By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dulfite said:

See, that's great and dandy for some, but others, like myself, want the opposite. Written reviews take all the surprise out of the game for me. Just give me a score and nothing else, then aggregate the scores. Anything 70+ meta or open is worth a shot to me if it looks intriguing, anything below is most likely a pass unless it really captivates me by a trailer or marketing. Simple, easy, and is spoiler free.

I don't mind written reviews existing, but they need to have a score, out of a 100, to matter to me. None of this /5 or /10 nonsense either. An 81 is a massive difference from an 89. An 84 is a noticable difference from an 87. Websites need to stop being lazy and do all reviews out of 100 if they want to matter to a gamer like me.

Scores on reviews are an outdated metric especially as the scale is inconsistent for example in Edge 5/10 is average but for most reviews anything below 7 is bad as 7 tends to be average which is stupid because you have 3 numbers for how good something is and 6 for how bad something is when all we need to know is whether a game is just bad, average or good, a verdict system not only does this but can have a pros and cons section with the verdict which would have a small summary with it anyway if you don't want to go through the written review.

It makes the clickbait culture harder as it becomes eyebrow raising if a game is being seen as universally good in verdicts and someone randomly marks it as average as they'll need to reflect it in their review content, verdict system is just all round better and healthier in marking games.