|
Post by MDG on Jul 28, 2023 9:14:19 GMT -5
Also, with comics being a continuing narrative, you cant really rate specific issues of comics. If an issue is full of setup but not much happens, but the events pay off in a later issue, how do you exactly rate that? At least with wrestling matches, you can kind of seperate them from the angle, though sometimes again, you'll need the angle to get the full experience (for example, one of my favorite matches is Ultimate Warrior vs Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 7. While they do tell a story through the match, it's more fulfilling if you know the whole story behind it). The default to "continuing narrative" is what turns me off of a lot of comics. It's pretty frustrating to get to the end of a collection of five or six issues of a series expecting a complete story to discover it's all been setup. Examples: Sex Criminals, Public Domain, Everlasting Love.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 28, 2023 22:04:42 GMT -5
There is definitely an art to both having an open ended narrative but giving stories with satisfying conclusions. IMO, the Bronze age was the best at it.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,710
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 7, 2023 9:41:41 GMT -5
I rate comics I review with the generic five letter rating system, and a C being totally "average".
F - Not a single redeemable thing about this comic. D - Significantly flawed. C - Totally average read B - Worthwhile read A - A true classic
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Aug 7, 2023 9:44:58 GMT -5
I like those. They’re logical.
And they prove it’s better to use letters than numbers. Dave Meltzer has been able to tinker with his ratings because they are numbers. He can add a 0.25 here, a 0.25 there. You can’t do that with letters, eh?
I believe five letters totally works. And I don’t believe anyone needs to tinker with those, hypothetically speaking.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,051
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 7, 2023 12:06:07 GMT -5
I like those. They’re logical. And they prove it’s better to use letters than numbers. Dave Meltzer has been able to tinker with his ratings because they are numbers. He can add a 0.25 here, a 0.25 there. You can’t do that with letters, eh? I believe five letters totally works. And I don’t believe anyone needs to tinker with those, hypothetically speaking. I give this comment a C+.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 8, 2023 2:00:49 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, I don't find the 5-stars or any other quantified rating system useful, neither when trying to rate things myself nor when reading or hearing reviews in general. I tried doing it when I first joined goodreads but soon found I had no idea how to rate most of the books I'd read, regardless of how much I liked or disliked them. I think how you feel about a book - or a comic, or an album, or a movie, etc - is often something that can't be put into words; but much, much better to try to put it into words than to try to quantify it with a number.
But if you must use a rating system - for example, if you were a professional reviewer and your editor or employer insisted on it - I'd say the ten-point framework gives a little more room for nuance. But maybe that feeling is influenced by childhood school experiences - the difference between a 40 ("2 stars out of 5") and a 60 ("3 stars out of 5") could feel like life and death back then - hence the desire for half-stars, I suppose - but then why this fixation on a 5-star system rather than a 10-star or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 4, 2023 6:03:12 GMT -5
Today marks 20 years since the first issue of the JLA/Avengers comic went on sale.
I am going to write a review for my blog. And it got me thinking: I use a 5-star rating system for things like that, but 5 stars seems too high/too generous for that series, but 4 stars feels not generous enough. A 4.5 rating would be preferable, I would not be endorsing it as flawless (which I don’t think it is), but nor would I be doing a disservice to it be merely giving it a 4. Giving it a 4.5 would seem to be a happy medium for a pedant like myself.
So, maybe there can be nuance (I realise I am contradicting my first post), but in my head, decimal places should be used sparingly. Most things I consider flawless would be a 5. Using something like a 4.5 would be a rare event indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Sept 5, 2023 14:44:36 GMT -5
You could use a 10-point scale and give it a 9.
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 5, 2023 14:51:02 GMT -5
You could use a 10-point scale and give it a 9. That works for me, far more than a counter-intuitive 4.5 or whatever!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 7, 2023 20:46:09 GMT -5
4.5/5 and 9/10 are mathematically the same.. six of one 1/2 dozen on another really.
|
|