SomedayTheFire
Member
But that's taking into account outside influences. If I'm reviewing a game I'm reviewing the game and not the fringes of it. I loathe WWI as a setting but think BF1 is good for example. If I hated football and absolutely hated the latest fifa and felt it was a complete waste of time to play I would give it a 1/10 cause that's the scale I'd use. I wouldn't fee comfortable giving a game I hate a better score than I think it deserves because other people would like it.But hypothetically speaking what if you are asked to review a genre you don't like? You can't give the latest sports game a 1/10 because you hate football.
But yes you are probably right about scores - I like how Edge does it in theory, though find myself strongly disagreeing with them regularly when I don't feel the score correlates to either my experience of the game or their own scoring system.
NBA 2K17 is a good example. I hate that game find it horribly boring and don't really like basketball. It's a well made game but for me I'd go as low as 4/10 because I find it below average and not very fun. I don't particularly think my opinion is of any less worth than someone that does like basketball reviewing it cause at the end of the day it's a subjective review of my experiences playing the game.
for a 1 or 2 out of 10 game, i'd give that to a game like Shadow of Mordor because i hate every single thing about that game
I completely agree with that assessment. I think metacritic is the biggest problem with regards to review scores. like a 4*/5* is an 80 in metacritic's scale and I find that really dumb. generally if I watch reviews it's to find out how the game is to play, how people are enjoying it, what redeeming qualities there are and what is sub par. for performance issues, I go by gaf actually but yeah, a subjective and objective review system could work, but it's still hamstrung by metacritic. do you score one and not the other? which gets picked up by MC?I think that's the main issue here. You have completely different people with completely different scales on an aggregate site like metacritic. What sense does it make to have an aggregate score with different scales? Also, people want objective (believe it's been said here before and other threads several times) out of a subjective review.
Maybe it just makes the sense to have two scores of a game. First review: personal opinion. Second review: As objective as possible (obviously can't review a game with no personal opinion). And, that there should be some consistent scale that metacritic sends out and says "hey if you want to be a part of this aggregate score, use this scale".
Will any of this ever happen? No, not likely. So why bother? Because it's early and I have some time to burn before work
like if you subjectively give Zelda a 10/10 for gameplay and objectively give it a 5/10 for performance and MC picks up the second score, what happens? logical conclusion is to mix the two, but performance issues that kill a game for me could be wildly different than you. I think the easiest way to sidestep is a subjective review with an objective sidebar detailing performance and technical failings. the new mass effect for example is a game I find thoroughly average, but I wouldn't lower the score because of the animations, despite them being bad to the point of broken at times because they didn't affect my time with the game