I agree, this is purely my take on how you rate something, I don't expect reviewers to not use a 10 but it still looks daft to me. I would say though that how often a person uses a 10 can go overboard, whatever you think the max score should be don't use it too often.
I would agree not everything is "high score" but I also think any score, high or otherwise, takes into account a sort of "ineffable feeling" unless there are solid criteria that can be measured.
Most people will give things good or bad scores based on whether they like them or not. I don't think that's how things should be measured, they should be measured by what they are trying to achieve.
Otherwise reviewers are simply going to pan things they don't like. Which is only a help for people whose thinking align with those reviewers and not to anyone else.
I can't see how you could effectively have a scoring system like that, the one we have is flawed, but it is a best fit and you often just have to put up with that in life. Measuring what something is trying to achieve is sometimes mentioned in reviews but I can't say how much if anything that goes to be part of the score. But I do see the importance of that, games will find it harder to be innovative if we don't factor in near misses in that regard, I just think it would depend even more on the subjectivity of the reviewer which is where we already find most flaws in reviewing rest.
My thought is that the real review is what is written. The Score is a quick indicator of how the review feels.
I really think they both have to be there or at very lease the written part is the most important.
If a reviewer complains of something that I think is a non-factor then I know what to expect and it won't be an issue. If a review loves something that I would hate then I also know what to expect.
The number is just a quick sign to me that this person felt positive, negative, neutral and I can then learn "the why."
but apparently not everyone reads anymore so they rely on numbers.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"...it's hard to get into Cyberpunk 2077's world in general. So much of it is superficial set dressing, and there's so much happening all around you--ads going off at all times, gunfights breaking out in the streets, texts coming in about cars you'll never buy--that a lot of the game feels superfluous. The side quests and the characters they showcase are the shining beacon through the neon-soaked bleakness of Night City, and they give you room to explore the best the core RPG mechanics have to offer. These are what carried me through an otherwise disappointing experience."
.."you can expect it to last you about 30 hours. This number can increase to around 40 hours if you are doing side missions fairly regularly."
The thing is you can go through Cyberpunk 2077 without doing side missions and without crafting.
Dropped gear can be better than crafted - and if you pick guns they are so OP, just pick the highest damage ones and don't bother upgrading.
As much as you can hate on her- she played the game in way that CDPR made entirely possible- its not her fault that the game can be played without crafting and without doing side missions.
And she played on easy mode - so? Its her choice that devs put into the game as a way of playing.
Point is, if you're being paid to review the game, you're being paid to review all of the game. How do you review crafting if you refuse to craft? How do you review the weapon systems if you refuse to even pick up a weapon past your starter and refuse to see how attachments work?
She's another hack relying on simps who think she's cute to keep her employed.
I really wanted to read what your wrote but I kept being distracted by the cleavage in the shot of the linked video. I am sure she's a great reviewer btw
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Comments
I really think they both have to be there or at very lease the written part is the most important.
If a reviewer complains of something that I think is a non-factor then I know what to expect and it won't be an issue. If a review loves something that I would hate then I also know what to expect.
The number is just a quick sign to me that this person felt positive, negative, neutral and I can then learn "the why."
but apparently not everyone reads anymore so they rely on numbers.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer