I've always wondered, how many hours do reviewers put into a game before ranking it?
I've played a lot of games, and most of the times, I read at least 1 review of the said game before playing it. Yet, how I feel about the game often don't agree with the scores, usually about +/- 10%.
First, let me state that I am not so critical on the graphics. So, it's likely I have totally different expectation from the reviewers.
Another thing I noticed is that, the reviewers often hesitant to rank a bad game lower than 5/10. If the game is a complete crap, why give it a 5/10 instead of 1/10. Hell, give it a 0/10 since it's pretty much not worth a penny. There are a few of those out there.
As for the higher ranked games. I often found them to be graphically superior to the ones with less graphics. But gameplay and playability that I considered somewhat equal. The score would be anywhere from 1 to 3 points off.
Something like, an awesome game with acceptable graphics would get a 7.5/10 while an okay game with awesome graphics gets a 9/10.
What exactly are they guildlines on ranking games? 2 points for graphics, 2 for gameplay, 2 for multiplyer, 2 for story, and 2 for music?
Note that "not critical on the graphics" doesn't mean I don't care about it. It has to be "acceptable".
