But following that line of argument, you should then never give a game five stars. Fine. But now consider four stars. Suppose you give a game four stars, but then come across a game which is better than it? You can't give it five stars, in case you find one better still, yet giving it the same rating as the poorer game is the same issue as above. Hence, you cannot give a game four stars, three stars, two stars, one star...Clearly, there is a problem here with the approach you gave, which I think is in the fallacy that each rating can only have one 'quality' of game, rather than a range of qualities.

Well, % or percent literally means 'out of 100'. Clearly, this is out of five: it's a percinq rating, I guess. (Cinq, for those who don't know, being the French for 5).

I wonder if I should adjust my "Worst Games on GOG" from 3 stars or less to 2 stars or less. I was kind of going for the grading system, where anything 3 stars or less (%60, or a <"D") is pretty bad, but maybe that isn't especially fair. I dunno.

First off: DIE for using the new Star Wars films as an explanation for ANYTHING related to the old ones.

So what? Famous people also often try to get away from it all when they get older, doesn't change the fact that it's retirement.

What made him get up was a distress call he wasn't expecting, it was *his* mission, he may not have even taken Luke with him if it hadn't been for those stormtroopers who had burned up his home and killed his only family.

Because of the weed, dude. Why else was Yoda so messed up? Confused, talking non-sense, stealing candy bars... and why did Luke get those visions? It's swamp weed and shrooms, dude! It's paradise for cool fellas like Yoda. Talking to trees, dancing in the mud, fighting your dad who happens to have your face... it's awesome.

I can counter all of those if I'm allowed to used Episode 1-3 but evidently I'm not so it kills that. :P

Can I use a game as evidence? Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds makes a lot of mention of the last remaining Jedi all going into hiding and waiting for 'the chosen one' to rise so that he might lead them to victory over the remaining Sith and the Empire.

I prefer to look at what people write inside of their review, than what rating they give. The rating is only a pointer to wether the review is written by someone who liked the game or someone who disliked it.

The things I look for in a review are, knowing what things I like and dislike in games (for instance, I hate savepoints, I want to save anytime, I dislike button-smashing to hit, I like it if the ability of my character, not my button-agility, determines if I will hit), how those likes and dislikes are reflected in the game. So I look for info in reviews: if people dislike a game, do they dislike the same things in the game I don't like to see in a game, or are they irrelevant to me?

The problem with 1 and 5 stars reviewers is most of their reviews are uninforming often. "I hate this game" or "best game ever!" are shouts with zero information value.

It's a good advice to look at the people who give 3 stars. Those are the people who actually think, I think. How often do you come across a game that's absolutely perfect (*****) or a completely failure (*). Rarely of couse. But how often do you come across ratings of ***** or *. Unrealistically often.

Hail to the *** !

This thread reminds me of the time I spent at a 5 star hotel. I'm not sure what the extra star was for.

Did it have one of those things by the bed that you pop the quarter into and it makes the bed vibrate? Those are cool!

Our B&B doesn't have those FYI.

This pretty much sums up how the Star Rating System on GOG works:

5 Stars: I loved this game at some point in my life. At least, I think I did or I heard it was really good. I can't really remember for sure since it has been decades. I wonder if the new release works well.

4 Stars: I liked this game at some point in my life but it isn't that great. It is pretty good though. I think.

3 Stars: It doesn't suck completely but it kinda sucks really from what I recall or else I just heard it was not very good or else everybody else voted 3 stars so I will too.

2 Stars: This game really sucks hard but there are games that suck even harder. Some people might like this game maybe but not me. Plus everybody says it sucks so it must. I never played this game but if everybody says it sucks well then so do I because it is common knowledge.

1 Star: A complete, utter, abysmal failure of epic proportions. This game is so terrible that selling it ought to be a crime punishable by time in prison. Actually, I never played this game myself but this is what I heard on the Internet so it gets one star from me too.

hey, that reminds me of an old management game Hotel from the 80's.
It was real fun to play, i put around 200 beds and 700 TV's into every room.
The guests were still complaining.

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!!
Now I'm intrigued. Screw Star Wars and screw the rating system, NEW TOPIC: Schnuff's hotel game!

1) How do you get 200 beds into a room?
2) Assuming you could get 200 beds into the room, no wonder people complained, they didn't have any room to move!
3) Who needs 700 TVs!?!?! I can barely pay attention to one TV.
4) With all the work you put into bed's and TV's did you make sure the room had at least one bathroom? The amount of beds and TVs is moot for me if there isn't a single bathroom. Sorry, deal breaker, I'd rather sleep in my car.

it was a game for the C-64.
One of the most boring games you can imagine.
Consists of mmmh 4 screens were you could set your price, buy equipment (the beds/TVs), and see the reaction.
So after 5 minutes of playing it i tried buying everything for the rooms.
You couldn't run out of money...even with a 4 rooms Hotel i could make millions (not with the rooms but with
reselling the TVs if i remember correct)...oh, the fun of it.
and hey who needs bathrooms for the guests? they only steal the towels.
http://www.c64games.de/phpseiten/spieledetail.php?filnummer=712