JEMC said:
While I understand your point, the truth is that a game score should reflect the quality of a game as a whole. It's the function of the actual review to let you know what is what a game does right and wrong. So, if a game does wrong things like battle mechanics or animations, the game score should note that it's not a very good game, even if it excels in one. Of course, that brings us to the old debate of using the whole range of scores, not only from 5/6 to 10, and that we all should read the actual reviews, not just the scores, but I'm affraid that that's lots cause. |
No, the point of a review is to reflect the opinion of the reviewer. There is no reason to adhere to standards of other reviewers. Nobody should be forced to give a low score to something he enjoyed or a high score to something that is awful.
Scores are not meant to be aggregated and compared to other reviewers. They're a measure to compare the reviews of a single reviewer with each other. That's why review aggregators are absolutely pointless. The scores of reviewers who do not have the same standards or priorities as me mean shit to me.
I mean look at all the 10/10 BOTW reviews that didn't take into account the many flaws. Absolutely useless to me.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.







