| Jordahn said: Selnor & NNN2004: The truth is that gamers are not sheep to numerical ratings. I NEVER based the purchase of a game based on its average numerical rating. I base my purchases on what I want and whether or not I think the game is worth my time and hard earned money. My classic example is the original Siren for the PS2. As far as survival horror goes, both the main Resident Evil series and the Silent Hill series have received better average ratings that Siren which was around 70%. But if you'll check its individual ratings, you'll find that the ratings ranged anywhere from 4/10 to 9/10. And regardless of what Siren's numerical score, I find Siren to be better than RE and Silent Hill with me being a big fan of Silent Hill. No one if going to tell me that Siren is a 70% game when I feel that it's one of the best survival horror game ever made. If you guys base you gaming purchases on the dependence of a website's average rating, then you guys are sheep and fail as gamers. |
I agree: as I look for games that I must like, I don't have to do a summary review for others, average rating makes little sense for my personal choice, it's more sensible to, yes, consider the average rating, but also average user ratings to make sure I don't buy utter crap everybody dislikes or I don't miss masterpieces everybody loves, but then, to pick the ones I could most like amongst the good ones, I try to find reviews from professional writers or simple users like-minded as me. In the past I found quite tuned with me PCZone in the times when the editorial staff included Charlie Brooker, Duncan McDonald and other crazy blokes, but also PCReview when there was Cal Jones, now I read every now and then the italian TGM (mostly when I think or I'm sure I'll like the bundled game), but I also still flip through PCZone online archive.
