Aeolus451 said:
Nate4Drake said:
I would make it very simple. Just an average among :
1) Graphics/Art Design
2) Sound/Music
3) Game-play and Controls.
4) Story/Story telling
5) Longevity/Value/Bugs/features/MP.
Just go with a Score which is the average, then the Reviewer will give the full review, and you will make an idea reading all the review, and not just looking at the Score. Doing like this, you will 'cut' garbage like some reviews from Quarter to Three, who gave Halo4 a 20/100. No way you can rate Halo4(example) 20/100 if you apply the 'old style Rating'; I mean, you should never rate Halo4 less than 7/10, but in this way you can't cheat, and you would look like a joke if you try to make an everage of 20/100 with Halo4 or The Order 1886. ( I'm not comparing these two games).
|
Well, a lot of 'em kinda do that but it's different for each reviewer. I wish there was a universal rating system and that reviewers were regulated. I personally don't use reviews to figure out If want to buy a game or not. They are fast becoming irrevelevent in the today's gaming world. Giving such low scores like you mentioned to perfectly working games is sad and it discredits game reviews as a whole.
|
Yep, I agree.
I'm the first one who does not consider the final score of Meta; I bought KZ :SF, LBP3, The Evil Within, and I enjoyed all, though Meta was a bit low.
Do you think it's possible to go with a Petition suggesting a 'Universal Rating System' for Metacritic ?
”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”
Harriet Tubman.
