IGN scores the BioShock Collection a perfect and logical 8.2/10 - General

This is why I like Giantbomb 1-5 score system

[QUOTE=General;51054674]This is why I like Giantbomb 1-5 score system[/QUOTE] As long as it doesn't have decimals and doesn't go larger than a 10, I'm OK with it.

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;51050174]82/100? 8.2/10? Basically it's 8=good, 9=great, 10=perfect If it's 8.2 it means pretty much it's a bit better than good[/QUOTE] Yeah but like what's the difference between 8.2 and 8.1 or 8.3? I get percentage scores when they're an aggregate but when we're talking about one person's review, 1% increments have probably more to do with their mood that day than anything about the game. Heck it's already pretty hard to use a ten-point scale meaningfully, especially when it's applied to something as diverse as games.

[QUOTE=TectoImprov;51050237]That perception of scores probably comes from school grading scales. AKA anything below an 80 is "average."[/QUOTE] And also because quality is skewed. Games are good more often than not

[QUOTE=mooman1080;51050124]Do we even need to review re releases? Don't most review sites make a point that they don't review updates to games?[/QUOTE] I think reviewing re-releases is good, because you can get a feel for how the game has aged. BattleZone '98 for example was a loved by critics when it came out in 1998, but the redux in 2016 showed the age; it still has the unique gameplay, but it hasn't aged well in regards to AI and difficultly.

Will the collection just appear in my games list on steam when its released or do i have to do something special?

The practice of scoring games varies from pointless to detrimental and it's it should stop. Example scenario a reviewer gave the game a 7. What does that tell me? Nothing really because first, games are too multifaceted to reduce to a scale of numbers. Might be a totally average game. Might be an amazing game with some glaring flaws. Second, a "7" might mean completely different things depending on who you ask, and there's no way to know what it means to the reviewer without reading the review anyway. Furthermore, caring about ratings enables the issues of reviewers trading good scores to favors and developer rewards being tied to review scores by their publishers, both of which make each other worse. Ideally, a review should be an analysis of what works and what doesn't, and what certain types of players have to look forward to in the game, trying to stay as objective as possible. Separately are the reviewer's subjective tastes and opinions, which you can use as a reference point for your own by examining how similar your taste is with the reviewer's.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51055645] Second, a "7" might mean completely different things depending on who you ask, and there's no way to know what it means to the reviewer without reading the review anyway. [/QUOTE] Imagine actually have to [I]read[/I] that review to understand the score of it. The horror.

[QUOTE=Banned?;51055658]Imagine actually have to [I]read[/I] that review to understand the score of it. The horror.[/QUOTE] why bother having a number score then?

Please, please, please, we need to get rid of review scores. This is ridiculous, people are getting mad over it, and you can't put a number on a series of intertwining opinions. The devs of Fallout New Vegas were fucking paid less money because their game got 1 point too low on metacritic ffs.