http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcG5ZbVcCwQ

they gave points for..... Story?

yea, that why i never read reviews of paid webistes anymore... just check reviews on youtube from REAL gaming fans and experst

i never really read reviews, if a game looked enjoyable i'll get it , if it didn't look like i'll enjoy it i'll never buy it even if it had the best reviews, if i don't know weither i'll enjoy it or not i'll just buy it when it gets cheaper. (never trusted demos aswell )

I only watch reviews to see gameplay and what people think of it

they said Kingdom hearts 2 was easy and that the story is ok but the graphics suck or something

I got Kingdom hearts 2 the month it came out when I was like 11....

lol should have just been "NA" in that section

It funny because they showed that most gamers do rely on review scores to purchase games in a recent survey. I do that myself.. but sometimes i pick a game up on the whim.

idk i like reading reviews so  I guess different people different preferences.

They use Story as a sub category for scoring for all their reviews. I don't see why the criteria should change depending on the game. Mario Party may have a shit story, but it could make up it score in presentation, gameplay and sound. I think that's fair.

Some games don't have stories. Are you saying story should be taken into consideration when giving a score to Tetris or Pac Man?

When a game doesn't have a story they cut out that category, but when one is presented (even if it is just a pretense at the beginning of the game to get into the gameplay) I think it's legitimate to score on it.  And then how that score affects the overall would be based on how much they think the story for better or for worse affected the game as a whole.

edit: and if you look at the scores it was 5.5, 8.2 and 8.6 with an overall of 8.3 so it's obvious the story wasn't a huge part of the overall score.