|
CrashMan said:
Review conglomeration sites are pointless anyway. The sites they use for their review synopsis don't have any standard scoring system so there is no real way to properly combine them in to one.
Example:
A Site that has a 0-100 (0.0 - 10.0) scale is very granular, and is usually what these sites default to, but this scews less granular reviews way up.
A site that uses a 0-10 scale is less granular, and a 10 could be from a 91-100, a 9 could be an 81 - 90, etc, but it is always rounded up.
A Site that uses a 5 star or similar makes it even worse. 5 stars could be 81-100, 4 stars is 61-80, etc, so they get rounded up. So a game that is excellent may get a 94 on a 0-100 site, but gets 5 stars on another, which gets pushed up to a 5 star.
What if a site uses a 0-7 scale? what do you do then.
I doubt that averaged out over a number of games/sites this would introduce any bias overall. All games get the same treatment here.
Its all idiotic and any rating system is flawed. You are best to say "Who cares about reviews?" (They don't effect game sales any way) and just play the games you want.
An actually GOOD system would allow the reader to factor the reviewer's genre preferences (a guy who hates FPS isn't going to review Halo 3 well,) the reviewer's opinion as to what is most important about a game (graphics, gameplay, story, etc,) favorite series, etc, and no numbers would be used.
Usually the fans of the particular games/genres where applicable review the games. Otherwise MGS4 wouldn't have had as high a rating as its not 100% newbie to the series friendly.
But people don't want to read, they just want to see a number and say "OMGz, GTA IV is the greatest game of all time, LOOK AT ALL THE 10s!!!!111"
|
