emanziboy wrote...
Not really. A review is just one person's opinion, while this list was put together by several people. People also put to much emphasis on the exact score when sometimes the reviewer has to give out a number arbitrarily. Really, what's the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.3? You can't really describe how much better 9.6 is than 9.3, but people will point out is that Game A is .3 higher than Game B. That's the reason IGN only grades on .5 intervals now (btw ME2 was graded before this change and Portal 2 was graded after, so you can't really compare them exactly anyway. How would ME2 be graded under the new rules?), and some sites try different ways to grade games, e.g. 1up's ABC grading. And how people can feel about a game can chage between when they first play it and how they feels months later.
This is why I don't put too much emphasis on exact scores when deciding which games are better. Of course, I feel the same way about numbered rankings for mush of the same reasons, but hey, they're fun to read.
I absolutely agree.
Also, reviews and scores are, first and foremost, supposed to indicate game's quality with respect to its competitors, i.e. games that belong to the same genre, are released on the same platform and around the same time. Only then one is supposed to use and argue about the accurate scores.
But when it comes to comparison of different games published in different years, such arguing does not make much sense and most reviewing policies (e.g. Gamespot has very nicely wtritten rules) would discourage people from relying on accurate numbers / percentages.
Retour en haut
