Exclusive: Critics Admit To Lowering Scores For Attention.

[eva01beserk]

Aeolus451 said:

eva01beserk said:

I agree with you there, but out of 100% of the score, graphics should only acount for 10% max of that total score for any game.

Unless you tell me is for one of  those stupid tale tell games where there is actually no gameplay then it should be like 50%.

10% is way too low. 25%, I think is better. Games should be compared to each other within their generation.  If a game looks like last gen graphically, it should be notably penalized for that in it's review and the scoring. There's too much click bait and fans/bloggers writing reviews. Hence why i don't take the majority of reviews seriously.

like I said in a previous commet, we need to break down what each part of a game is worth to know what is truly important and assigne a percentage to that quality of the game and make reviewers follow it to avoid all this debate with a national standard.

Like 

story   30%

gameplay 30%

bugs  20%

artstyle  20%

and what ever else is important. But it has to be agreed upon by a large number of people so its fair. That way we avoid some douche reviewer giving a game a 20 cuz is to short or has no multyplaer or singleplayer or the graphics sucked or just dint like the story. It would force them to be slitghtly more honest.