By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Louie_86 on 06 January 2017
Edit Thread
robzo100 said:
Jpcc86 said:

I do care about reviews, but the overall rating, not a particular reviewer/person. Gamesradar's particular review on any given game means nothing to me, but the metascore of a game after 50-90 reviews have been taken into account does speak about its quality. The user score mean shit because they go from 0 to 100 if one thing alone is not perfect.
I only expect professionalism and congruence.
A 1-10 scale, with 0.5 decimals is appropiate.
But most important: Be very specific and transparent about the criteria used to judge.

I like the concept of a metascore a lot.

As for the bolded, in your view how often does this lead to a matter of most games simply regressing into a 5-10 category where all games below 5 are sort of in the "very bad" pool? I always felt that was a flaw of that system.

That depend a lot on the reviewer tho. It does happen often because everyone's criteria is different. Take Gamespot for example, they dont mind giving a 10 rating to a game if, even tho it may have flaws, those flaws dont ruin the amazing experience the sum of its other parts can bring. And thats a view I agree with,  I dont share the idea that "there are no perfect games and therefore no game should ever be a 10". 
But, staying with Gamespot as an example, they hardly ever give negative reviews. It seems they dont know how to judge so they simply give a 7 or 8, and as a result most games have that rating. No Man Sky is a 7 to them, but World of Final Fantasy is a 6. Makes sense? only games that are broken, or have a huge amount of errors get below 5. And thats were they lose me. And a lot of reviewers do the same. They dont know how/want to give a bad review to a bad game. As a result we now treat a Metascore of below 80 as a "bad game" because 7 is now not a good rate.