Roger Ebert offers some insight which basically supports what Drinky and Dragona just said:
When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River," you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher." And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" (1978) is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two. In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "The United States of Leland" clocks in at about two.
The best reviews define the intended or optimal audience of/for the game, clearly identify the concerns and desires of that audience with regards to the game and deal with those. If the reviewer can't do these things, they can't write a review.
If a reviewer does do this, things will work out. Drinky seems concerned that Musou games get a bum rap, and he's right. They do. I don't like them personally, but it's clear that there's an audience for them and I have no idea why reviewers aren't writing for that audience. You don't give a score that compares Dynasty Warriors to Halo, you begin your review by describing the basics of the game in a way that makes it clear it's not intended for the same audience as Halo at all. When you move on to the critical portion of the review, your criticism should be tailored to the concerns of the audience described or alluded to in the first part of your review.
It's not rocket science, and yet so many people fuck it up.
Unlike Drinky, I do think scoring systems are a major reason why these failures happen. I think having a rigorous scoring system, particularly a 10-point or 100-point scoring system, contributes directly to what Drinky calls an inability of most reviewers to "an inability to dissect aaa games". The problem is that reviews are, by form and editorial guidance and by tradition, designed to serve as a half-hearted support for the "real meat"--the little number at the end. Once it becomes obvious that a game is AAA/blockbuster, reviewers feel constrained by the top end of the spectrum and I think that's a problem.
Of course, Drinky is right in that no matter what the format, the root cause of all the failure is reviewers not doing their job, I'm just saying having a scoreless, thumbs, or four-star system would go a long way to make sure that when reviewers begin to do their job, they aren't held back by an obligation to score in a certain way.
Originally Posted by Flavius:
I'm not finding you difficult to understand. The confusion's internal on your part. You're the typical 12 year old internet kiddie engaging in verbal masturbation on the forums, complete with ADHD-fueled typing digits and a bookmark to freedictionary.com.
wow. that's pretty much the worst reading of drinky i've ever seen a random make.