| bdbdbd said: @Picko: Although i agree with you, but since the sample size is so small, counting the average works better. If we would have a large enough sample, single reviews that raise or lower the score wouldn't have a meaning. And one other thing is, that the reviewers are different in diffent games, when one guy rates games by his own standards and another guy with his own. I think the various threads about where rating system fails shows us various reasons why it fails and the biggest reason where i see it failing is when we compare scores, when the score should be looked as just for the game in question. Not as "9,1 game is better than 8,9 game". |
I agree for the most part. I hate that gamers are so obsessed with comparing games between consoles over time. A review score, at its core, is simply meant to say whether a game is good or not at the point of its release. It's practically impossible to properly compare titles over time so why bother trying? When I look at the scores for GTA IV and OoT all I really see is that they say that OoT was pretty awesome when it was released and GTA IV was pretty awesome when it was released. Nothing more and nothing less.
That said, if they are going to be obsessed with review scores they should at least look at things in a deeper way than simply averages. My brief analysis, I think, adds a little bit more to the discussion which is worthwhile to look at.
