Sigourn
uooh afficionado
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2016
- Messages
- 5,624
Astral Chain is out an RPG Site gave the game a 7/10. Lo and behold, a comment on the site's feed:
There's this idea that if a reviewer gives a popular game a "low score" (anything that isn't a 9 or a 10) the reviewer is baiting for clicks.
This idea that any game scored lower than 9 is simply "good" and if it is lower than 8 it is not worth your time is illustrated in this chart:
The Codex, for instance, leaves scores for the videogames it reviews at the very end, using the same font and size as the rest of the review. Most of the time it outright omits them, as it is up to the reviewer in question to rate the game, usually preceded with "if I had to give this game a score".
That is how Codex reviews work, but I'm interested in what the userbase of the Codex thinks. Personally, I use a chart similar to the bottom one, and most of my favorite games rank anywhere between 6 and 8. "Average" to me is "mediocre" and only worth playing if you are interested in the game; games with lower scores are worth playing only if you are desperate to play them, regardless of the game's quality (such as when you are a fan of the IP, say Digimon). Functional but terrible/glitchy games get very low scores, and those that don't work at all (refuse to launch) are not rated until fixed (if the dev is still around and updating the game), or rated 1 (if the dev is gone).
Personally I'm also against having review scores at all. By reading a review you get a good idea of what the reviewer thinks of the game. Saying "yeah well the combat is very average and repetitive" and then slapping a giant TEN OUT OF TEN doesn't help the reviewer's credibility at all.
Trying to get the clicks by being one of the lowest scores huh? Well it worked, congrats!
There's this idea that if a reviewer gives a popular game a "low score" (anything that isn't a 9 or a 10) the reviewer is baiting for clicks.
This idea that any game scored lower than 9 is simply "good" and if it is lower than 8 it is not worth your time is illustrated in this chart:
That is how Codex reviews work, but I'm interested in what the userbase of the Codex thinks. Personally, I use a chart similar to the bottom one, and most of my favorite games rank anywhere between 6 and 8. "Average" to me is "mediocre" and only worth playing if you are interested in the game; games with lower scores are worth playing only if you are desperate to play them, regardless of the game's quality (such as when you are a fan of the IP, say Digimon). Functional but terrible/glitchy games get very low scores, and those that don't work at all (refuse to launch) are not rated until fixed (if the dev is still around and updating the game), or rated 1 (if the dev is gone).
Personally I'm also against having review scores at all. By reading a review you get a good idea of what the reviewer thinks of the game. Saying "yeah well the combat is very average and repetitive" and then slapping a giant TEN OUT OF TEN doesn't help the reviewer's credibility at all.