| NeoRatt said: I completely agree. If there is any negative comment or the slightest hint of something that should be done better in a game it should not get a 100/100... On the other side though there are many sites that only rank out of 5 or 10... And will only do .5's on those numbers. So there will also be a lot of 9's that maybe should have been 9.3's or 9.7's... It all averages out and that's why I rely more on metacritic and gamerankings then each individual review. I only look at reviews for the details on why and I use the metacritic and gamerankings for the "average" scores which are much more realistic. |
Heh... I disagree on all three points.
First of all, every game will have "the slightest hint" of a flaw. It should be pointed out, and then mentioned that it doesn't hurt the experience. That doesn't seem to be the case with some of these Halo reviews, though.
Second... I hate the 100 scale. Reviewing on a 5, 10 or 20 scale is bound to be more consistent than doing it on a 100 scale. There really is no difference between a game ranked 2.7 and one ranked 3.3. Give them both 3.
Lastly, I think meta and GR end up showing a greater genre-bias than an individual site might, because they're averaging in the vast amount of genre-bias reviews. Brain Age is a groundbreaking title, and the cream of the crop for games of it's type. It got a 77, it's sequel a 78 on meta. Metroid Prime Hunters, considered a somewhat awkward game, not groundbreaking at all, which maybe would have been better left on a home system, got an 85.
"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.
