Currently Online 
| GoOnKid said: The point is that critics and reviews can never dictate how much I will enjoy a game. I couldn't care less about scores. I finished Devil's Third MULTIPLE times ffs. Yes, there are similar games with higher scores, who denied that? But still a score of 60 will never be able to make me enjoy a game for just 60%. In my opinion gamers shouldn't rely their purchase decisions based on scores alone anyway. In these times there are plenty of opportunities to make up your own mind about liking a game or not, and if someone looks for a game like this then just go on and give it a go. |
I agree that people shouldn't let critic scores be the sole reason why they buy or pass on a game. I have enjoyed many games with mixed reviews and disliked many with rave reviews. It all comes down to preferences.
With that said, I think review scores are important for a developer/publishers reputation and its one of the reasons (not only reason, but a big one) that has prevented XBO from getting out of its 7-8 million/year sales pace.
Like the list I provided a few posts back showed, outside of Halo/Gears/Forza, most of their published exclusives fall in the 50-74% range which is considered mixed-average. That doesnt mean those games are bad or cant be enjoyed but from a consumer perspective it doesnt look good when Nintendo/Sony are cranking out exclusive games at a faster pace and with better critical reception.
Microsoft doesnt need to make massive changes to fix this, games that score in the 50-74% range usually do some things very well and have alot of potential but a few noticeable flaws prevent them from reaching that next level. With a few tweaks to their development process you could see them consistently cranking out 75-89% (good-great) rated games instead of 50-74% (mixed-average).
If they can pull that off next generation than their reputation as a developer/publisher will improve alot in my opinion.
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
