alphamalet said:
I want you to name 5 AAA games off the top of your head that got an aggregate of 7/10 or below. I bet you can't do it quickly. Now name 5 AAA games that got at least a 7/10. A lot, and somehow I don't think that every AAA game that gets released deserves that sort of overwhelming positive praise.
That's a very biased test you're putting up there. People remember the games the like better than the games that are terrible (typically because they didn't buy the latter). Sure we all remember games that we tried and found terrible, but that's the exception rather than the rule. We mostly remember games we liked, and we mostly read reviews about games we suspect we'll like which tend to have a higher metascore.
In short, your test is useless because it's scientifically unbiased.
Yes, games are different than movies, but I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You wouldn't review a music album the same way you would review a movie. Of course you don't review a game the same way you review a movie. What does that prove? The scores of the reviews take into account things like bugs in a game. Why in the hell would there be a minimum score guarantee for a game that is technically proficient and bug free? What difference should that make? A terrible game is terrible, with or without bugs.
Like i said, no matter how terrible you personally feel a game is, if it's bug-free and in a playable state, there will always be people who are into this sort of thing.
To give a similar example, go read Robert Eberts review of "The Human Centipede". In his 50+ years career as a movie reviewer, this movie was the first review ever where he decided not to assign the movie a score. He thought the movie was distasteful, but didn't want to give it a thumbs down because he knew that the film had a decent sized target audience who were into that sort of thing.
Same thing can be said about Halo 4. You can say it lacks innovation or in story, but fact is that there is a lot of people who are still into the genre, and - having played it earlier today - i can say that it displays adequate (but not outstanding) design that delivers on that promise. Different opinions are different, but the reviewer in question here has clearly failed to keep perspective.
And again, in what universe is a 5/10 not average? The mean (average) of all numbers between 0-10 is 5. 5 is the average. How does 6=average or 7=average?
Because it's a scale (from "terrible" to "awesome"). 5.0 is the MIDDLE score. That doesn't mean it's the average score. If more games (or movies or whatever) come out that are good than bad, then the average score is obviously not going to be 5.0.
The review system is not a zero sum system, and never was intended to be.
Yes, clearly the reviewer misinterpreted his own opinion. Reviews are not meant to be uniform, or validate someone's opinion.
I didn't say he misinterpreted his own opinion. I said he didn't understand how to use a score system properly. I'd hate to see the day he gets a hold of a game that is truly terrible in every single aspect (so dreadful that he would be willing to PAY money to not play it), because i suspect he would have to blow his own 0-10 scale then and give it a negative score. As a reviewer, if you use a detailed score system, you need to consider what headroom the score you assign leaves for better a worse products. In the case of Halo 4, you can get something that is far beyond worse.
