By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rainbird on 28 May 2009
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
Rainbird said:
@ theprof00

Again, if nobody does anything to change it, it will remain broken. And why is the 10 scale ridiculous, when an 8.8-rated game is better than an 8.6-rated game? Wouldn't it be better for the consumer, if it was easier to see which titles were better than others, and have the current numbers used spread out over a bigger range, instead of just 70-100?

I would much rather that more review sites did like Eurogamer, and used the entire 10 scale, compared to how things are today, where there isn't room to expand at the top. No game will ever be perfect, and we certainly shouldn't ever be able to find a game so close to perfection as say, GTA4 is (according to reviews).

This is the reason why 10 scale is bad:

Killzone2 got a 9, and so did Nobynoby boy. Which one do I buy?

It's not about it being broken, it's the psychology of the reader that is at fault, and that will never change. I thought I explained that. NOBODY is going to buy a game that's been judged over the entire 100 point scale ie: bad games are 10, mediocre games are 40-60 and good games are 70+.

Nobody will buy those sub 70 games. nobody. It's unfair to the manufacturers because those games will be good for some people, but because of the psychology involved in the score, nobody would want to buy.

Okay, this is officially becoming the weirdest argument ever.

No, quality (as defined by metacritic) doesn't equal sales. We know this. And any games that are bad will have less sales, but they will still have sales. Do you think there are people who enjoy a game which is currently rated 60 or so on metacritic? Yes there are, but what are the odds these people actually went to metacritic?

I think that anyone who hangs out on the internet, talks about games and knows about metacritic, will know exactly what they are after, and it's these people who will be turned off by many low reviews. If the system changed, they would have to adapt, and they would.

Furthermore, comparing Killzone 2 to Noby Noby Boy? How is that not the weirdest comparison in the history of gaming? You can't say "Well, they got the same score, so they must be equally good", because they are different games, reviewed by different people. If anyone are pondering whether to buy Killzone 2 or Noby Noby Boy, they should either buy both or go earn some more money.

And the final score is only the punctuation at the end of your review. Nobody sees the score Eurogamer gave a game and goes "I'll never be getting that!" without reading some part of the review (raving fanboys excluded).