Support NeoGAF

[Synth_floyd]

Game reviews are a joke. Mostly because they are likely getting money hatted (directly or indirectly) or enjoying too cozy of a general rapport with the major game companies. Also, the mechanics of the reviews are terrible. Why use a 100 point scale if you never use the bottom 50%? It's not a test in grade school where 0-59 = F, 60-69 = D, etc. What's the difference between an 8.4 and 8.6? 9.0 and 9.1? etc etc. Even a 10 point scale is probably too much. The meta ranking sites also contribute to this joke of a rating system. The meta ranking sites also cause a problem where if you're review is too far from the mean then it means that something is wrong with you. Lots of big budget, hyped games will all have reviews that cluster in one area or another with few to no outliers. Can't reviewers have their own opinions or do they have to conform to some kind of community consensus on the quality of a game?

Sites should either totally ditch the point scale or make it reasonable. No more than a 6 point scale at most. Probably 4 or 5 is best.

But the main problem is that the reviewers don't want to piss off the game companies or else the game companies will shut off access, stop sending games ,etc. It's like the problem in Washington when the government gets too cozy with the press.

 

[TheNatural]

Why does the OP give only 1 website's score for each game? Eg. Game Informer gave Sleeping Dogs 7.75 which contradicts the thread title.

I'm not saying one or the other are being paid by publishers, but what the general overall influence of industry pressure could be doing to both at any given time for any given game. Constant barrage of advertisement. Constant barrage of PR. Constant expectations for hype. Being the first one to disseminate that hype train to the general public, day one.

They're the two big dogs in print and internet, and a lot of people rely on them for purchasing decisions, but if one or the other is always telling you how every single release is a must have, how do you find usefulness out of that?

If you went shopping with a couple of friends to find a movie to watch, or a gift to buy someone, how would you decide if one or the other constantly said "OMG THATS FUCKING AWESOME GET IT" for every item you picked up? Wouldn't it be completely useless to rely on them for advice?

Because making legitimately strong arguments is too hard for him.

Right. Don't worry, my ignore button isn't though.

 

[Zukuu]

Game reviews are a joke. Mostly because they are likely getting money hatted (directly or indirectly) or enjoying too cozy of a general rapport with the major game companies. Also, the mechanics of the reviews are terrible. Why use a 100 point scale if you never use the bottom 50%? It's not a test in grade school where 0-59 = F, 60-69 = D, etc. What's the difference between an 8.4 and 8.6? 9.0 and 9.1? etc etc. Even a 10 point scale is probably too much. The meta ranking sites also contribute to this joke of a rating system.

Sites should either totally ditch the point scale or make it reasonable. No more than a 6 point scale at most. Probably 4 or 5 is best.

But the main problem is that the reviewers don't want to piss off the game companies or else the game companies will shut off access, stop sending games ,etc. It's like the problem in Washington when the government gets too cozy with the press.

The problem is that a 5/5 is not a 100%. However, the general internet user will call them out for that. Scores in general are not a good idea, but that is just what the users scream for.

I can agree with a score that is based on "how much did I like the game?" but that is utterly subjective and reviewers are forced to play games they don't like.
In the end it's more important WHO did the review, instead of HOW.

 

[City of Dis]

Gameinformer has to be a complete fraud. It's owned by Gamestop, which sells the game's Gameinformer is reviewing. There is a clear conflict of interest here. A negative review could potentially hurt sales. Which is probably why Dead Space 3 got a 9.5 and Resident Evil 6 got a 8.75, far above the average review.

It'd be as if 20th Century Fox owned a publication that reviewed films distributed by 20th Century Fox. It'd be absurd. But when the medium is video games, it's acceptable for some reason.

 

[Pre]

Gameinformer has to be a complete fraud. It's owned by Gamestop, which sells the game's Gameinformer is reviewing. There is a clear conflict of interest here. A negative review could potentially hurt sales. Which is probably why Dead Space 3 got a 9.5 and Resident Evil 6 got a 8.75, far above the average review.

Yep. I've believed this to be true for years. It's silly not to think that there is a clear conflict of interest when a magazine specializing in consumer reviews is owned by a parent company that sells the products reviewed by the magazine.

 

[lucius]

Well they did 7.8 God of War:A, which is one of the biggest game series out there. But that is in line with what most reviewers have it at, their Gears of War:J of 9.2 does stand out compared to rest though. I don't really have that much of a problem with either IGN or GI, almost every major game site/publication has some very strange reviews at some point.

Edit: ahh nevermind you saying multiplatform

 

[archnemesis]

A 8.5 is right in the middle, thus average, on the 7-10 review scale.

 

[Eusis]

A 8.5 is right in the middle, thus average, on the 7-10 review scale.

I don't really buy this, many 7-ish scores tend to consider the game good but not AMAZING, and even 6s may offer some praise. At worst I'd skew that to include everything above 7 as "average", but the thing is... how often do you actually WANT to play a truly, completely average game? Not as in "your typical game", but one that doesn't really FAIL at anything but standing out, and as such doesn't really succeed at anything but being inoffensive and perhaps being dull, something you'd usually see in the 5 or 6 range and completely forgotten about the day after release unless it was supposed to be a big mega hyped game.

Granted, some publications (Game Informer) DO treat 7 as "average" and that scale actually sounds like an exact match for Famitsu, but I believe Famitsu's the exception and Game Informer's view of average may not really be the same as other places or what I pointed out above.

 

[MrCookiepants]

Medal of Honor: Warfighter.

That is all.

 

[VALIS]

As people have said, maybe those are just good games in comparison to other games released at that time, but I think this is even more so a symptom of everyone using and accepting a scale that considers almost everything below an 8.0 to be seriously flawed if not a failure.

The four or five star system most reviewers use for movies would be perfect and far fewer gamers would get their tits in a twist over scores.

 

[archnemesis]

I don't really buy this, many 7-ish scores tend to consider the game good but not AMAZING, and even 6s may offer some praise. At worst I'd skew that to include everything above 7 as "average", but the thing is... how often do you actually WANT to play a truly, completely average game? Not as in "your typical game", but one that doesn't really FAIL at anything but standing out, and as such doesn't really succeed at anything but being inoffensive and perhaps being dull, something you'd usually see in the 5 or 6 range and completely forgotten about the day after release unless it was supposed to be a big mega hyped game.

Granted, some publications (Game Informer) DO treat 7 as "average" and that scale actually sounds like an exact match for Famitsu, but I believe Famitsu's the exception and Game Informer's view of average may not really be the same as other places or what I pointed out above.

Being dull is probably the worst thing a game can be and, if I was a reviewer, that would warrant a very low score. Average games on the other hand is something I play all the time. It doesn't matter if the game is about shooting dudes, grinding stats, or building things. A game can be entertaining even if it fails at bringing anything new to the table. The image I posted might be a bit extreme, but generally games below 7 are awful unless they're in your favorite niche genre.

 

[xbhaskarx]

problem is all those games are actually great/good games

How do those compare to their overall Metacritic scores?

 

[Aquamarine]

As people have said, maybe those are just good games in comparison to other games released at that time, but I think this is even more so a symptom of everyone using and accepting a scale that considers almost everything below an 8.0 to be seriously flawed if not a failure.

The four or five star system most reviewers use for movies would be perfect and far fewer gamers would get their tits in a twist over scores.

Five star review systems should be standardized across the industry.

There is no FUCKING difference between a 7.5 and a 7.0.
Just call it a 4 out of 5 and give it a rest.

 

[Saty]

Yes. All you need to do is take a look at the scores GI gives to the games that it had announced\had a cover and a big article on and compare that to the MC average.

 

[Eusis]

Being dull is probably the worst thing a game can be and, if I was a reviewer, that would warrant a very low score. Average games on the other hand is something I play all the time. It doesn't matter if the game is about shooting dudes, grinding stats, or building things. A game can be entertaining even if it fails at bringing anything new to the table. The image I posted might be a bit extreme, but generally games below 7 are awful unless they're in your favorite niche genre.

Some games DO get ravaged in scores because they messed up a lot but they actually did do some things right, or it's just that mechanically it's just below average but excels elsewhere, like Deadly Premonition. That is kind of case by case, though I would think a game that's 5 for 'utterly mundane' would probably STILL be some fun if you just wanted to blow an afternoon and had literally nothing better to do. Anything below that though to me is varying levels of straight up broken, like it doesn't stand out in a good way but maybe it's kind of ugly or doesn't feel right for a higher 4 score, or 1/0 for Cosmic Race/Big Rig esque wrecks, which you MAY get some warped amusement out of but if you tried to actually enjoy them like a normal game it'd only end in tragedy.

 

[Jac_Solar]

I agree with what other people said about the scoring system being quite extreme. Their system is either; 4-4.5, 8.5-9.5, and nothing in between. Or rarely. They need to make full use of the system, or switch to something else.

A 9.5-10/10 game is a once in a decade kind of game. It should be very hard to find anything wrong with a 9.5-10 game - it should be objectively remarkable in all the possible departments. It should be groundbreaking, amazing, etc.

IGN recently gave Halo 4 a 9.8, and that is a very boring, repetitive FPS game. It looks great graphically, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it's a standard, regular FPS game that deserves a 7.5-8/10 at most.

They've also rated the recent CoD games high, which is even more outrageous. MW2, 3 are basically CoD 4 with an extended campaign. I really liked MW2, but it's absolutely not a 9.5 game.

But, I sort of understand that they can't suddenly start reviewing games with a more proper scale even if they wanted. That would throw off the readers and publishers.

In order to change it, they would have to announce that they are redoing the format to a more realistic 10 scale. I don't think it would require a lot of effort to do such a thing, though.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I had no idea madden got a 9. That is really alarming.

 

[daninthemix]

Here's a weird thing - everyone is different and has a different tolerance/amazement axis for video games, and it's one that may change the older they get and the more they play.

Can game reviewers who have played thousands of games and reviewed hundreds of them, really approach something like the Tomb Raider reboot with starry eyed awe and wonder? Or are they imagining themselves as their younger, teenage, less jaded selves?

 

[archnemesis]

Some games DO get ravaged in scores because they messed up a lot but they actually did do some things right, or it's just that mechanically it's just below average but excels elsewhere, like Deadly Premonition. That is kind of case by case, though I would think a game that's 5 for 'utterly mundane' would probably STILL be some fun if you just wanted to blow an afternoon and had literally nothing better to do. Anything below that though to me is varying levels of straight up broken, like it doesn't stand out in a good way but maybe it's kind of ugly or doesn't feel right for a higher 4 score, or 1/0 for Cosmic Race/Big Rig esque wrecks, which you MAY get some warped amusement out of but if you tried to actually enjoy them like a normal game it'd only end in tragedy.

It would so much easier if they just used a 5 point scale. If it's broken give it a 1 instead of a 1-5. Dull and average games can get a 2 instead of 6-7. Good games get a 3 instead of an 8, and so on.

I haven't played Deadly Premonition yet (although I considered pre-ordering the PS3 version yesterday), but I suspect it's a genuinely bad game that does some interesting things.

 

[Eusis]

I had no idea madden got a 9. That is really alarming.

I think that game's officially entered a very weird place. There's no competition BUT the past now thanks to a lethal combo of NFL being control freaks who want exclusives on everything, EA more than willing to oblige, and the vast majority of (American) Football fans only giving a shit about the NFL when it comes to making a buying decision. Well, and EA being big enough douchebags to also go and get NCAA and ESPN exclusives too.

... No wonder it may be best for EA to die and all their talent/properties scattered across the industry.

It would so much easier if they just used a 5 point scale. If it's broken give it a 1 instead of a 1-5. Dull and average games can get a 2 instead of 6-7. Good games get a 3 instead of an 8, and so on.

I haven't played Deadly Premonition yet (although I considered pre-ordering the PS3 version yesterday), but I suspect it's a genuinely bad game that does some interesting things.

Well, I think just doubling them's a reasonably good way of handling it then tweaking based on gut feeling (maybe that game was good but not particularly impressive, so a 6, but you were fond of the other one so 7), but it's why I feel 5 points IS better, or at least 10 points over 100 (or to a lesser degree 20.) These are to a large degree based on gut feeling, with even the definitions of well playing possibly varying, so being too granular doesn't do much good unless you WANT to incite "so not as good as Jade Empire?" remarks.

 

[Dr.Acula]

jeff gerstmann


beware of everywhere!

I can see where Namco is coming from. If you're translating an interview, it might be a good idea to run the interview by who you've translated first. Journalists will ask companies to confirm quotes heard from third parties, why can't companies ask journalists the same thing? Mistranslation can completely change the meaning of something.

 

[Nome]

A 8.5 is right in the middle, thus average, on the 7-10 review scale.

I feel like the 1-10 scale roughly correlates to the grade school A/B/C/D/F scale. So generally 93+ A, 92-85 B, etc. There's definitely a lot more than qualifies for "F" than "A". I don't think it's an issue with the gaming media, but how people are generally accustomed to numeric grading.

 

[Eusis]

I feel like the 1-10 scale roughly correlates to the grade school A/B/C/D/F scale. So generally 93+ A, 92-85 B, etc. There's definitely a lot more than qualifies for "F" than "A".

I always see this and I'm always baffled. It's either been 90=A, 80=B, etc with the only variations usually being LOOSER (high 80s may be A territory.)

 

[electroplankton]

problem is all those games are actually great/good games

Problem sometimes is that scores go from 1 to 10. Gaming websites seem to use a different scale, from 6 to 10.

 

[Synth_floyd]

The scale should be:

5 - Masterpiece, probably only a few games per generation should get this
4 - Excellent, overall a great game. Excellent gameplay and is enjoyable by a wide variety of gamers. Excels in its genre.
3 - Good. If you're into the genre then you will probably enjoy this. A decent experience but nothing special
2 - Fair. Most gamers will not like this. Maybe if you're a die hard fan of the genre it's worth checking out
1 - Bad. Just a bad game. Little to no redeeming values. Poor gameplay mechanics, buggy, incomplete, etc.

Or maybe even merge 2 and 1 because "fair" and "bad" are pretty close.

But in this scale, most games will be in the 2-4 range. 5 is the rarest and 1 should be fairly uncommon as well since most games at least do what they're supposed to and get the basic fundamentals in a reasonable state.

Most yearly franchises would get a 3. Madden, CoD, etc.

The "problem" with this scale though is that every other reviewer works on the 7.5-10 scale, as does metacritic, so publishers would complain that their reviews are hurting their metacritic score and a 3 out of 5 "looks bad" so the website or magazine or whatever would lose favor with the publisher and not get exclusives and get shitty treatment.

 

[GhostOfLawlight]

I have no doubt in my mind that many review scores are influenced by publishers.

 

[Trent Strong]

Video game reviews are insanely inflated everywhere, it's a 7 to 10 scale. Still, as long as you keep in mind that it is a 7 to 10 scale, Metacritic is usually pretty accurate.

 

[Visualante2]

HTTP://www.tinyurl.com/edgescore

 

[Striek]

Aliens: Colonial Marines. Provably false thread premise.

Having only one of two sources review an incomprehensive list of mostly good to great titles 8.5 is not terribly shocking IMO.

Game reviewers have been taking notably more advantage of the 1-10 scale lately with major releases, particularly since Doritos-gate.

 

[doniewhalberg]

It's interesting that there's very little variation on their scales, but before we go too far, I'll be honest; I think in the last half year we've been treated to one of the best release schedules this gen. October-November, and February-March have been absolutely rolling in top class games. I feel like I'm in a golden age right now on my ps3 & 360. there are one or two of those I'd argue with on that list, but by and large the big releases have all delivered for me since October, and there's been a number of new IP that have snuck in and been awesome too.

There should be more use in the scale, definitely, videogame rating is silly, anything below a 8 is basically a failure where devs are docked money and so on, that's crazy. But it doesn't change that it's been a fantastic time for games.

EDIT: Going through the list, I think it's really only WWE 13 where I'd make a stand, and the sports games aren't really in my wheelhouse. But everything else deserves what it got. I fact imo recent there's been a game or so that I thought got it too rough elsewhere (God Of War Ascension).

 

[Mael]

Aliens: Colonial Marines. Provably false thread premise.

Having only one of two sources review an incomprehensive list of mostly good to great titles 8.5 is not terribly shocking IMO.

Game reviewers have been taking notably more advantage of the 1-10 scale lately with major releases, particularly since Doritos-gate.

"Hey we trash obvious crap games from time to time too!"
What a BS argument.

 

[Striek]

"Hey we trash obvious crap games from time to time too!"
What a BS argument.

?

The threads premise is that every major multiplatform is highly rated by either IGN or GI, or both. Its either true or its not. Its not.

Most of the games in the OP are good or great. Only RE6 raises an eyebrow as been out of place.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

?

The threads premise is that every major multiplatform is highly rated by either IGN or GI, or both. Its either true or its not. Its not.

Most of the games in the OP are good or great. Only RE6 raises an eyebrow as been out of place.

yeah I haven't played everything there but the ones I did play, seem on the money. I agree so much with tekken tag tournament. great game, but doesn't get right up round 10 for just a couple small reasons.

I would score borderlands 2 at about an Edge 5 though... I don't like how it controls, feels all floaty and crap.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Most of the games in OP are iterative sequels. Does the 20th version of Madden really deserve a 9.0 which is one of the best scores that they give for a game? Same with CoD, Assassin's Creed, Need for Speed, etc. I don't see how you can objectively view a game as that good when it's been done before a million times. I mean Ebert doesn't give great reviews to "Generic action shooter 6" even though the explosions are bigger, the CG is crisp and they have the most popular action star of the year in it.

 

[Mael]

?

The threads premise is that every major multiplatform is highly rated by either IGN or GI, or both. Its either true or its not. Its not.

Most of the games in the OP are good or great. Only RE6 raises an eyebrow as been out of place.

If it's Xmas everyday it stops being special.
Also the argument that because they trashed Sonic 06 they're not influenced in any way is the biggest load of crap I've read today so far.
It also mean that they didn't see any glaring flaws that made their experience bad at all.
And we have boring, buggy games in the list btw.
Both trashed Sim City (and seeing how only Eurogamer seemed to have given valid reasons why the game is not good I hold no hope that IGN or GI were any good, or maybe they didn't like not getting an early review) but that doesn't mean they review of Dead Space 3 for example shouldn't be taken with a truckload of salt.
And no most games in the OP aren't that great, they're certainly competent but great?
Seriously Crysis 3, a glorified tech demo is a great game now?

 

[Wibblewozzer]

How do those compare to their overall Metacritic scores?

I was going to say the same thing so I first looked them all up for comparison. In general they're around 0.5 to 1.0 the Metacritic score. There's a couple they were less than 0.5 and there were three, I believe, where they were over ~1.0 difference (Dead Space 3 and Resident Evil 6 were the worst).

So sure, there's likely some evidence to show that they score a bit higher than the average on the AAA games but I imagine it's because of the audience they're writing for and the review philosophy. Some publications write completely by their own opinion and can trash a well-liked game simply because it didn't click while others write with the idea of scoring what they think the general public would score the game. That's likely how these games were scored.

 

[Usobuko]

Aliens: Colonial Marines. Provably false thread premise.

Having only one of two sources review an incomprehensive list of mostly good to great titles 8.5 is not terribly shocking IMO.

Game reviewers have been taking notably more advantage of the 1-10 scale lately with major releases, particularly since Doritos-gate.

I think this is more in line with they know they cannot hand the scores 7 -> 10 forever, it would look bad on their mean average and ultimately reflected badly on their overall image.

I'm not disagreeing with the DG incident and whatsoever implication it brings. I'm saying before that, outside of a few indie darlings, these game reviewers more enthusiastic in utilising the 1-10 scale, for better or worst.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Of course those being good games has nothing to do with it

Most of those are pretty damn good games.

No they are not. Maybe only two or three deserve 9 or above, but for me, the op is describing pretty much the whole industry, as it's not just IGN and Ginformer but nearly every single website that overrates games.

But maybe that is because I don't love all types of games like I used to. But while that is true there should be a more scrupulous metric for quality nonetheless.

Anyone know any sites that are genuinely harsh with their scores?

 

[-KRS-]

No they are not. Maybe only two or three deserve 9 or above, but for me, the op is describing pretty much the whole industry, as it's not just IGN and Ginformer but nearly every single website that overrates games.

But maybe that is because I don't love all types of games like I used to. But while that is true there should be a more scrupulous metric for quality nonetheless.

Anyone know any sites that are genuinely harsh with their scores?

Yeah I agree. A good game is not necessarily a near-perfect masterpiece. Personally I wouldn't give any of those games a 9 except for maybe DmC and Far Cry, and even then I'd have to think about it (though I haven't played all of them of course.) The games are all around 7 for me though. And a 7 shouldn't be a bad thing. 7 is good to great. We have become so used to this scoring system that even we ourselves have started to think of the scores in the same manner.

But review scores are just fundamentally fucked up in many industries, especially this one, so it is what it is.

And if you don't know about Giant Bomb, check it out. But the scores isn't what's important there. And I wouldn't say they're harsh or anything. Their scores are completely subjective and based on how that individual reviewer liked a game (as it should be, instead of trying to guess what the average consumer will think of a game and somehow score it after that), so the only thing that matters is who reviewed it and what kind of games does that person enjoy and play usually. Brad Shoemaker for example gave Tomb Raider 3 out of 5, noting its flaws in his review. A 3 is a good game there. And I agree, Tomb Raider is a good game. It's not a great game however.

 

[C4Lukins]

Most of those games that I have played I would give a good score to. Plus I bet the metacritic score for the majority of those games is in the vicinity of an 8.5. Plus there are several games on your list where one of the sources rated the game lower then an 8.5. In order to have a decent debate, it would be best to be honest and included all of the details. Plus pointing out how many of these examples are the norm and unique to these two gaming sources.

There is an argument to be had here, but the way you framed it is not really all that fair.

 

[brotkasten]

Most of those are pretty damn good games.

Well a lot of those games are good.

On a scale from 1 to 10, most of those games are not in the 9 range. Solid 7 or 8s? Absolutely. But 9.5 for AC3? F1 2012, for example, is a complete dud. Just check out the OT of this game.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490663

9.0 is a joke for this broken mess.

 

[teruterubozu]

Review paranoia is getting out of control.

Has it ever been hunky-dory?

 

[OnimaruXLR]

Everything about games criticism is broken. Everything. From the nightmarish reality that publishers actually base their bonuses on Metacritic scores, to the fact that "gamers" want these completely meaningless arbitrary scores on everything instead of any actual substantive criticism and also want reviewers to adhere to some imaginary standard of being "objective", to the fact that you have the same kind of publications reviewing everything from traditional $60 retail releases, free mobile games with microtransactions, and subscription based games all on the same kind of scale. None if it makes any sense, and nobody can agree how to fix it, even without addressing the weird issues that this thread makes a point about.

Even the outlets that try to take it seriously and put some genuine thought and logic behind their processes end up doing shit that is bananas to me. Just tear the whole thing down!

 

[Alcoholikaust]

I thought this was common knowledge? money buys a lot of things...maybe not happiness but review scores...and our sanctity. haha

 

[Bedlam]

A 8.5 is right in the middle, thus average, on the 7-10 review scale.

And this skewed scale basically only exists to appease publishers. They want high numbers, they get them - no matter how mediocre the game is. It's at least a 7 or 8. And most gamers are so naive, blind or hype-influenced or whatever, they think they want those numbers too and even get angry when scores don't match their expectations which is completely stupid.

Once in a while IGN then lashes out and completely trashes on a game from a small publisher to fake integrity.

 

[brotkasten]

And this skewed scale basically only exists to appease publishers. They want high numbers, they get them - no matter how mediocre the game is. It's at least a 7 or 8. And most gamers are so naive, blind or hype-influenced or whatever, they think they want those numbers too and even get angry when scores don't match their expectations which is completely stupid.

I love how it's either "lol games journalism" or "OMG, ONLY A 8.5?! HOW DARE THEY!"

 

[rjc571]

None of those games other than Revengeance looks even remotely appealing to me. I weep for what the home console industry has become.

 

[cacildo]

"But all these games are good"

No, they´re not.

They´re big budget games. But they´re not exactly good.

Think about GTAIV. Got the same "perfect" scores back at release, sold very well, had a bunch of people saying its the best game ever over the internet..... and today we all see its a really really bad game.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Yeah I agree. A good game is not necessarily a near-perfect masterpiece. Personally I wouldn't give any of those games a 9 except for maybe DmC and Far Cry, and even then I'd have to think about it (though I haven't played all of them of course.) The games are all around 7 for me though. And a 7 shouldn't be a bad thing. 7 is good to great. We have become so used to this scoring system that even we ourselves have started to think of the scores in the same manner.

But review scores are just fundamentally fucked up in many industries, especially this one, so it is what it is.

And if you don't know about Giant Bomb, check it out. But the scores isn't what's important there. And I wouldn't say they're harsh or anything. Their scores are completely subjective and based on how that individual reviewer liked a game (as it should be, instead of trying to guess what the average consumer will think of a game and somehow score it after that), so the only thing that matters is who reviewed it and what kind of games does that person enjoy and play usually. Brad Shoemaker for example gave Tomb Raider 3 out of 5, noting its flaws in his review. A 3 is a good game there. And I agree, Tomb Raider is a good game. It's not a great game however.

Yeah I hear you.

You almost have to filter through to the games that get 10/10 for it to be worthwhile for me.

Crysis 2 on PS3 was the last game I bought whose average score of 7-8/10 was way off. That's a 5/10 game right there. Short, linear, laggy mess with poor multiplayer.

GiantBomb gets brought up a lot so thanks I'll check that out.

 

[Zemm]

9.75 for DS3 haha. I could laugh at most of those scores tbf, but that one stuck out like a sore thumb.