I applaud the step in the right direction. It will help solve the main problem that is the lack of standard were the same guy will score games that are about equal on most aspects with quite discrepant score.
I don't care about reviews and scores, i Just see how the game plays and look and decide how much it is worth and wait price to reflect it.
And their recommended isn't a 7-9 game. It could be quite flawed game in several aspects and although the game wouldn't score in that área it still should be played for its redeeming characteristics.
Funny that some people are accusing an userbase of liking this direction because their worse than his company of choice games won't have scores. Isn't that a bad posture on this discussion?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
