Mr Khan said:
Consistency != uniformity. A point of semantics, but a point well worth mentioning in this case. Though arguments over reviewing standards are arguments of the sort that need a lot of groundwork laid out so that debaters are not arguing past one another. I would state that, conceding the point that review scores have an intrisic worth simply due to the mass belief that they do have intrinsic worth (although i personally may not believe in the worth of such scores), then consistency amongst reviewers amongst reviews across time should be a desirable aspect of gaming publications. |
Not so. When we accept that a single publication can have multiple reviewers we must also accept that they bring their different perspectives to the table, and when they do that we can only hope that they present their own views on a game as fully and truthfully as they can. If that means that one reviewer sees FFXIII as a 9 and another sees it as a negative seventeen, well, that needs to be presented. Honesty is more important than uniformity - "consistency" has too positive a connotation, here, and could only apply within the narrow band of a single person's reviews.
