How do you decipher a 5 star scale?

I tend to look at it like:

1 Star - Lots of serious issues and can not recommend to anyone. I did not derive any enjoyment out of this game.

2 Stars - Many significant flaws and I can only recommend it to select players (e.g. diehard fans of genre/series) or players really drawn to it for a particular reason ( e.g. striking artstyle or mechanic) but at a discount. I derived very little enjoyment from the game but saw some potential in it.

3 Stars - Has some meaningful problems but overall, has as many strengths, if not more. It has some unique qualities and/or is a competent example of the genre/series. I enjoyed it but do not feel strongly enough to recommend it to players outside of its core audience.

4 Stars - Has some noticeable flaws but overall, it’s defined by its strengths. A quality game that I very much enjoyed. I can pretty much recommend it to almost anyone.

5 Stars - Its problems seem nitpicky given all its strengths. Its qualities command respect, admiration, or awe. A significant game that I think will be remembered at least within the generation. I connected to it in a way that’s emotional and/or not logical. I will probably be annoying how much I recommend it. Everyone needs to absolutely give it at least a good look.

I'm sure everyone looks at it slightly in their own way. Let me know your science!

* - Ireddemable

**- Pretty bad, but technically playable

***- It's alright

****- I finished this game, but a week later I've forgotten it exists

*****- A Persona game

* - don't play
** - play if you like the genre
*** - play, but don't expect to be blown away
**** - play; you'll like it
***** - Brad reviewed this

1 Star - Complete trash fire. The game has zero redeeming qualities and is some combination of serious technical, graphical, or gameplay issues. You can feel that the development team gave zero shits. A 1-star game is basically the Washington Redskins and/or Sunderland of video games.

Example: Rogue Warrior

2 Stars - A game that has obvious, glaring issues that will drive most people away, but still has enough there that fans of a given genre would find the game intriguing. Often has a lot of interesting ideas that don't quite come together. Frequently a product of a lot of effort by a less talented or under-funded development team.

Examples: Two Worlds, Alpha Protocol

3 Stars - A competent game that is . . . there. Probably enjoyable but also immediately forgettable. A lot of "franchise" games fall into this category. These games do things competently, but show no ambition to do anything more than exist and sell copies. The Jason Garrett-era Cowboys and/or West Ham United of gaming.

Example: Assassins Creed: Odyssey

4 Stars - A good game that most people should play. Just about everything in these games is well-thought out, well-made, and worth the time and money invested. There may be one or two noticeable issues that hold it back from being great, or it may be such a pure expression of a given genre that certain people won't like it regardless.

Example: Mass Effect 1

5 Stars - Unambiguously great games that everyone should play. These games are the rare example of a lot of effort, talent, and usually a lot of money. They might still be a relatively pure expression of a genre, but either add something new and exciting it, or do it with such quality that even people who generally hate that type of game can admire. By definition, these games should be rare, maybe not even being seen in a given year. Often serve as historical markers for the industry. The New England Patriots and/or Manchester City of games

Example: Witcher 3

I would also note that I have what I would call a 2 Star/3 Star Paradox. That means that while a 3-star game is technically superior, I often times find that 2-star games are "better" in that they show more ambition or have more interesting ideas. For example, you would never hear me argue that Alpha Protocol is a better game that Assassins Creed: Odyssey. But at the same time, I feel that given a second crack and more money, the team that made Alpha Protocol could make it vastly more interesting and better game, whereas there is such a lack of ambition to AC:O that it will never be more than it is.

1-Absolute shit. It could make for a good laugh or if you're someone who's fascinated by garbage media.

2-Bad. Has one or two qualities to it but the flaws are much too many and apparent, overshadowing anything redeemable about it. Only select diehard fans of the genre or series can find any joy in it.

3-Good. Enjoyable game with some issues that push it back a bit. Recommended especially if you're a fan of the genre.

4-Great. Can recommend to just about anyone who likes games. The issues that are present are minuscule and don't hinder the overall experience much.

5-Fantastic. Hard to find any faults, just a blast to play in every sense. A landmark achievement in its genre and for games in general.

* - Bad

** - Mediocre

*** - Solid

**** - Very Good

***** - Great

Does Giantbomb still do reviews?

Joking.

To answer the question:

1. Bad - dont play this
2. Flawed - you might like it
3. Okay - fun enough
4. Good - enjoyable
5. Great - memorable

Obviously bad games can be memorable too but I feel like i've played so many 3-4 games that i've forgotten about. In fact theres a thread going about how many game franchises you've beaten and i'll often see a series where I was like 'oh right, I did play those [Resistance] games didnt I...'.

5 - Must play

4 - Very good

3 - Average

Everything below that not worth playing.

But I think a 5 point scale without half points/stars is bad.

Pretty much what you said.

In the context of games:

Edit: Ok the picture isn't showing up when I make it large size in the forum editor so expand it to see the text I guess.

Like with any scale: Go look at something similar that you know the quality of. See that thing's rating. Adjust accordingly

1 - Really? How did this get out the door? This is broken unlikely to be fixed enough to be playable

2 - Wow, this is a Randy Pitchford game, right? I mean only he would put out this trash. Games taht are actully deceptive, mean, or money pits.

3- Playable, but average in feel and quality, unless you are fan

4- A well made game that should interest genera fans for sure and newcomers alike. Or, a crazy game that is well made, but is just interesting or innovative so much so that it get past flaws.

5- The rare 1% of games, this game is extremely well made or innovative. Not perfect, because nothing is perfect - all games have to be excused for something.

1. Very poor
2. Poor
3. Average
4. Good
5. Very good

1. Bad
2. Ok
3. Good
4. Very good
5 Outstanding

1. Terrible
2. Not Good
3. s'Alright
4. Really Good
5. One of the best this genre has to offer

Read the accompanying review text.

* - Not even looking at it

** - I'll give it a try when it's free on PS+

*** - If the genre appeals to me I'm OK trying this

**** - I am very interested and will pick this up when it's on a minor sale

***** - Barring a genre that I just despise, I will try this game

Some exceptions happen throughout the years but this generally holds up

1. I disliked it.
2. I disliked it..
3. I liked parts of it, disliked other parts.
4. I liked it.
5. I liked it a lot.

Might be reductive, but I don't think it's wrong.

I like to use a decoder ring

* Bad

** Ok

*** Good

**** Great

***** A game that strikes a chord with the reviewer, for whatever reason, that I will probably dislike and they will dislike 6 months later

Still the best system on how games should be rated.

What's interesting is how various people view a 2 star. That's the one element to the scale that I think is really troublesome. There's such a wide gulf from a 1 to a 2.