platformmaster918 said:
JWeinCom said:
platformmaster918 said:
JWeinCom said:
platformmaster918 said:
curl-6 said:
SxyxS said:
I think the same games published by nintendo and mario instead ofa sly would be rated around 90% and called a super innovative nintendo stealth jump'n'run. |
Unlikely, critics often criticize Mario games.
|
and then give them great ratings using such objective decriptions as "It'll bring back childhood memories" and "Nintendo magic". Ummmmm ok how about getting someone to review it who didn't grow up playing Mario or can simply put his personal feelings aside from his childhood?
|
NSMB 2 got reviews about the same as what Sly is getting. Paper Mario Sticker Star too. NSMBU was slightly better but still not great. Dunno where these Mario games that critics fawn over are.
Remember, if a Sony game doesn't get great reviews it can't be because it's not a great game. It's because the media is biased.
Of course, Ninteno fans will say the same thing in reverse too.
|
I view any game above 80 as "most people will enjoy it" I also view games in the 70s to be just for a certain audience, but 9s and 10s should be far more difficult to come across than they are now. Why reviewers don't use the whole spectrum is beyond me.
|
Not sure that relates to this, but that's ok. Anyway, we don't use the whole spectrum because that's the concensus we have. I'm someone who reviews games, and in order for my reviews to be relevant, they have to be comparable to other reviews.
So lets say that the industry at large considers 5 to be a very bad game that should be avoided, which I think is true. And suppose that in my opinion, 5 is an average game that fans of the genre would enjoy. So, in reviewing a game, I give it a 5. In my mind I'm saying "average" but to the readers, I'm saying "bad".
In other words, I have to use the language that the industry and its consumers have implicitly agreed upon. If I go my own way, it leads to misunderstandings.
|
just describe your review scale in detail like Gameinformer
|
Unfortunately, you can't count on every reader to look at that. Readers often have a short attention span. I love it if readers read the whole review, but I know plenty are going to just skip to the bottom. The issue is even a bit more complex when you take things like metacritic and gamerankings into account. Those aggregate sites depend on a concensus.
At any rate, what does it matter either way? As long as there is a concensus on what a rating means, that's all that really matters to me. I'd rather be able to easily read and interpret scores than have to reference each site's scale whenever I read one.
Currently Online 
