Why anything below a 70/100 is deemed a BAD SCORE....

[forevercloud3000]

JWeinCom said:
50 is what you get for your game being generally functional, not completely ugly, and a somewhat reasonable length. 50 is "passing" and "passing" means playable.

But, it really doesn't matter what the scores represent, as long as they're reasonably consistent.

What the Reviewer sees their score as is one thing but what the reader percieves it is another. To the Writer, their score of 50 seems fair and average, to that reader looking at it......he/she cannot help but think it must be aweful, as they have been conditioned to not accept anything less than 70%.

Whether this hinders that reader from ever pursuing that game could be questioned, but if they do play the game, and they see it as average, they will wonder why the reviewer gave it a 50%, This discredits that reviewer or entire site to that reader now.

Reviews can be quite damaging to the success of games, so I believe. To ignore this "discrepency" between perceptions I think is hazerdous to the industry.

Reviewers should basically adhere to the same grading structure that is expected from their audience. 70% or above is good, anything below is very bad. If the game might interest someone, maybe not you, but someone might really find it entertaining........it should not be getting a 5.

 

Also, I think reviewers who only give Whole and Half  grades should be shot. They give a false aggregated score. 3/5 is a fucking 60%. From reading the review you can kinda see what the writer describes is really about a 75%. Yet because they are too lazy to deal with decimals they round. One of the worst practices in the field.