Reviews are great and an effective way to give a critical evaluation of a game. Reviewers are seen as judges and most times, the review score of a game has either a negative or positive effect on the success of game.
IMO no game should be scaled from 1-10 from 1-100. If anything its such a discrimination about games think about it, women for instance do not lyk getting rated outta 10 by guys (most of the time) n why because simply put you cnt compare 2 women because they could b very different. this translates into games, how can you standardise a score should be impossible as no 2 games are the same, IGN recently gave the new Pac man a 10 does that mean its as good as MGS4, no of course not. there entirly different games n yet both get the same standardise score. Sure you can say 'well pac mans rated as a arcade game' n that should justify the score but it doesnt, the scoring system doesnt work by that logic because theres no consistant rules, even if there was it still wouldnt work, imagine every game got rated on, for example, Online - Graphics - Story. If that were to be followed it still wouldnt work properly as pacman would then get a much lower score when it is an amazing game these made up rules dominate most reviews, i remember FEAR or something getting a low score on PS3 because it came out a year later - the standard had changed but the 360 version still kept the same rating, this continues through quality of other games im sure i've read a review somewhere that gave a game a lower score because there were alternative good games on that platform All these ways of fudging the review score makes a 10 mean nothing, hype is another factor in a lot of reviews, never in a good way - the let down of a hype game will lower its score dramaticly while if it meets enough then other problems will be brushed aside for an amazing score (yes im looking at you black ops) So my answer there should be no scores on games just the review so the gamer can make up there own mind, if they personally want to give it a 10 thats cool but I kno ppl who sware by heart review scores n sometimes its just not justified - lyk GT5 ppl got mad at the reviews because of the scores, the few that published a review without a score at the end recieved no such problems why because ppl made up there own mind n were happy with it Theres more i could go into but i think the points made scores are bad, its personal opinion if a game gets 10 in your own book but from a reviewers angle it should be near impossible
there shouldn't be scores, just the reviewers positive and negative feelings about the game and a final conclusion and whether you should buy it.
The problem is, not all games are judged based on a set of standards across the board. Most reviews just compare the games to other ones. EXAMPLE: If game A has a Theater mode like game B, then it's a win..If not then Fail. It's bad journalism. No game is perfect so no game can truly be a 10/10. The only way a game can fit the 10/10 is if it meets or exceeds the standards set. Uncharted 2 and Mario Galaxy are both 10/10s, but one has better graphics. So you see there is an issue in balancing hte standards. You can't compare Crackdown and inFAMOUS and make a review. Just cause MoH is in the present, doesn't make it anything like COD. Games can't meet a 10/10 score when there are double standards and poor reviews based on biased and comparitive opinions.
you make valid points . . they inducement of games is always to look out for.
Does any site deserve to be ridiculed about their poor grammer? Yes lol ha ha ha
Does any one deserve no to wiped in the ass? for not taking into consideration that English is not the authors first language,???
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.