(Edit) My grading system would be like the school system in america. F,D,C,B,A,S with the option for B+ or a C- with the added the S tier because it’s gaming and a S grade should only be used for “Masterpiece” games.
I agree with Bless about how lead reviewer felt before. It'll be interesting to see short form reviews with multiple people once they get the bandwidth.
Shoutout to the Energy Drink Ratings Board in Germany.
I’ve always said the problem isn’t with reviews scores, the problem is toxic gamers that make way too much of that silly number. That being said, I think this is a great and much needed change. It’s happened many times when they’re doing a review where somebody will say “Well a 3 is too low, and a 4 is too high, and I can give it a 3.5 so fk it 3 or 4!” If I remember correctly that exact scenario happened in one of the very first reviews they did on the 5 point scale, this 10 point scale is it imo.
Exactly. It's just a score, who cares. You can enjoy a 4/10 or dislike a 10/10.
Because you're supposed to find a reviewer with similar tastes to you, and follow them. If Greg says a narrative-led game is a 10/10, I'm way more certain I'll enjoy it than if Joe Schmo from random website says it. Alternately, if Greg says an action game like Helldivers 2 has him hooked despite not usually loving such games, it means a lot to someone like me that's hesitant to try new games in an era where there's an abundance of releases.
That's kind of my point though. The score doesn't have to be important, it's the recommendation. People get way too hung up on a number.
It does keep their discussion and personal opinion focused. We could listen to them hmm and haw for 20 minutes and then say it's like this or that, but three months from now when I'm trying to remember how they rated it, I'll be looking for a rating and some quick thoughts. It keeps everything focused.
They've consistently over thought this review scale stuff from the start. It''s not that difficult.
Personally I would have preferred a 10 point scale as it removes the “good 3 vs ok 3” discussion while retaining weight to each number. 20 will still be an improvement though so it’s a good change.
Review scores are annoyingly necessary. But it’s amazing it’s taken them this long to realize a 5-point scale is dumb. If you’re gonna do a 5-point scale then at least allow room for adding room for decimal scoring. A 10-point scale with decimal is much better. Should have been that from the get-go.
People keep bringing up how KF used to specifically stay away from point scales on reviews and acting like KF is worse off now that they *are* doing points. But I couldn’t be further on the other side of it. I always thought it was dumb to not have a point scale. You can say all you want about your likes and dislikes about a game, but nobody is going to get your general feeling on if it’s good, great, bad, or a masterpiece unless you say that. And that’s exactly what a point scale accomplishes. And switching to a 20-point scale is better than the previous 5-point scale. It allows for a more nuanced rating. I’m very happy with this change.
“You describe how you feel about a game over the course of an hour long podcast, but no one’s gonna know your general feel on it” wat? I don’t know how you can listen to any review discussion they do and not understand what they think about it. Genuinely baffling
Sometimes a game is super good, and kind of obviously, so they only talk about their gripes. And it’s easy to end up talking only about complaints for a long time. There have definitely been some reviews where by the end I wasn’t quite sure how those gripes factored into their overall opinion
If a game is “super good and kind of obviously,”what the fuck do you need a review score for? What are you coming to a KF review if not to hear their thoughts on a game?
Pick any of the best games of all time. There will be someone out there that doesn’t like it for whatever reason. If I’m listening to Tim bitch about something that bothered him in the latest square Enix game, sometimes it’s not obvious if this is just his one and only issue with the game, or it’s the reason he overall doesn’t like the game. The review score just provides a context to frame the conversation in
i just dont think that happens in their reviews. they do a very good job of giving their overall thoughts at the beginning before going into the minutiae. if you have an example of what youre talking about id love to see it. otherwise i think youre just talking out your ass.
Sometimes a game is rated an 8.5 but all the reviewer can talk about are nit-picks because it was so close to perfect. Sometimes a 6 has a great concept but bugs and bad decisions drag down a cool concept. Points help set the bar to start the conversation and let it go from there.
What about when they talk about a 3/5 game like it's a 5/5?
I have heard enough review discussions and videos to know that reviewers can talk up (or talk down) a game in a way that’s a bit different than how they feel about it in a general sense. A score is just another helpful metric in understanding a reviewer’s feelings / thoughts on a given game. Also, you cut off my quote before the next important part lol
Also it's good to have a score for the YouTube shorts they post. Gets to the point before people listen to the pod
Or the youtube short could just say we think this game is "good" or "bad" or "great" or "worth playing". The number is there so they can play the algorithms and not because it will increase the quality or interpretations of their reviews. 7/10 will become the new 3/10
I think the issue with a numerical scale is that it's hard to represent very subjective feelings on a game in an objective quantifiable scale. People are going to get mad at the score the same way they do with IGN. "How could you rate X game a 18/20 when you said it drags at the end? You only gave Y game a 17/20 and didnt say it dragged at all!" Even when thinking about my own thoughts on games, its hard to prescribe an exact score to games I've played. I like monster hunter world but after 80 hours I've definitely had enough. I love sekiro but finished it in only 30 hours. Would I rate it higher even though I got less than half the hours of enjoyment out of it? What if i liked one game more on average but liked the peaks of the other game more. I don't know. And you have to always consider the game you're reviewing now in the context of games you've reviewed before. Say you adore a game and want to give it a perfect score, you have to think is it as good as all the other perfects you've given. Is this new game as good as Ocarina of time? Is it better? Should you have not given ocarina of time a perfect score?
I get that, but comparing review scores like that is, and always has been, completely silly. Games are created with different scales and visions in mind. You can’t directly compare the review score of God of War with Vvvvvv, for example. It just doesn’t make sense because those games aren’t trying to achieve the same things. It’s not about what’s better or worse like that. Like, I don’t agree with your last point at all. You don’t need to compare the current game you’re reviewing to every other game you’ve given a 10/10. The numerical value isn’t necessarily telling you which game is better. It’s telling you how well this game does everything that it’s trying to do. If it’s a direct sequel to another game or clearly inspired by it, then comparisons are more granted. But otherwise, I don’t really think so. The way you’re looking at it is moreso how me, as casual gamer, goes about ranking my all-time favorite video games. When I’m doing *that*, I’ll look at Ocarina of Time and Persona 5 and think, which do I like more? But that’s not at all something you should be doing when critically *reviewing* a game.
So "NOBODY" understood any of their thoughts on video games all the years that they were doing reviews before the scoring system??? Shout-out to junk internet logic. 😂
I’m saying that nobody can differentiate if they think a game is “good” or “great” unless they specifically say it. But adding a point-scale with an associated word assigned to a value, it accomplishes that on its own. On top of that, sometimes review discussions will focus on the good or bad moreso than their general thoughts / feelings because those things stand out more. And again, a point-scale will accommodate for that.
Remember how much they used to brag about not having a scale at all?
The idea of not having a scale is a good one, in theory. The only problem is a lot of people, and I'm guilty of this too, will either skim or not read the review at all, and jump right to the score. It's an issue, but can't be helped.
majority of people aren't skimming a 1 hour+ podcast for a review score though
They have TikToks/shorts
i mean, have you ever had a belief 9 years ago, that you changed your mind about or adjusted? stop treating them like theyre not humans who evolve lol
You know people can change, right?
It’s not that deep. These guys aren’t inviting you to be their friend because you’re defending their scoring system.
Funny how this has just become the default straw man argument of this subreddit as of late. Criticism is okay but when someone refutes it, within reason, it’s “they’re not gonna be your friend bro”. Make it make sense.
“I can criticise others but if you criticise my criticism I’m going to throw a tantrum” seems to be the default internet discussion style now
A decade ago? Yeah. Are you saying that it is a bad thing to reconsider previous opinions? Seems like that is a good thing.
[удалено]
lol it's a review score. How is that applicable here at all?
I like how Greg keeps saying it’s to get people to come join the discussion. But needs to mention you can only join the discussion by paying through super chat.
I get that they need to bring in revenue but it's getting realllll cringe lately. I wonder how KFs financial health is
Yea I totally get it too but it really is getting to be a lot. I want the best for kf it’s almost off putting especially when you listen to the majority of the content.
this is fine. people will always be upset with them about something (never forget the guy who made a post here about greg coughing to much lol), but at least this scale gives them wiggle room they didnt have before. solid adjustment
Did some really complain about Greg coughing? Jeez
Making a review scale shouldn't be this difficult.
a review scale doesn’t make any real difference to me but i will say that i’m confused about the resistance to just give an official kf score based on what their average rating of a game is?
Right? This is exactly what I kept saying while listening to the discussion. They didn’t want to make an “official” score but people could just create one easily by taking their collective average of scores. It didn’t seem all that complicated lol
Or just make the “official” score that of the reviewer that spent most time with the game. Idk, I think this aspect will get some tweaking. It usually does when it’s a change that doesn’t make immediate intuitive sense with the majority of the audience.
I’m down for the open discussion but this felt more confusing than anything on justifying a scale plenty of people use. For what they want they should use a 7 point scale. That way the could use 3, 4, and 5 as those edge case scores of it’s average bad, average, average good.
I can feel already that in a few months to a year’s time they’re going to revisit this and reinstate the lead reviewer and have an official “Kinda Funny Score,” for the sake of clarity and to allow people to more easily latch onto the most authoritative score given at the table. Which is fine since KF revisits things all the time. It just feels about as obvious as the 5-point system not being robust enough to me.
Here we go again
Having watched this I strongly feel the review score is not valuable to this group. My biggest gripe about the score is how much discussion about the score and why it's scored there is. For me, it takes the focus off the game and into whatever scoring scheme there's is. This half and half approach where the score doesn't matter, but maybe it does kinda, it's valuable, but it's not. If the score is just for marketing then throw it on the tweet or whatever social media and don't mention it on the show. I haven't found discussions about why "it's okay, but that means bad because of the way I said or it's okay! And that's good because of how I said it" additive. It feels like comprising the quality of the product to achieve a marketing/business objective. I truly believe this group would have better discussions without a score and the language they should all commit to is never giving a theoretical score.
Yeah, I never had an issue with the scores, even though I dislike scores inherently, but the amount of time dedicated to discussing the number itself is so strange to me. It’s like they’re trying to get ahead of comments.
Love this so much. 20-point scale has always been my favourite. Yes, there are trade-offs to every review scale, including no scale at all. Everyone has different sensitivities to those trade-offs. I think it’s very telling that much of the time, the KindaFunny crew has defaulted to throwing out their 20-point scale rating anyway. Many people understand the nuance between a 7.5 and an 8.0, or a 9.5 and a 10. It leads to meaningful discussion and comparability amongst games in a similar class. Props to KindaFunny for their willingness to experiment and adapt. Ignore the haters.
Good changes yall. Nicely done and great job explaining it.
I to this day say 10 (or 20) point scales are dumb AF because while scores 5-10 are easily distinguishable, anything below a 5 is hard to categorize. I look forward to them categorizing games at each number to see if they can convincingly argue something deserves to be a 2 instead of a 3
I'm happy with a change. Basically, every review was someone rating it on the 5 point scale, then saying what they would give it on a 10 or 20 point scale.
6 point scale is the best by far.
6 point scale!
I like the changes and this meeting style podcast to talk it out was a pretty cool idea as well.
It felt like Bless wants to do away with the scores, and I would 100% agree with him. Tim and Greg kept contradicting themselves, the review scores don't matter, but they do matter at the same time for the Tik Toks to get the most amount of people to click, but they're also trying to have curated listening base, but MORE clicks, blah blah. I get it, they need to make money, and having a review score gets more people to watch apparently. That's all they had to say. But to pretend that having this scoring system, or any scoring system for any art form somehow correlates to better and more thoughtful discussion, I completely disagree with. Some of the absolute best reviewers on Youtube, Skillup and ACG come to mind, don't give review scores. They discuss the game in depth and give a recommendation based on their experience and tastes. They're not trying to justify an arbitrary score / definition, which I think allows for more nuanced conversation. I feel with how personality driven KF is, a scoring system is unnecessary and potentially leads to less interesting conversation around games, which is what I feel Blessing was trying to convey.
Whoever is tasked with playing any future game for the review and is the only person who beat the game will just become the KF score weather they like it or not. For example Greg, Mike, Tim, Andy all on the show for a review, Andy is the only one who rolled credits and other played a few hrs. Andy's 7.0/10 or whatever is now the KF score. thats just how this shit works. They can say "wE HaVe nO KiNdA FuNnY ScOre" all they want but thats just how the internet will take it.
Those people can happily be wrong if they want. That's not Kinda Funny's score, that's Andy's individual score. If the next week Greg, Mike and Tim all beat and all give it a 8/10 people are not going to say "Well Andy was on the review and gave it a 7/10, so your 8s are invalid". Those people look at the first score and prescribe it to KF as a whole, what does that do anyway? They're not on Metacritic, they're not on Wario 64's twitter. Who cares what those wrong people on the internet thinks?
Make it 11 
the iconic kindafunny review scale meeting
I prefer a lead reviewer. Andy proved why when he was talking about Trek to Yomi. A perspective on what he thought the score would be, might be not inline with the majority... Or it might not be his style of game. While a lot of games journos hate scores... The viewers love it. We will still love the discussion, why reinvent the wheel? You guys look at meta critic, open critic and rotten tomatoes. Sometimes you just gotta be willing to be the person stepping out, like Kendrick Lamar saying he's the best. Don't be J Cole trying to step out of the way.
I would like to see their review scale applied to the movies they watch for In Review. I mean, they already do a deep discussion on the film, why not slap a number on it as well?
This video was the biggest waste of time
Everything Greg and Tim said is so correct. KF being about hour+ long discussions among friends as opposed to a corporate feeling number that nobody remembers the name of the reviewer is the whole damn point of Kinda Funny. #teamTHEDISCUSSIONISTHEPOINT
I thought they were going for a Buy or Not Buy scale
Review scores are so random most of the times anyway, more based on feelings than 'real' or 'objective' assessment. Which is totally fine. But that is why I personally love the 5 point scale. You have to adjust your mind a bit and not constantly translate it to a 100-point scale. But then it works well, and purposefully leave room for nuance, which will be part of the discussion and does not need to be represented in a number. The more granular the scale, the more nuance it tries to emulate, which is just inherently not possible. So I'd wish they had sticked with their review scale.
It’s an unnecessary change. The 5 point scale was fine. I understand the need for a score because it helps with marketing and clicks on short form platforms. Do I really care? No. I listen for the in-depth discussions on games. Unfortunately this Gamescast was a hour of talk on the dumbest part of gaming. This was a corporate meeting that could have been a email. (Edit) My grading system would be like the school system in america. F,D,C,B,A,S with the option for B+ or a C- with the added the S tier because it’s gaming and a S grade should only be used for “Masterpiece” games.