| Scoobes said: You're just further iterating what I said in my previous quote. The fact that there are gamers that actually think this way shows the immaturity of the games industry. Your analogy also doesn't work because the sole purpose of grading a students work is to show their current level and how to improve. The point of a games review is to aid readers (not developers although they get the benefit of the critique) in making a purchasing decision. The content of the review is far more important than the score. A game like the one here can score poorly, yet still describe the positives to a point where someone can decide whether they'd actually enjoy the game or not. I've read negative reviews of games before, yet still been able to say, "I may buy this game because the review decribed it did x, y and z well". Those are review done well. Most of Edge's review are like this and so is the review this thread is based on. Why do you actually care about the metacritic score? Does it stop you from purchasing and enjoying the game? Why should any reviewer limit themselves to a 7-10 scoreline? The fact that these questions have to be asked is facepalm worthy. It's like the Uncharted 3 metacritic debacle all over again. |
And I repeat that no one can read all reviews. Many people look at the Metacritic score, mentioned also in Wikipedia. Taken two reviews on the extremes they can be completely contradiptory. One says that the music is great, the other that it is the worst ever. At this point a good review should (must) just explain what music stye is played and when. The quality of the audio and dare NOT give a personal judgement. One may like Madonna and others hate her. Some like Opera others can't simply stand it. It's completely SUBJECTIVE so it must be taken out or used only as a personal opinion in brackets.
Regarding my 70/100 as a minimum it is a matter of quality. Quality matters for half of the score. That's why Skyrim is inflated in all reviews. A broken game can NEVER be GOTY (not the PS3 version at least). It's an average game. A 50/100 is usually given to broken games or games with no content. Does anyone want to claim that FF XIII-2 is either one of them? Come on, make me laugh. It always ends up withthe Skyrim comparison. FF XIII-2 combat is too easy? Skyrim's one is pathetic (compared with Dark Souls and ingdom of Amaturs it's simply worth nothing. One ends up slincing air far too many times). FF XIII-2 story sucks? Well, where is Skyrim story? FF XIII-2 has long loading times (which isn't true. They are lower than average and without disc installation). Should I mention Skyrim loading times again? Runa even dared to mention occasionally frame rate drops (sorry guys: X360 only. In the PS3 is quite stable above 25 fps)!! Do we really wanna talk about Skyrim frame rate?!
Also if someone opinion/score differs 25-30 points in a 100 scale from the average, usually there is someting wrong. That goes in the other way around. there is no way FF XIII-2 is a perfect 10, like the (real) fanboys are evaluating the game. So if who gives a 10/10 is a fan boy what is who give sa 5/10? Obviously an hate boy. Are they allowed to their opinions? Sure. Am I allowed to define them for what they are? Sure as well.
