By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Khuutra on 06 May 2010
Edit Thread
radiantshadow92 said:
Khuutra said:

Scores are nont anywhere close to as important as the content of a review, that notion does not make sense.

And their scores are not bogus: they are internally consistent, consistent in method, and consistent in their criteria. They're among the best in the industry, regardless of whether or not I agree with them on a given score.

Score is not as important as content. Score is not as important as content. Score is not as important as content.

Whether you like it or not, the score is still a part of the review. So, they are not consistent at all. They gave WKC and Final Fantasy 13 a review score of 5. That makes absolutely no sense. WKC had choppy graphics, and terrible dialog. Final Fantasy 13 should of been ahead of WKC with graphics alone. I could bring way more examples, i see nothing but inconsistency. 

 

Score is a part of the content. Score is a part of the content. Score is a part of the content. 

You are confusing "inconsistency" with scores you don't agree with. Rating WKC and FF13 on the same level is not inconsistent, it just means that two reviwers enjoyed the games abot the same amoun t.

Again. You are not outlining inconsistency. "Inconsistent" doesn't mean "scores you don't agree with". In order to outline any kind of inconsistency, you would need to set down standards according to which they operate and then show how those standards have been violated. You failed to do so, therefore you failed to illustrate inconsistency.

You said "score is as important as content". If score is a part of content, then score must necessarily be subservient to content because it cannot be equal to the hwole of which it is only a part.