windbane on 20 May 2008
| Parokki said: I completely agree with your disagreement. ^^ Reviewing games with a scale of 1-10 and using only the grades from 7 to 10 really annoys me as well. If I had to review games, then I'd use 1-5, with 2-5 roughly corresponding to 7-10, and 1 for everything from 1 to 6. Why have four ranks for playable games, and six for ones that are complete rubbish? Anyway, the problem here is that IGN normally goes with "1-10 in theory, 7-10 in practice", but suddenly gave Haze a score using the full 1-10 scale, and thus a much lower score than other comparable games. Maybe the cause for this whole controversy is how one reviewer got fed up with scores nowadays, and decided to make a statement? |
yeah, who knows. I'm not one to question review scores, usually. I've defended a lot of them over the last few months. That is just such a really low score nowadays. I'm reminded of Assassin's Creed reviews where Crispin Boyer, 1 of 3 EGM reviewers, gave the game a 4.5 or somewhere around there. I ended up really liking that game but understood his complaints even if I didn't feel the same. Perhaps this will be a similar situation: a lot of mixed reviews. We'll see. The more reviews I see, lately, the more I like EGM's grading scale. Let A-F mean whatever score you want it to. C is "average." Whatever average is (5, 7, or whatever), that's what C is.
