mislike isn't a word.  and the only reason you started hating my posts is because I disagreed with you about whether it's okay to mutilate a baby's genitals, and you apparently have a problem with people who disagree with you regardless of the logic or rationale backing the opposing beliefs.  At least that's what I can tell based on your responses I've seen, not just to my own posts but to others' as well.  

It's rather funny how you can still be rude while complimenting people.  you might want to consider changing that. 

i hope you didnt write anything important in your post to me because ive not read it since i couldnt get past you stating mislike isnt a word for whatever reason you decided to look the fool.

I still miss computer gaming world. WHat a nice publication that was while using almost the full range of scores (sure they had like 10 5 stars and only 2 0 stards, but still). I also miss Tom Chicks strategy game reviews, always spot on.

A lot of great magazines/publications have died a death to be replaced by tabloid style websites (although obviously there are a few good ones still). Shame really, but that's the way it is. 

Maybe you missed the part that clearly stated "it's not about matching up with MY tastes." It was a fairly important part of my post which invalidated half of your current one. Unless you meant to imply that the math/statistics are my opinion... which... ROFL did you just try to imply statistics are subjective?

I also particularly enjoy your "speaking to the audience part," is that spposed to be a euphemism for stroking the faonboys' epeen to get on their good side?

You also don't seem to get it, the Normal Distribution is all ABOUT different tastes. That's the ENTIRE point of it. Where at 50 you will find games where the most people think are better than half, worse than half. If I am to pick ANY game at random and do it multiple times, I should end up with an average of 50, not 80 (because, obviously, I would end up with many bad ones, a many good ones, and a hell of a lot of average ones). Basically, any scale that is used for comparisons can be modeled after the the normal distribution. If you somehow still think that this is all subjective, I need to know. It's much better to argue with a wall than someone who thinks the definitions of statistics are subjective.

Edit: Oh btw, the system I mentioned about the stars, all that does is normalize the scores, the whole meaning behind them is still very much left behind and all it really means is that things are just shifted to reflect a PROPER distribution.

you're a pretty poor troll. If you're not going to read a response, don't bother taking the time to respond just to say you didn't read it. 

I am honestly having a hell of a time taking you seriously, since almost everything you said has almost nothing to do with what I said, or you're making wild accusations and extrapolations based on what I said to assume other things that fit your perception.  

The only difference between the method you're suggesting and the one we have is t he number value assigned to a 'mediocre' or 'average' game.  While that works perfectly in real math, changing things now is just not viable.  What we have works just fine if you look at it from the "what percent of the game is good/done right" angle.  The only difference is one's average hovers around 50 and the other around 75.  It's all semantics.  it's irrelevant.  

Again, it's REALLY not hard to normalize the broken system into one that works (I even outlined a pretty easy way to do it). Furthermore the problem is that NONE of the actual milestones have shifted as games have shifted towards 75-80 average with an extremely small standard deviation. AAA has always been 90s, it hasn't shifted up. A normal person, you know one that comes from the regular worls where scores aren't as big joked as ratings, doesn't know that either. I can write a whole paper on what a retarded idea it is to have a 0-100 scale of scores with an average of 75 and a tiny tiny variance. One of the minor points being that it's no damn wonder other entertainment mediums point their fingers and laugh at gamers (and if they know enough, the reviewers). Scales exist for a reason, and ;aughing them off is just a very bad idea.

Then do it.  I'd like to read it.  As I see it now, an industry where most games are similar in value, content, and quality should certainly have a small variance.  When quality doesn't have much variance, why should scores?  

This is why it's important to have a relatable scale.  As I've said dozens of times, my scale works just find.  90+ are for those exemplary games that get practically everything right.  80-89 should be those games which get most things right but have some minor issues.  The score is based on how fun it is or how good the game is, not based on what others think.  I rate things a bit lower than most people.  in fact, it's very rare for me to give a 90 or more becuase there really aren't that many truly exemplary games.  

My point is that most high budget, popular games are good.  I know that's an odd concept for most to digest, but it's true.  When you factor in ALL games, like Barbie's Pony adventures and various other shovelware, then you'll find that the skew is a bit lower.  you DO get a lot of 20-50% games, they're just not well known or publicized like Duke Nukem Forever was.  the reason you have such an opinion is because of skewed perspective....you're only really taking popular games into consideration.  

TLDR version: most popular games DO have small variance in quality, therefore it makes sense that most of them get scores between 7.0-9.0, but when you factor all games in on all consoles and across all genres including shovelware, you'll find the skew IS a bit closer to what you're saying is ideal.  the review scores aren't as bad as you think.