| Michelasso said:
The problem is that the final score isn't consistent with the review. The review itself ends up being contradiptory. Regarding the comparison each site should have at least its own consistent meter to judge games. It isn't acceptable that the most infected game of all, Skyrim, plagued with dozens of bad technical issues can be declared excellent, while FF XIII-2 gets trashed because of "long loading times". 30% of time in Skyrim is wasted on a loading screen. Still that's not an issue. And do not make me talking about the Skyrim's hundreds of bugs, even game-breaking. The technical execution in any Final Fantasy game has always been a full 10. Reviewers should and MUST not take this lightly. It adds up to the final score, which must be a normalized value for the FUN FACTOR. No matter how cool Skyrim is as game, it is a frustrating experience, thus it would deserve a 5.4 . FF games being technicaly perfect can mess up only on the design. So a 54/100 means a 4/100 for the story, music, bameplay, being that 50/100 has already been achieved for its nearly perfect implementation. Which is retarded. On the other side, Skyrim, which is a technical mess, can't go above 75/100. And instead it gets a 96. I simply can't stand this, It goes against my idea of meritocracy. As simple as that. |
.... do you actually thing that is how reviews work? So in your mind if a game had amazing presentation but there was literally no story, no characters and the gameplay was walking down a corridor doing nothing you would give it 50/100 at least because it had good presentation?
There aren't set limits as to what parts of the game contribute to the overall score. Reviewers are reviewing the experience as a whole. FF13-2 deserves a 8/9 for graphics, presentation etc. But if the reviewer feels the gameplay and story are both awful then having pretty graphics doesn't somehow make the game enjoyable.
