Most reviewers (or at least all the ones I know of) don't start every game at "10", or whatever the max score is, and deduct a percentage of a point for every flaw they can find. That's just not how it works. Arriving at a score is not the result of a math equation.
-
-
Example! I just reviewed Nier Replicant Ver 1.22etc. That's a game that has a litany of flaws, many left over from the 10 year old game that its based on. If I were to just deduct from 10, that game would probably end up as a six.
Afficher cette discussion -
But that ignores the human element of how much of an impact that game's story had on me, which was enormous. I say it at the top of the review: "The ways in which Nier Replicant disappoints are mostly forgivable when you consider the ways in which it astounds."
Afficher cette discussion -
The feeling that I got walking away from Nier Replicant after all things were considered was: "Man, this is a great game, even despite these obvious flaws." And so, I gave it an 8. The rest is justifying that feeling in the writing. It's really that simple.
Afficher cette discussion -
Anyway, this thread brought to you by my frustration of always having to explain why a game got a good score despite me critiquing a bunch of not great parts about the game, or why a game got a not great score despite me praising a bunch of aspects.
Afficher cette discussion
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.