Exclusive: Critics Admit To Lowering Scores For Attention.

[Aeolus451]

eva01beserk said:

Aeolus451 said:

eva01beserk said:

Aeolus451 said:

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.

There's plenty of games that would score high with art style but low with actual graphics. If we're going for honesty and all.

Story 20%
Gameplay 20%
Bugs 20%
Art style 20%
Graphics 20%

 

I guess, but now your saying that just for looks the game deserves 40% of its score and thats to much.

We should probably add sound to te mix and give it like 5%. and content should be like 15%. so I would say artstyle 12.5% and graphics 12.5% if you want to seprate them.

Well, it is a video game where the majority of it is experienced through seeing it on a tv screen.  Sound/music does deserve it's on part. I agree with that.