Originally Posted by crash32953295@msn.
ok Bit-Tech something that has been really itching me for a while about all sites that review games. You all give them too high scores. this from what I read in your own review should not be getting a 7. If a game is repetative after a while the graphics arent stunning it should be more like a 5. I think the way your hardware reveiws are done are exellent and you can judge it on each of the different areas. I dont see why this cannot be done for game say in the following areas,
And then get an overall score from that. While this may make games look worse for the industry it makes the really good games like left 4 dead look great.
Because a game isn't as defineable as a piece of hardware is, is why we use this scoring method and why we only use whole digits.
With a GPU you can look at the performance and say - "Wow, this gives an extra 20 FPS and is the same price as a GTX 280? Cool!" and you can reward it in both value and performance. With a game though, you can't reliably put a numerical figure on the graphics and how pretty they are - nor should you. You could say that a game which has HDR might get an extra point in graphics - but then you're faulting games which either were made on a budget or to which these effect aren't relevant. Braid has blurry, painted graphics - but we still love it to bits and give it a high score. Conversely, Crysis has truly fantastic graphics which a lot of people can't access.
Thus, the best way to approach the review is to give not a score but rather a detailed explanation of the game, it's pros, cons and excuses. We do that and in an ideal world we'd leave it at that, with no score whatsoever. The reality is though that a score of some sort is needed for reasons both political, commercial and in terms of accessibility. For those readers who don't want to read 1000 words of "The graphics aren't great, but the game design negates that as an issue", we have a score as a rough guideline.
Splitting scores up for something subjective is a thorny issue. If an FPS has deathmatch but not CTF, is that -1 or -2 points? If a game doesn't have either mode but has something new and original is that -5 or +5? If a game costs £30 but offers 40 hours of boring grind does that mean that its got more or less value than a £10 game like World of Goo which has a small but thrilling level set?
Where there are defineable boundaries for a sub-score like 'Performance' that idea works. What you're proposing though is that putting a 7/10 on a game as a whole isn't truly representative, so we should put 7/10 on something equally indefineable, like Gameplay.
Another path would be to score be percentages - but whats the difference between 96% and 97%? PC Gamer may think they can tell the difference, but I doubt they could point it out to me.
In the end, a good way to be sure is to read a breadth of reviews and to read the reviews fully, without just skipping to the last page or the score. I don't think it's fair to say we give out too many high scores - in the entire two years I've been at bit-tech there's only been three 10/10s and around twenty 9/10s. True, retrospect might alter those in the eyes of some though.
Need for Speed is a fun game that is accessible, stable and enjoyable, but it is a bit samey after a while and doesn't do anything startlingly new. That fits our definition of a seven - it meets our expectations, without exceeding them and has a flaw or two that gamers might want to be wary of. If you like arcade racers, you'll probably like this. If not, there are other games out there.
You can read our score guide for more information: http://www.bit-tech.net/scores/