People should just learn to accept lower scores, as long as they are explained in the review, so that each gamer can decide whether something considered a flaw by the reviewer it is for them too, and even if it is, if it's forgivable or not.
If Charlie Brooker wrote that he lowered a RPG score just because it was again the same usual fantasy stuff with mages and goblins, that he hated by then after having played so many, but the other aspects of the game were fine, I just knew that the game could be totally fine for my tastes and I just had to add some points to his score to get the one suitable for my tastes. Also, thanks to his rants I ended up giving Fallout 2 a try and it was a revelation, a RPG could exist without being fantasy themed and it could be absolutely awesome too.
Actually, he had such an outrageous and even sick humour reviewing and burying totally crappy games that I was so tempted to play them too, for teh LULZ. 
OTOH, a review badly written and badly justifying, if any, the final score, should be considered crap and ignored.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
