TruckOSaurus said: Rest assured, I'm not here to whine about the Destructoid score. I haven't read the full review and I'll probably get the game before the end of the year no matter what. But reading the reactions on here to some of RE6 reviews, I found myself stuck between two points of view. On one hand, there's the notion that a score of 3 out of 10 should be reserved for an unplayable mess of a game, with important game design flaws, with little to no redeeming quality whatsoever. On the other hand, there's the whole "games are art" business. If you're someone who's buying into that theory then why not score games like other art forms like movies and music? Reviews of those two types of enternainment are much more swingy than those for games (reviews span a greater range even for highly acclaimed movies/CDs) but it's my understanding that in those reviews the "enjoyment factor" weights a whole lot more than any other factor. So why should games be any different? Shouldn't a reviewer who didn't get any enjoyment out of a game like say, Resident Evil 6, be allowed to give it a score that reflects that fact? |
@bold (Quoted for truth). Sadly this industry works with terrible biases, and as a whole needs a complete overhaul. If a movie is of high quality but there is an aspect the reviewer didn't like, then 6+ out of 10 is expected, anything lower than that is trolling I believe. 5 and less is reserved for games that are of obviously low quality, are cheap, or are broken.