Quote:
Originally posted by Mantus
I hate how most reviews rate games as either by either giving them a 6 or a 10. What the fuck is up with that? Why does every game that doest suck have to be a 10 and every game that does suck have to get a pitty score of 6?
|
Which reviewers are you talking about? The only way I can see that happening is with reviewers like Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb on X-Play. They go with the 5 system (1 is worst, 5 is best) and they don't even have halfs. In other words, there's only 5 ratings. They give dozens and dozens of games a 3 out of 5, but few 5 out of 5. That would equal 6 out of 10 and 10 out of 10.
IGN has yet to give a PS2, Gamecube, or XBox game a 10 out of 10. Most games do get somewhere around a 6 out of 10, simply because the gaming industry is flooded with shit every year (but that's never gonna change).
EGM has given straight 10's only 10 times in the past 15 years. They're a bit more harsh than IGN most of the time, so their average review is more like a 5 ouf of 10. GamePro does give a fair amount of 3's and 5's, but you can't blame them. Most games are average, therefore they get an average score. Some games are damn good (Prince of Persia, KOTOR, etc.) and get a 5 out of 5. If the game rocks, then it deserves a good review! The fact that they're on a 5-point scale is the reason a lot of 3's and 5's are issued. I think all reviewers should go for the 10-point scale.
-Lasereth