Hiku said:
50 is supposed to mean average. Whether a reviewer uses the full range of the scoring system or not depends on the reviewer. I'm not saying that that's always the case, because it's not. I'm saying that's how it's supposed to be.
And there are reviewers who use the full scale of the numerical scoring system. But instead we have the vast majority of people just automatically assuming that no one does, without understanding the review or reviewer in question. And that's the problem.
If people care about their money then they should read the reviews rather than just look at scores that mean nothing unless you understand the reviewer in question who wrote it. And if you're going to make assumptions about what the reviewer thinks, then stick as close to the norm as possible, instead of the opposite. Read the review, and if you find that the reviewer is not using the full scale, people can complain, and they can change and do what they're supposed to do. I've seen magazines and sites change their review scoring system for this very reason. And recently more sites are abolishing the scoring system completely, because readers tend to abuse and missunderstand them. Primarily through metacritic. But that site has become so important that many sites are afraid of becoming irrelevant if they leave.
There are even have people who think that something below 90 isn't good. And not from a specific reviewer, but from Metacritic, which makes it even more ridiculous.
And I'm not saying that you might enjoy a game more than the review suggests. (Although that's possible too) I'm saying the actual review may suggest something much more positive than your pre-concieved conception of what the score means to that particular reviewer, if you actually read it.
There are those who give a game a 6/10, and put a "Good" stamp on it. But many people will just assume that it means bad, and not read the review.
But yeah, even if you understand that particular reviewers scoring system, you may find that he/she gave it 4/10 because he/she doesn't like long cutscenes, but you do. Or a fighting game doesn't have a story mode, but while you find that to be a nice bonus, the most important thing is the online vs mode. Etc.
You can't understand what the score means unless you understand the reviewer. You can guess. But if we're going to guess based on conjecture, then we should guess closer to the norm. Not the opposite, and just assume that every reviewer is the same, which isn't the case.
|
Your idea of aggresively reading reviews and making inferences is generally done by people who have interest in the games to begin with.
If someone is into fps games and is really looking forward to star wars battlefront, then when it comes out, they will read most reviews and make an informed decision whether to buy it or not (using many factors such as personal hype, reviews, friends, ...).
But if they have no interest in a game such as fatal frame V, then you are expecting people to put in a lot of effort for a game they are not interested in. Not everyone is going to aggressively review every "average" game in the hopes that it turns out good. There are simply too many "average" games out there.
Metacritic should be an advantage for non-marketed games. If FFV had perfect scores, then people would have reevaluated their interest in the game despite not having heard of the game. Similar to Bayonetta 2
