Can't reviewers see that any form of number scale no matter what it is, ends up being flawed?
A decent enough example (just off the top of my head);
[t]http://rpgmaker.net/media/content/users/947/locker/God_Hand_vs_Party_Babyz.jpg[/t]
A simple conclusion of sorts lets you give more detail as to what is good and what is wrong. Pros and cons, and then tell if you would recommend playing it or not.
Rating systems can be a hit or miss sometimes depending of the reviewer knows how to use them. I don't know what Facepunch thinks of IGN but here is a good example:
They rated Uncharted 3 a perfect 10, and by IGN's philosophy a 10 is quote "the pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected"
Then they go on to rate Naughty Dog's next title, The Last of Us, a 10. As per their definition, it belittles what they rated Uncharted 3, which is still a great game IMO. I know it's comparing apples to oranges in terms of gameplay, but to say something like a 10 is masterpiece is absurd.
Maybe I am going a little too much into this, and I am not saying that games that are 10s do not deserve that rating, I am just saying keep in mind there is no such thing as the "perfect game"
It's because a number of people only care about a number rather then the review. I admit, I'm guilty of it myself.
But seriously, review scores are a detriment to the industry. Case in point, the whole fiasco with New Vegas Metacritic Score (In Short, Obsidian was denied bonuses because New Vegas settled at an 84 on Metacritic, it needed an 85).
Review scores are meaningless.
[quote]This game is awful. Control is unresponsive. Gameplay is repetitive and cookie-cutter. [b]8/10[/b][/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.