| 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? Edit: I've used Resident Evil 6 as an example here since it's what sparked my reflexion, but I'm not necessarily looking for opinions on that particular game. I'm more interested in talking about how you feel about scoring games on how much you enjoy them (rather than technical virtues). |
imo, because the other forms of art don't have the whole "bug" issue to deal with. you'd never hear a music review discuss scratches that cause the CD to skip and become unplayable.
..personally, i like the really low scores (less than 5) being reserved for unplayable glitchy messes and the art portion being on a 5 point (5-10) scale. ..but maybe that's just me.
Essay Pro