Exclusive: Critics Admit To Lowering Scores For Attention.

[Nate4Drake]

eva01beserk said:

Nate4Drake said:

I would do in the old way, so that you can't give a 2/10 to a game which is very polished with amazing graphics, art design, sound.

So, give a mark to :

1) Graphics/Art Design

2) Sound

3) Gameplay and controls

4) Story/Story telling

5) Longevity/Value/Bugs-glitches

In this way you can't cheat too much.

Take The Order 1886 : 

my Marks : 

1) Graphics/Art Design = 9.5/10

2) Sound = 9.5/10

3) Gameplay and controls : 7/10

4) Story/Story telling : 8/10

5) Longevity/Value/Bugs-glitches : 6/10

The average is 8/10 ! 

Let's make another one, just an example, of someone who didn't like that much the Gameplay/story and story telling, and he was mad because the Game was a bit short  :

1) Graphics/Art Design = 9.5/10

2) Sound = 9/10

3) Gameplay and controls : 6/10

4) Story/Story telling : 6/10

5) Longevity/Value/Bugs-glitches : 4/10

The Average is 6.9/10.

No way, no way you give a 2/10 or a 3/10 to a polished Game like The Order 1886 !

This method would help a lot.

No dude, what I said was story would be max 2/10 and gameplay max 3/10 then be added up to be 5/10. That way you can dictate wich parts of a game deserve higher value. Like gameplay deserves more value than graphics, while graphics deserve more than sounds and what ever other thing to be judge. If we do it your way, wich is still better than what we have now, we would say that something unimportant like sound would be valued just as much s something essential like the actual gameplay.

But I should have wrote it better lnstead like

Story                            2/2

gameplay                    3/3

graphics                       2/2

glitches                        1/1

day one dc                  1/1

total                              10/10  or 100/100

Understood.  I was thinking about the old Method for every review for the reasons I already explained.