| kappie1977 said: Funny point. You hit the nail with this one as I think that a lot of people look at metacritic.com for their review but in reality those are not really good. Ps. where is the time that an average of 8 was a very good game. I think that because a lot of game journalist are biased to a certain type of game or platform you get very strange reviews. |
Yep. I'd expect really professional journalists to be able to tell their own biasses and adjust their scores up or down to counterbalance them, and in extreme cases where they can't overcome them, leave reviews of those games to other less biased colleagues. Also, scores should generally be stricter, with 90-95/100 only for all-round excellent games and 96-99/100 reserved to really everlasting masterpieces, while 80-89/100 could be considered excellence for games that are indeed excellent, but with a more limited appeal, either in time or in user target. This way the n-th edition of annual sports games and FPS, for example, would rarely get more than 89/100 (and their meta should obviously be even lower), but outstanding editions could go beyond 90. I highly esteemed some defunct gaming mags like PC Zone and PC Review for doing it, while I deeply despised magazines that gave away high scores too easily.
PS In my library scores are on average high just because due to limited time and money, and always building my PCs to be low-power consumption and low-noise, so with at most mid-range performances, I almost never buy early and I wait for time to let the real classics emerge before buying.
