Welcome all to The Rubber Match! As this site gets off the ground, I wanted to offer a quick write-up/explanation on how I’ll be aiming to write reviews for media items in our collection that I plan to cover on this website.
While this website is designed to be an all-encompassing space for material on a variety of subjects, I plan to dive deep into our media collection of over 1,000 physical items with reviews that both offer my opinion and experience with a particular work while also spreading the word on its legacy and the overall importance of physical media.
With that being said, I want to stress that these reviews and opinions are not coming from the mind of an expert in any form of media – I’m ultimately no different than anyone else – a fan and lifelong enjoyer of the limitless creativity humans have expressed themselves in through music, video games, television and film.
Our collection began in earnest at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, although I had already owned approximately 70 video games from my childhood and a handful of vinyl records that I had accumulated in my early years as an enthusiast during my time in college. What started as a reignited interest in video games blossomed into a full-blown media collection, primarily spanning across music and video games.
Most of my reviews will center around the music and the video games in our collection, as that is what I am more familiar with by a wide margin, but I also do hope to begin reviewing some of the TV and movies that we own as well – although my familiarity with TV and movies pales to music and video games in that regard.
It’s my aim for my reviews to represent both my opinion and the work’s legacy and impact over the years, as I’ll try to take a retrospective lens to looking back on the items in our collection. While I’m no expert in what I’ll be reviewing, I intend to include as much background information and context as possible to both help explain why my opinion is what it is and why I see the work’s legacy in the light that I do.
My reviews will all be written, but I may implement audio and video into reviews if they garner interest down the line.
The Review Scale
Although my reviews will primarily take on a written form, I will still be using a scale to score and keep track of the collection items I have reviewed. I do this because I think rating art on the same scale can help provide context behind how much I enjoyed something, as well as help give an idea of how to structure future content such as a retrospective list or ranking.
While a multitude of scales are commonly used, be it A-to-F, 1-to-10 or 0-to-5 stars, I hope that my scale of 0-100 takes characteristics of other common scales to offer a more precise score and picture of my opinion.
I also want to make clear what those numbers will mean to me when I’m reviewing and rating media, as a 0-100 scale can have varying meanings itself, as anybody who attended grade school in America could tell you. Luckily for the media I’ll be reviewing, it won’t be on an academic scale.
Below is a look at how my opinion of something will generally correspond to a given score:
- 100: Effectively a flawless work. While every individual component itself may not be perfect, the sum of its parts creates media that I consider to be immaculate. An essential work that serves as a model for others with an unmistakable legacy.
- 90-99: A superb work of media with very few blemishes or detracting qualities keeping it from being perfect. Worth revisiting on a frequent basis.
- 80-89: A great work of media. Though there may be a few aspects that slightly detract from the overall experience, the result is something excellent that remains worth revisiting.
- 70-79: A good-to-very good work of media. While there are aspects that detract from the overall experience, the result is something I consider to be strong and enjoyable. Worth an occasional revisit.
- 60-69: A fair or slightly above average work of media. Several aspects that noticeably detract from the overall experience, but still more moments that I enjoy or consider to be strong. Maybe worth a nostalgic revisit.
- 50-59: An average or mediocre work of media. While there may be some aspects I enjoy, there are just as many that I do not. Doesn’t stand out among its contemporaries. Seldom worth revisiting.
- 40-49: A poor work of media. Most aspects of the work detract from the overall experience, though there still may be a few redeeming characteristics. Not worth revisiting.
- 30-39: A terrible work of media. All-around bad, with only a few moments or aspects that I could consider good or redeeming. Not worth revisiting.
- 20-29: A horrific work of media. Thoroughly awful, with its strongest qualities being mediocre at best. Not worth revisiting.
- 10-19: An abysmal work of media. Genuinely among the worst works I’ve encountered, with no redeeming qualities. Potentially worth revisiting in discussion of all-time worsts.
- 0-9: Irredeemable. A work of media that undoubtedly should not have been made. Only worth revisiting in discussion of all-time worsts.
It is worth noting that most items in our collection are ones that my wife and I enjoy to some degree, therefore you’re likely not going to see too many scores on the bottom end of the scale, at least to start.
I’d also love for this project to be inclusive and easy to follow along with – I’ll update and hyperlink my reviews to the corresponding item on the collection page. I would also love to take requests on what to review next, whether that be a new item to add to our collection or an item already in our collection that I can review.
Leave a Reply