As of late, we have had a game being reviewed at around a 90% rating every week for several weeks. It seems like 9s are given out like candy now. Some people (including myself) would argue that these games are not 9-worthy and the alarming rate in which games are being rated with a 9 or above shows how broken the review system is.

I think the reason why, is because we always think of games from the past, that have been highly rated and we use those as a measuring standard. We cherish them in a way. Even though some games have nothing in common (Chrono Trigger and Fallout 3?) we have to compare them scorewise.

The games coming out now are robably really good and deserve those 9s, but maybe it ishard to believe that when they come out so frequently. In the past, I don't remember that many games being released so quickly that were so great, but when they were released they were impactful (Goldeneye, Final Fantasy 7, Halo, etc.).

That's the scoring inflation

Or, maybe its because, um, so many games being released lately are actually GOOD?

Reviewers are very easy going when it comes to videogames. If you look at Metacritic's methods, they mention how they had to rate anything 74% and below a mediocre game because of how inflated the scoring is but with books, music and movies, a mediocre product would begin at 61%.

If you dig into Metacritic further, you'll notice the following are above 90% for 2008:

2 Films (Theatrical and DVDs)
4 Music Albums
0 Television Shows
0 Books
17 Games (Note: I only counted multiplats once, otherwise it's 22)

Here are my thoughts on why this is. Either...

1. Reviewers are too soft and need to tighten up and really be critical.

or

2. Games aren't art (unlike books, movies, TV and music) and should be judged as functional software, like if it were Microsoft Office. This means, if it works well then it scores high.

MS paid them....


NAAAHHH.... am kidding, alot of the games are great but not perfect, but the dev's don't want to give them 7 or 8 because they personally love them, .... perhaps that has some thing to do with it.

Yeah, like a certain music game developer that gives free tickets to shows... >_>

I personally think reviewers got soft and consumers got stupid. A seven should not be a bad score for a game, but it is in the eyes of people now. As Onyxmeth said, a score of 10 should be given to software that is not only flawlessly executed but has other things a bit more intangible, like a "fun factor". Also, graphics, atmosphere and story are important. Also I think reviewers should not be so subjective and take points for dumb things, like a game not being what they enjoy. News flash guy, no one cares what YOU enjoy. Reviewers need some scope when they review. Also get a fan of rpgs to do an rpg review. Don't put a hardcore fpser on an rpg review, this = dumb. I think recent events aren't surprising, we were all expecting these games of late to be quite good. People just need to remember, 9 is superb, 7 is average. But of course, word association is the key. When you think "reviewer", you should immediately think "grain of salt". For the most part.

Games should not be equal to the games created years ago. If they are, what reason is there to buy them - just keep playing the old games. The simple fact is that if this generation of games is equal to the last, the scores should drop through the floor as they are judged more harshly.

A great example is GTA4. You'd think this was one of the best games ever. Realistically, there isn't that much new since GTA3. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent game. I bought it, don't regret it, and don't play GTA3 any more. But I think they should have done a better job given the budget available, and the time since GTA3. Unfortunately this makes comparisons very difficult. I'd certainly say GTA4 is better than GTA3. But I'd also say that GTA3 review scores should be way higher than GTA4, at the time the game came out.

Reviews need to take account of two main factors. At launch, how does the game compare to what has already been done. And now, how does the game compare to it's peers. It's difficult to put these factors into a simple percentage score. So for now there's no decent alternative to looking past the scores and actually reading the review.

While fanboys use reviews a weapons to attack other systems, I am perfectly okay with using reviews as a means of telling me which games to purchase.  Even when a game like GTA IV walks out with a perfect 10 and better games (in my opinion) come out with scores ranging from 8-9.5, really all it comes down to is whether or not the game is a "buy" or a "no buy".  It's very rare that I buy a well reviewed game and regret it.  Titty fart boobie jerk off butt.