Machina-AX said:
TWRoO said:
Make it as simple as possible, we don't want all the "this game got 1% more" stuff.
I like the EGSU method which we used to get awarded before SATs (exams in year 9 (13-14yo) )
EGSU =
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Except perhaps add an extra level on top "Outstanding" or another level below instead. ("Terrible" ?)
@Machina... why do they need to be compared to other review sites.... the reviews should stand on their own and shouldn't be converted to percentages by aggregate review sites like Metacritic... reviews are a means for people to understand if a game they were interested in is worth buying, not for comparing 1 game to another because it comes down to opinion way too much then.... just because a reviewer liked Halo 3 more then Resistance (and thus gave them 95% and 85% respectively) doesn't mean the purchaser would like Halo 3 more.
|
An EGSU system prevents us getting on averaging sites, unless you have conversion guidelines, in which case why not just cut straight to the guidelines?
Now you may argue, as you seem to do here, that those averaging sites are pointless and we shouldn't want to join them, but I don't agree with that. If we get our reviews on their sites that would be a great accomplishment for a small but fast growing site and community like ours.
It would lead to considerably more site traffic, more members and more revenue for the site. There is great potential for good knock-on effects across the board. It would open up more avenues for access to key figures and companies within the industry. That means more previews, exclusive content like interviews and screenshots, more beta impressions and more review copies (which in turn means reviews get up quicker and are therefore more relevant).
|
MetaCritic and gamerankings don't even use what is a long running and trusted magazine: Official Nintendo Magazine for a review source (despite using some official PS and XB mags).... I doubt VGC will be added anytime soon.
However I do believe MetaCritic and such ask for confirmation from many reviewers about what score out of 100 they would have given (and if they don't give one then MC just makes one up based on the content) so if they do put VGC up that could happen, I just think advertising what is such an annoying method of reviewing is only going to show us up... many people on here agree that most reviewers (minus some who seem reluctant to try the Wii with an open mind) seem to be slowly increasing score for what are only Good games.
So should VGC get published there, we would either have to follow that pattern of giving 70 and 80 to games that are not so great (which would then lose us credibility because many of our Wii reviews would be higher than the majority of others, even though PS3 and 360 are inline) or go by a proper pattern of having a decent game (Good) at about 50%, which would probably lose us more credibility.
