Pemalite said:
dsage01 said:
curl-6 said:
dsage01 said:
I didn't count in a couple scores due to being waay to unreasonable and giving it a zero or a one..or not playing the full component of a game |
What's the point of asking for ratings if you're going to arbitrarily decide which ones you accept? Might as well just decide the rating for yourself if you're going to tailor and influence the results.
|
Do you accept me to accept ratings where people are saying ``game does not work`` and giving it between a 0-3 even though it works for majority of the people. Or people like yourself or neglect the strongest component of this game. I feel there should be some level of moderation or there would be no difference between this and the overly biased metacritic user scores. But I agree, I should defintley update the OP saying that if you give any video game below the user score of 50 or much below the average score it should be very well explained just so the score can stay as free from trolling as possible.
|
If that's your frame of thought... Then you should remove scores which are 10/10 because the game is far from perfection.
A game that deserves 10/10 are those with a gripping and engaging story/campaign compounded via a perfect multi-player experience with no bugs or issues, has the best possible image quality and sound and brings with it new innovative ideas and gameplay mechanics never seen before.
Which simply hasn't occured, the game is an iterative refinement over Battlefield 3 and restores lost features/functionality that was available in Bad Company.
|
Fair enough, how about this if a game has metacritic scores above 75 they don`t have to give an explanation for a rating above 95, however if it is below 75 they don`t have to give an explanation for the zero. How does that sound.
