Gaming Sequence Review

100% implys perfection, which is impossible. And you even state it (the game) has flaws. You undermine your own scoring system by doing this.

 

I think what he is saying is that a review, which for a computer game can never be more than a subjective opinion, can not always be distilled to a mathematical formula.

It is a feeling of fun and happiness, which for him is a 100% experience.

It may not be that way for you of course, but a review of any subjective medium is only one persons feeling or opinion - by the very definition of the word.

Now if you were reviewing a printer say, you can boil it down to cost of ink, pages per minute and all that technical jazz - and here we have a non subjective process where you can apply an absolute points scale.

In this case if the game gives Joe a 100% feeling then that's what he should give the game. At no point in time has he said that 100% means technical perfection - you have just made this bit up in your head.

If the game does not sound like your cup of tea, then cool - but do not spoil the man's fun!

 

A scoring system in an of itself is flawed. A game deserves so much more than some scored review. I do see how they are useful, but I can't help feel that the whole system is flawed. The whole 1 - 10 system is ****ed to begin with.

To rate something like this on a scale is messed up. It deserves so much more than a number. Anything below an 8 or 80% is often shunned, with no real reason other than review sites. Reviewers need to change how they operate. A score is not enough. How many games get given 80+ when in reality they suck. And how many good games get passed by because of some dumb number?

Look at books or films. They get reviewed on there content. No score is given, or needed. I'm a bit past it right now, so I can't really put into words what I want to say. But this scoring system needs to stop. Game reviewers need to do their jobs properly, and not just slap on a score according to their own version of what is good.

 

I totally agree with that Fizzban.

 

A great review imo. Not a game I'd personally be interested in but that's not the point. Talk about graphics and people say "no, but the great games didn't need good graphics" but don't talk about them and people moan that they weren't covered in the review.

It really doesn't have to be formulaic to put across a point of potential satisfaction against a cost/benefit situation does it?