By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 22 March 2014
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
Zekkyou said:
I agree. Sadly the majority of people don't bother reading the reviews themselves, they'd rather cling to undefined measurements of subjective quality. Scores do have a place, and can be pretty helpful when trying to determine a games quality, but the score should be an after thought, not the entire point of the review.

I'll ask you as well!

Are there games you enjoy that have low meta scores?

Every game in your sig are criticially acclaimed. Hence, reviews help guide people to good games.

There are a few yeah ^^ I have no problem with reviews themselves, they are one of the most efficient ways of determining somethings quality (outside of just playing it), it's the scores that are unreliable. The games in my sig do all have high scores, but they are also highly praised in the reviews themselves. If you take out the scores and read 100 reviews, and all of them say something is good, then you can know with a good degree of certainty that it's a good game.

The other problem with scores is they can be a bit conflicting. For example games are often marked down for having bad visuals, but having good visuals doesn't really help you much (such as Ryse and Killzone). There are games like Cross Edge (52 on meta), which i loved, but got a lot of hate for it's crappy visuals.

My other problem with scores is how sequels are treated. Even when they are considerably better than their predecessor, they often still get a lower score due to the persons view being affected by their previous expectations of the series. From reading the review you'd know it was better, but purely looking at scores you'd think it was worse.