thismeintiel said:
Of course it should be considered, as it is also a fact. Most notably when decent games get 4's or lower, which is below average. I believe someone gave UC4 a 4, which is completely ridiculous. Sure, the game may be average to you, gameplay-wise, but you can't ignore its graphical/technical achievements. IMO, the lowest that game should get is a 6, or above average. Unfortuanely, though, a 4 for a huge AAA title is guaranteed traffic to your site from fans who are going to voice their anger/disapproval for the score. And it is somewhat concerning for gaming companies to advertise on gaming sites, as they may lead to skewed reviews. However, I don't think that is too much of a concern. Even if the site gives your game a lower score than you think it should have gotten, crying about it will only give you bad press, which could affect sales. It also stands to reason that the vast majority of site goers are going to be gamers, so you are going to want to advertise on them, anyway, to reach the largest number of gamers. Scores be damned. And not all of those gamers go off of reviews. Or think 6s or 7s make a game unbuyable. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that certain games, by virtue of their technical prowess, should have a score ceiling and a score floor?
A technical marvel like Uncharted can't get a score below 6 and a game like Breath of the Wild, with technical hiccups, can't get a score above 9? That's fine for you, but a lot of fans and critics don't think that way. Resolution, lighting, physics, and draw distance might just be a small part of the equation for them.
I know, for me, a game is much, much more than the sum of its technical specs.
