| Akvod said:
If you're comparing a game relative to another game, how much do you ding one game for having a bug? If you're looking at a game in isolation, you could say that the game has "less quality" by saying it has a bug, but how much "less"? And again, when you're looking at a game in isolation (as opposed to say comparing two versions of the same game), you have the subjective stuff to worry about to assess overall quality. Basically, the whole idea of an whole objective basis for quality, which suggest the ability to have some kind of objective assessment (i.e. a number score) for a game is just kind of silly. |
if im comparing more than one game, the game that performs the worst (bugs etc.) is going to get more dings, thats only fair IMHO. Despite if i have more fun playing the one with things. I had more fun playing GE(recent) than Black Ops, now if you were to ask me whihc is the better game. Black Ops by a long shot for various reasons, better performance being one of them. Thats just me. IMHO if you're reviewing in that light one has the responsibility to inform the reader which is the better product, but even then thats still subjective.
Isolation is even trickier cause their is nothing ot compare it to. I dont think its about numbers you dont have to put a number on it, just write a good review explain stuff like bugs and judge accordingly. IMHO Really broken games shouldnt get a pass, its flawed on a fundamental level that leans more toward the objective.
