The Critic's Plight

[vlad321]

Runa216 said:

vlad321 said:

You admit that you gave inFamous an 8.9 when it was glitchy. You talk of the good old days of reviewing, but I clearly remember games with bugs and other stuff not getting over an 8.5 or an 8. Newsflash, the score system goes from 1-10 not 6-10. Basically, practice what you preach.

how am I not?  not EVERY review did the same thing, and I know some of the best games ever released have glitches in them.  the issue is: Do the glitches negatively impact the gameplay?  I found in inFamous 2, they really didn't.  yeah there was a very odd time it happened, but I went through the game, my brother went through it twice, and each of my friends that I leant the game to went through it, and put together, all 5 times through the game, there were perhaps three physical glitches, the rest were strictly aesthetic.  that's not game breaking, but it is worth mentioning and it's enough to keep it from that coveted 90%+.  

Also, I have a very clear way to review things: 

95-100 - Absolutely exemplary, unrivalled games, the best ever, flawless in practically every way

90-94 - Truly fantastic, cream of the crop type stuff. Near perfection. 

80-89 - Great games, fantastic in almost every way, some flaws keep it from 9+

70-79 - Good games, these games are really fun to play in spite of their flaws

60-69 - decent games. These are fun to play but have parts that detract from their score

50-59 - Acceptable games. marred with issues but still worth playing if just to say you did

40-49 - Poor games, where the unpleasantness outweighs the good, but they might still be worth playing for that one good gameplay mechanic or the story

30-39 - Bad Games, these games may have their fun parts, but they are mostly bad with few redeeming factors

20-29 - horrible games, these games are fundamentally broken, unenjoyable, and have almost no redeeming factors

10-19 - atrocious games, they are an absolute mess, bad in every way

0-9 - offensively bad games, these get absolutely nothing right and even if they did they'd still be atrocious for other reasons such as story or graphics. 

 

pretty much exactly what GamrReview has as their criteria. 

 

 

The thing is plain statistics though. the 45-50 range should have the most games, not as few as they are. Meanwhile go take a look at the gamrReview scores, and come back and tell me how they are distributed. As it stands, it's more or less well distributed in the 50-95 range, with just a handful of games under 50. If you want go ahead and plot them out and see the distribution in a graph, I'm too lazy to do so, but I have a really nice idea what it'd look like.