Detroit: Become Human Reviews: 79 Metacritic, 80 OpenCritic

[DonFerrari]

Mcube said:

DonFerrari said:

And I have explained to you that both sites uses half star, so it's effectively a 10 point scale so using a 5 point to excuse them doesn't work. And as I put in my answer to MCube, one of them gave 10 to HR and B2S (not same reviewer) so unless you can see reasons to consider both 2.5x better than Detroit they lack consistency.

Also as I also put, reviewers should concentrate most of their analysis on objective points, so when the game works good, have good sound, good graphics, coherent story, etc. At least average it should be considered (60-70).

I haven't played Detroit yet to say I'll like the game. But I know the type of game deserves a 40 (broken ones). We aren't discussing how these affect the average (since we already know it is no more than 1 point), but how much deviant they are and how they miss any consistency because both giving perfect scores for previous works of the studio (and as far as we know this one is better than the previous 2) but also gave perfect scores to shitty and broken games.

And again reviews shouldn't be about personal opinions. Unless you can say with a straight face that me giving 0 to Halo because I don't like FPS or to Zelda because I never cared much about it is justifiable.

And stop saying they use a 5 point system. They both give half point so it's effectively 10 points. So not using that excuse.

I want to see when you do a paper or work and it's scored 0 or even 4 because the one analyzing didn't like (doesn't matter if it was right or well done), since it seems to you is that how you fell matter the most. That is the biggest problem of this generation the "how I fell generation".

Forgot about them using half a star so you´re right on that one.

The scoring systems is a bit weird nowadays. A 4 is somehow seen as a broken game and a 6 is somehow a bad game game. THats not how you rate it. If a game is broken you give it a 2 or a 1. If you dislike a game you give it a 4. I dont see that when you dislike the game and you think the controls are crummy you somehow still should give it an above average score.

A review is someones personal opinion. A review shouldnt become this list with checkboxes on them and if it checks on all the boxes it should automatically get a 10. Its something that everyone has their own opinion about. You can have wiledly mixed perspectives on a game, movies and other type of entertainment. Im not getting what you want to advocate here. It´s starting to get further and further away from troll reviews and more about the thing you want Reviews to be. Reviews have always been someones personal opinion there is no other way to curate it. 

Your paper thing doesnt make sense. You dont have to follow rules when making a review there are rules when you have to grade a paper. There are requirements that have to be met with a paper there arent requirements when writing a review or giving your opinion about something. 

Man if reviewers really used consistently used the full scale I wouldn't have much issue with they giving 40 points to a working game they think isn't good. But on general the scales start on 5 for very bad games and average sits on 7 a 4 seems to low for this game (more comparing to their other reviews).

It isn't a checkbox, but evaluation on specific critereas. This was the norm until gen 7 at least.

Good reviews have a standard to follow. If you don't have coherence, consistency and standard them your grade is meaningless.