| RolStoppable said: First off, I am not a US-American. Secondly, the scale you presented makes 60% of it a failure, so that would beg the question why even use a 100 point scale to begin with when the majority of it is hardly ever going to come in use? Requiring 50+% of answers to be correct works in school systems. But games aren't pupils, so it's not as simple to judge them. A lot of it is subjectivity on the reviewer's part whereas a teacher has the simple task to make the decision between right and wrong. If I used a scale like the one you showed, then the vast majority of games that I review would be within 20 points of each other, making it hard for the reader to decide what is and what is not worth buying, because the displayed differences would be miniscule. That's why I don't really like the conventional use of 100 point review scales of "professional" game reviewers, because a great game gets almost the same score as a merely decent one. You buy an 80 and then ask yourself how that game could get such a high score. It's because of this that gamers who put stock into those review scores have adjusted to only buy games with a Metascore of 85+ or even 90+. Thirdly, it's ridiculous to go from D- to F; there's an E, you know. |
Would you want to play a game that's good 40% or 60% of the time???? Neither.... you want a game that good at least 80% and above of the time.
Any game that rank under 60/100 is crap. Especially if the game rank under 60/100 cost same amount as the game rank 80+/100.
The 60-80/ 100 is were you get the questionable game. Bayonetta 2 cost full retail price..... at that price I would expect a 80+ game. The fact that you rank it 7.1/10 or 71/100 ..... your saying this full retail price doesn't live up to 80 expectation and might have reason to avoid it or wait for a price cut.
