Except that I understand the some games deserve 10's, whereas I have never ever seen a game that deserved less than 2 or 3.I mean for a game to be a 0 it would need it to be literaly unplayable anywhere and can't be refunded.And I played my fair share of shitty games, from Crackdown3, to ride to hell, going by the zelda ( but for the phillips CDI...Dun...Dun ...Duuun).And none of those games deserve a 0, even though Ride to hell was probably the closest one by far.That is for a somewhat objective review system though.
but the problem is that some games are reviewed based on expectationsthe higher they are, the higher the note will be if met or even exceeded but it has the counter part, the higher they are the more you will nitpick and lower the note.To that you can had franchise fatigue, lack of innovation and you can't have objective reviews for franchises.Because they have to tick all the boxes so the dev can't focus on more creative ideas...That's why I think Ubi games (and especially assassin's creed) get reviews all over the place.
Imagine being new to acreed or even having played just the first one...Then Valhalla looks awesome, but after origins and odissey it feflt like a letdown.
But that's another debate do we judge a game based on what has been previously done or not, based on the population it is targeted to or what other games have achieved is a tricky question.That is true for every media be it a painting, music or a movie for example.
So that's why I think an objective review can only be based on the technical presentation aone, because that is the only way to have an objective scale.Does it hold its fps constant, is there a lot of bug and how often do they occured etc...And I think that if a game can boot and be somewhat playabe it deseve more than 0...Not especially 10 but it can't be 0.
Sorry, but you've contradicted yourself several times. 10 and 0 are scores, so they can be used. At that point you don't agree with someone giving 0 because you pretty much ignore his point. You're so much focused in the score number rather than 'why' he gave such a lower number.
I believe there are games that deserves 10 and games that deserves 0, much of poor/bad mobile games that teach kids to pursuit their parents credit cards for example. For me deserves a 0.
You and some here pretty much have this metacritic score syndrome where you get so attached to the number instead of their reasons about that number.
And there is no objective reviewers around game journalist. All the things you point, they fully ignore like bugs, perfomance, price tag, etc...
Example: Only when Digital Foundry point out the GTA trilogy flaws, games sites like IGN took advantage of the potential clicks to do no mercy in their review. IGN never give a shit about a techincal review.
At the end of they, review should be criticized when read. I remember me criticizing IGN review of Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuel and one folk here saying 'bruh man, why are you whining? IGN gave 8 of 10 for CTR' and me like 'wtf, don't you read the review or just accept the score'. The score never match the reading. Never.
And people have the right to do whatever they want. This apply to money and opinions. Some people like, some people dislike. Nobody need to be lawer of any company.
