No it doesn't. When everyone is doing it one way, doing it a different way is really just there to seem unique. It upsets metascores, and makes us look unprofessional.

Runa's name is Gordon, that is usually not a lady's name.

Also Runa is a dude.

Well it says male on his/her profile so why would you think it might be a her? XD

Though it would explain her hate for Lightning. She's just jealous of so much sexiness!

Aww XD

No reviewer is obligated to agree with other reviewers.

My apologies to Runa, I did not take the time to delve into his profile.

Anyways if scores are to stay I think that 4 or 5 people need to review it and accumulate an average. That way lets readers know how many of the reviewers enjoyed it, and who didn't. It is possible Runa maybe growing out of JRPGs. Xenoblade is farrrrrrrrrrr worse than XIII-2 with the inconsistency in difficulty (more-so that it is just so damn easy), and grinding. I have about a 90 hour save file, and about 65-70 hours of that is me running around doing about 275 mindless head numbing fetch quests, and revealing 100% of a gigantic map that has nothing else to offer once you've done the mindless fetch/kill quests.

I know that someone on GamrConnect will review the game well, but there will be no consistency. So please Bret. Ask your team to eliminate scores, and adopt a system similar to Kotakus, or have multiple reviewers rate the same game.

I think part of the problem is the review itself. The score accurately reflects the review and would not make any sense at > 7.

I just personally think the review is terrible. A review should be 100% about the actual product, not about your expectation of it, nor the Company that produced it, or the fact that you hated its predecessor.

To add to that, as long as an individual reviews a game within the mindset of how they believe others would receive a particular game, then it is a fair review.  However, if the "review" is only an expression of how he or she personally received a game (without any consideration to how others would receive it), then it is merely an opinion piece, and would be more appropriate in a blog, rather than in an official review.

People do not read reviews just to gauge an individual's opinion; they read reviews to see if they themselves would enjoy a product, which is why it is important for a reviewer to filter out as much of their bias as they can.  Obviously, no one can completely filter out their biases, but a good reviewer can do a great job of limiting the effect of their biases and perceiving how the majority of people would recieve a product, which I don't think is the case for this review.

Very poor choice of reviewer.

It doesn't matter if Square Enix said they wanted to correct the mistakes they made with FFXIII, if the reviewer has a passionate hate for the original and is extremely biased, then he isn't going to give its sequel a chance.

Anyway...

If you take his original score of 2.1 for Final Fantasy XIII, and times it by 4, you get a similar number to its metacritic score, 84/100. If you do the same with his score for Final Fantasy XIII-2, you end up with a score of 216/100, meaning that Final Fantasy XIII-2 is 116% better than perfect.

When you make the decision to be different you must accept that your contributions no longer fall within the old metric. EDGE reviews 1-10. Theya re different, yet they demand that their metric be cut and pasted into the norm. That's not how you do it. You stand alone, and fly the banner, and let others flock to you. What they do now is play the attention card. If we do that, then we need to get all our reviewers on the same page and understand that we do not belong on metacritic. If we want to join EDGE's rubric, then that's fine. But we don't belong in the group with others. It's simple as that.