Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten

[Smertnik]

Scores have always been meaningless and always will be. They're just arbitrary numbers. What matters is the actual review text.

 

[Emergent System]

This is what I like about Jim's videos. Half (well, not that many, but I say half for dramatic effect) of them I will feel are stupid shit for which he deserves to be punched in the dick, and the others are what I think is right on the ball. This is one of the latter.

There are different philosophical approaches to the rating system for games, whihc is where I think that most of these outrages come from, but whichever one you adhere to the rating system for games has gotten pretty absurd and obsessive these days.

 

[Mahoshonen]

There's something else going on here, that Jim doesn't bring up: a lot of games that have deep underlying flaws in them and are panned by the fans wind up getting high marks by reviewers anyway. This is not like with Psychonauts where the games was ignored, but games like Oblivion and Black and White and Final Fantasy XIII receiving high marks despite tons of criticism both inside and outside their respective fanbase. In addition, there is no consensus on what game deserves a good score and what doesn't. See the big divide between people who think that Metal Gear Solid 4 was a masterpiece that brought a satisfying ending to the series, and those who think it's an incomprehensible mess. So when you give a game like Gears of War 3 an 8/10, at least some of the reaction stems from people saying, "WHAT? You really believe that GoW 3 isn't as good a game as Final Fantasy XIII? You have to be shitting me!!"

So I guess my point is that a single score review is inheirently flawed and needs to be abandoned.

 

[Daemonate]

I agree a lot with Jim here, but I feel that the problem is also with the scale.
To illustrate this, I would like to share my experience hunting for a new TV. I came across a site that ranked the TV as a 8.4 of 10, which isn't bad, but it then explained its own scale. Their experience was that all modern TV's have such a high standard, that they defined their scale so that anything below 7.5 was inadequate and should not be bought. This is logical, as the experience you get on each TV is actually so close to identical that it is the tenths of the grade where they differ. I liked this review method, because it gave perspective to the fact that quality is so high in general that giving a TV a 5/10 because it was the worst out of 5 excellent test subjects isn't fair.

Now, consider the typical game production. This is a collaboration of a ton of people, and of course it will meet a lot of standards. So what can you do? You can either make a score readjusted to the standards of today, which is what Jim does when he gives out mediocre scores, because he knows there are better implementations of the ideas out there already, or you can specify the scale to say that below 7.5 is shit.

So, if a review is on a 1-10 scale, 5 should be a game that is "meh", 6 should be enjoyable and worthwhile, 7 is good, 8 is great, 9 is one of the best games this year, 10 is one of the best games this decade.

That is utterly, utterly retarded. Full points for at least explaining their ranking, however. You don't pre-skew a rating system. The 50% mark of any rating system should be the median mark. Modern education, with its failing system 'scaling' grades to make a Credit or Second-Class Honours mark being 'average' has twisted people's perspective.
This means that no matter how close things are, including TVs, you scale your system to absorb that same-ness. The difference between them is what pokes out the end above 50%. If TVs are much the same, then ratings should get HARDER not softer - you need WAY better than bare-bones to get above 55%. You need to do the same thing as everyone really cheaply, or have extra support or features.

A game, or any product doesn't deserve a rating for ANY reason than objective quality metrics. It doesn't get 75% just for showing up with working code. 5/10 to me means the game is AVERAGE. Because that's the MIDDLE of the rating system. Why would you skew your rating scale from the outset? Put it this way: if every game gets above 5/10, then what's the point of those first 5 marks? What do they say other than "this game which has been published and made it to market actually loads on my computer!? Astonishing!". They are purposeless marks. Why not just remove them entirely and grade the game out of 5? WHy??? Because then people will complain you have lost granularity in your system. But it's already gone, people.

A good example is a Magazine in my local area, Atomic MPC. They mark hardware like graphics cards. Their average mark is around 60-65% for these products. However they are not ashamed to hand out the occasional 50 or evn 45%. Yet desktop graphics cards are almost ENTIRELY undifferentiated product to product. Same reference design, same drivers, same chips...
So they grade on the part that isn't the same. A card goes below 50% if it fails to do the basic, average things, ie Pamasomic X overheats and is noisy, and costs 15% more than the rest, but otherwise is on par with other cards - 40%.

But Gigabyte x version has slightly better performance, 70%. Sapphire X is cheaper for the same thing - 75%. Asus X comes with a huge software bundle, but is a bit slow - 65%. MSI X overclocks like crazy, but has nothing, 69%. Wow, NEWBRAND X DOES IT ALL - 85% Highly Recommended!

That's how you grade TVs. Or games.

 

[Sk1ver]

GOLD! Well done Jim, possibly the best video so far.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Awesome video, get Greg Tito to watch it.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

People are... disappointed... by 8s.

And 9s...

And this is actually a recurring trend and becoming a big deal.

Jim actually had to bring this up.

I...

I...

*twitch*



Oh, humanity. You with your Twilight and Justin Bieber and Transformers and Rebecca Black and whatnot. STOP GIVING ME REASONS TO LOSE FAITH IN YOU!

 

[Torrasque]

ya no sorry, i watched the first episode and didnt like it. thought maybe i'd give jim another try, but NOPE i still cant watch this guy's videos. i just dont like him

Really? Since his first few vids, I've taken a liking to him.
You just have to get used to how he talks, it can be a bit annoying at first, but he is not always serious.
Most people get and like Yahtzee's reviews right away, because sarcasm is a required language to interact with the internet.

I can only remember one review that really pissed me off and it wasn't the number that it got, it was one of the things the review mentioned, it said that the game had bad graphics, specifically it said this game had bad graphics
<spoiler=Spoiler'd to save on loading time>

That is a shot from kings bounty: the armored princess, the only way you can say that is bad graphics is if your so shallow you need every little fucken thing to be bump mapped out the ass.

Thats like a friend of mine refusing to play Borderlands because he doesn't like cell shading...
"OMG WINDWAKER IS SHIT BECAUSE IT LOOKS CARTOONY" Really? Thats the only argument you have? Really.

On topic: I agree entirely. As you said, people have forgotten that games with 8/10 are still pretty great games. I've been to my local game store and seen people pick up games that I know are good, the game itself says "hey, I'm a pretty sweet game" and they'll say "nah, it heard it got bad reviews". What the fuck man?!

 

[Torrasque]

So, if a review is on a 1-10 scale, 5 should be a game that is "meh", 6 should be enjoyable and worthwhile, 7 is good, 8 is great, 9 is one of the best games this year, 10 is one of the best games this decade.

I've always gone with the tried and true:
<5: don't buy it, you won't like it
5: Meh, you might like it. I think it is mediocre
6: Its alright I guess
7: Good, could be better
8: Pretty damn good
9: This game is fucking great!
10: I can find nothing wrong with this game and would marry it if I could

I think most people get caught up with the whole "X game got Y rating, and Z game is better than X game imo, so it should get a higher rating!" but they don't seem to realize that games are not rated against each other, they are rated against the completely neutral system that doesn't give a shit about other games.
So when Halo gets a better rating than Doom, and people rage, they forget it is based on the system, not the games.
I feel sorry for the guys and gals that have to rate games, I really do...
That is, if they weren't getting paid to play video games... /so jelly

 

[Tinybear]

*post*

Well, you should understand one thing: your example is a local magazine. They do what I like to call "grouped reviews". Their reviews are based on the pretense of "if you're going to buy something this month, this will tell you what's the best buy". This is a good method, but it does not give a shit of info if you are comparing different months' reviews to each other. In the graphic cards department, it's rather easy, you will almost always have better results going for a higher number, but in games, the standard is something less tangible, and it does not simply 1-up once the hardware does. This causes the normalized curve to take into account the horrible games that were before, and really, if you play a modern game, and compare it to the old stuff, you realize that modern games have gotten rid of so incredibly many large flaws. Of course, they're not necessarily better just because of that (still haven't seen anything rival Banjo-Kazooie).

My point is that when ranking something on a scale on which you plan to rank things for mostly the same parameters on for the next 4 years, you can't just re-adjust the curve to be normalized all the time, because it might just be that there comes a ton of good games. Take right now for instance, Skyrim, Skyward Sword, BF3, MW3 all have come out at the same time. The first is said to be the best of its series in all aspects, and one of the best games ever, so it isn't so hard to understand that it should get a top rating. Skyward Sword however, is a damn good game, and by itself, it deserves a hell of a good rating, but it is also a Zelda game, so the reviewer has to take into account the expectations and and quality of the previous installments of the series, and has a conflict. He can review it based on how it is relative to the current game situation, where it is practically one of a kind, he can review it based on how it measures to Ocarina of Time for instance.

You see that a conflict arises. There are many solutions.
1: get the reviewers to stop basing half the score on technical info. IGN is perhaps the worst on doing this, they will give a game more than 5 if it has a working engine with some sort of shading. Removing the tech from the game review, and only taking it into account for the worst and best cases, will remove a lot of the guilt that arises from not giving a rather polished game a decent score, and will allow the rating system to go back to 8/10 being a good score.

2: accept that the ranking system is skewed, and use decimals. This will allow game ratings to differ more within the skewed curve. This will mean that you have the hate/10, but it's more understandable when the curve starts at 6 for proper games, and it will let the reviewer more easily express that he feels that the game is within the same league of awesome as most other games, but has minor differences that distinguishes it. This helps a lot for sequels for instance, because giving a 9.3 to Skyward Sword will mean that it is one of the best damn games made, but still can't reach OoT which got 10.0 if that is the opinion of the reviewer. And yes, I'm making up these numbers, not founded in reality.

3: stop using a numerical value. Really, instead of having to tackle the issue, you can just say it: "MW3 is pretty much MW2 with new polish. You will be playing the same game in essence, you decide if you're fine with that". No numbers, no letting gamers be lazy in their choice of games.

 

[Poisoned Al]

Ah Zelda fanboys. Concentrated, industrial strength fuck-tards.

 

[Tim Chuma]

Kids today, in my day we had to to wait for the game reviews magazines to arrive by boat from England when they were already three months old and we were glad for it. To contact the magazine you had to send a letter in the mail and it MAY be printed six months later.

A more valuable exercise is to actually see some of the review scores from the then popular Mean Machines magazine published in the UK
http://www.meanmachinesmag.co.uk/

The lowest review score I saw in the magazine was 9% and they even advertised it on the front of the magazine:
http://www.meanmachinesmag.co.uk/review/300/road-fighter.php

"Appalling, ruinous, awful, dire, hideous, tragic, frightful and ghastly are just some of the words you could use to accurately describe this festering catastrophe of a shambling mockery of a sick parody of a game cartridge. I quite honestly haven't seen a game so fantastically bad for many, many years, and the only ones I recollect being as disgustingly rubbish as this were old computer budget games that cost £1.99 each. This pustulent title costs ten times more! What's wrong with it? Well, apart from the game being unbelievably simple - there were better and more complex race games than this on the VCS in 1979 - it's also very badly designed and incredibly frustrating. The fuel limit is extremely tight, and one mistake is all you need to bring up the game over message! This is irksome enough on the early levels, but later on it's so annoying it makes you want to smash the cartridge up with anger! Heaping several more generous helpings of irritation is a totally rubbish control method. There's no inertia on the car, the brakes are hopeless and unless you've got astonishingly amazing mega-reflexes, it's almost impossible to avoid crashing into a blue car if it's on your side of the road when it comes onto the screen. Even if you remove the gameplay, there are no redeeming features. As you can see from the screenshots, the graphics are a woeful joke, with infantile sprites, brain-dead backdrops and no animation on the cars. And if you think it looks bad, wait until your hear the sad, booming cacophony of naff effects and chronic, wheezing, inept tunes. Ugh! It's definitely Black Armband day for Nintendo owners everywhere."
- Julian Rignall (Jazza) still reviews games in the US.

This was the highest score I saw in the magazine (98%):
http://www.meanmachinesmag.co.uk/review/279/super-mario-world.php


Here's some other ones to laugh at
http://www.meanmachinesmag.co.uk/review/131/days-of-thunder.php

"What a dire excuse for entertainment! This really stinks and is about as playable as something that's not playable at all. The speedo reads 150 mph, but the car feels like it's being pushed by a couple of arthritic OAPs. With no gears to change, an incredibly simplistic course and no crowd, Days of Thunder has all the tense atmosphere of an episode of Eastenders. The only thing I liked about the game was the introductory sequence, but that's hardly enough to make it worth the asking price. I don't know what Mindscape were playing at when they decided to release this, but if you want to play something good then avoid this like the plague."

http://www.meanmachinesmag.co.uk/review/169/shadowgate.php
" Aaaaaaaaaaggh! I hate this game. It's so-o-o-o frustrating I want to smash it up and then set all the pieces alight. "Playing" it involves struggling to solve puzzles that are made completely obscure by the hopelessly crap commands menu. Making progress even more annoying is the ultra-slow cursor, which moves like a slow-motion crippled slug in a sea of molasses. Another very irritating factor is that during the game there's never any warning of impending death - you're just dumped out of the game in seconds if you make one wrong move. And since it's very easy to make a simple mistake and die, you have to keep saving the game every ten seconds, which gets very tedious. Even the biggest adventure fans will find this a frustrating bore."

And people are complaining about 8/10 scores, man-up and grow a pair. Modern Warfare 3 just made the news for making more money in a week than Batman Returns, some of us grew up playing crap games and still want to know if they are crap.

 

[geizr]

Here's a qualitative rating system used by the site boardgamegeek.com which tries to describe the willingness of a person to play the game given a choice, combined with its "addictive" qualities:

10 - Outstanding. Always want to play and expect this will never change.
9 - Excellent game. Always want to play it.
8 - Very good game. I like to play. Probably I'll suggest it and will never turn down a game.
7 - Good game, usually willing to play.
6 - Ok game, some fun or challenge at least, will play sporadically if in the right mood.
5 - Average game, slightly boring, take it or leave it.
4 - Not so good, it doesn't get me but could be talked into it on occasion.
3 - Likely won't play this again although could be convinced. Bad.
2 - Extremely annoying game, won't play this ever again.
1 - Defies description of a game. You won't catch me dead playing this. Clearly broken.

Within the site's community, a rating of 8+ is a guaranteed purchase. 7+ indicates a game that would be a surefire rent for fans of a game's particular genre. High sixes would be entertained if the price point was lowered / game wasn't purchased by the player. Anything from 6.25 on down would be largely passed on if there were other better alternatives. Ratings of 4 or less are more accusations of shoddy publishing/development more than anything else.

And really, critic valuations do come down to how much bang you're getting for your buck.

While that is a very good system, it still suffers a fundamental problem that some people seem to forget about reviews in general. CONTEXT. Any given score depends both on the preferences of the person reviewing it and on the historical situation in which the review is made. A person who simply does not like a particular genre, style, aesthetic, motif, etc. within a game will tend to give a game a low score, while someone who is more infatuated with those same elements will tend to give a game a much higher score.

Many games that were seen as 10/10 or near 10/10 in times past would be hard pressed to garner more than a 7 or 8 out of 10. This is because our tastes and expectations change over time. Some things that we liked at one point, we may no longer like at some other point, and some things we didn't like at one point, we come to like at some other point. This is simply the variability of human personality as we live and grow(up).

There is a contingent that have forgotten or failed to understand that reviews, for the reasons above, are not universal and absolute. They fail to understand that one has to read a review carefully and put into proper context before making judgements on the score itself, and, even then, the only expectation that can be made is one of consistency. The singular review score, itself, is only at best a zeroth-order approximated summary of the entire review opinion, meaning that it loses all the nuances that greatly affect the judgement of whether the game will actually appeal to any particular person.

Even more so, this contingent have not matured, mentally and emotionally, sufficiently to understand that these reviews are not in any way detrimental to their own ability to enjoy the game. In other words, who cares that someone else doesn't like the same things? It is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to expect others to have the same preferences as oneself(I remarked in another post that the single biggest contributor to all the issues in the video game industry is unreasonable or unrealizable expectations).

This leads into a more general problem that I've come to notice in the more developed parts of the world.

Much of society, in the more developed parts of the world, have, in my opinion, become very entitled and self-important over the years(in the olden days, we would call this "being spoiled"). Thanks to the many modern conveniences and technological advancements that have been made, we have lost the need to struggle for survival and, as a result, have lost our perspective of reality. The concept of "chose your battles carefully" has a very deep meaning in this regard, because one does not want to waste precious energy and incur unnecessary risk of harm by engaging in a battle that is of little worth to one's actual survival or well-being. However, in today's modern society with its myriad conveniences and technologies, we are flush with energy(comparatively, on a per capita basis to just 100 years ago) and a sense of safety and security(again, compared to times far past) that we no longer feel it necessary to measure our battles and, instead, wage war against everything that displeases us for even the slightest whim of reason. We've become a civilization of spoiled brats.

As Jim has said, and as a number before him have said, in so many words, folks just need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

 

[Worgen]

I can only remember one review that really pissed me off and it wasn't the number that it got, it was one of the things the review mentioned, it said that the game had bad graphics, specifically it said this game had bad graphics

That is a shot from kings bounty: the armored princess, the only way you can say that is bad graphics is if your so shallow you need every little fucken thing to be bump mapped out the ass.

looks like warcraft 3
i kind of want to play it.
hmmmmmm

I loved the game but it doesn't play like an rts, it plays more like the heroes of might and magic series (although I guess the might and magic series plays more like it since I think the original kings bounty came out first... I know what can settle this, to the wikipedia!!.................... yeah, it sounds like kings bounty was first) I guess the best way to show it is to just post a vid you can find the games on steam or gog.com for cheap, I would suggest getting kingsbounty the legend and then crossworlds (I think cross worlds includes armored princess which is the 2nd game).

damn you
onto my wishlist thise goes ^^
my wallets gonna die this xmas sale

Thought you might like a heads up, kings bounty the legend is on sale on gog.com for 4 bucks this weekend.
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/king%E2%80%99s_bounty_the_legend

 

[goliath6711]

This is why, as a critic of comic books and manga, I refuse to assign a numbered score. Besides it being unnecessary and prone to undermining a complex opinion, scores can so easily become inflated beyond normal proportions. After all, scores are merely an arbitrary metric for quantifying an opinion a critic has for a particular work. Arbirary and subjective.

There's a critic out there by the name Angry Joe (at Blistered Thumbs, check him out) whose scoring system actually makes 5 out of ten an average game. And that was such a breath of fresh air. It means there can be greater stratas of good, and a Perfect 10/10 (something I don't think he's given yet) is a pretty big deal.

Critics that use scores, you need to put your foot down and start being more critical. And stop handing out 10s like they're coupons for an extra burger with an order of fries and a drink at Whataburger. Tens mean that the game is perfect, and goes well beyond the call of duty when it comes to being a fun, engaging, and enriching experience. If you're going to use a score, make sure it matters.

Angry Joe actually did give Red Dead Redemption a 10/10, but he gave what I consider the best explanation as to why. He said that it wasn't because the game didn't have any flaws, it was that the game as a whole was so great that when the flaws came up, he didn't care about them. And when you think about it, that's really what anyone's take on perfection really is.

 

[goliath6711]

I don't particularly make a habit of watching this guy's videos or trying to give him too much attention, but the headline for this one got to me...

Let me guess, he's bitching about people "reacting negatively" to his awesome reviews, when he is widely known as the ultimate review troll, systematically giving either the highest or the lowest score on the Metacritic scale to try and force "controversy" and get more hits for his page, the latest attempt for this for instance being Battlefield 3 e.g.:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3/critic-reviews?dist=positive

Notice how the entire first page of the comments being mostly his "followers" do nothing else than post pictures of people eating pop-corn and waiting for the "inevitable shitstorm" (which in that case never came, it was more people eloquently discussing the game and telling him why he is wrong and to "sod off" instead)

Some other examples from the past:
"Negative":

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/assassins-creed-ii/critic-reviews?dist=negative
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/kane-lynch-2-dog-days/critic-reviews?dist=negative
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/final-fantasy-xiii/critic-reviews?dist=negative
http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/sonic-colors/critic-reviews?dist=negative

"Positive" e.g. giving games a 100 or similar:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/kirbys-return-to-dreamland/critic-reviews?dist=positive
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/deadly-premonition
http://www.metacritic.com/game/psp/undead-knights/critic-reviews?dist=positive

etc.

Jim Sterling taking a "high horse" on this issue given his obvious "troll/getting hits" reviews and past is as ridiculous as can be, he is probably the last person on the planet that should be allowed to seeing as the only thing he is seeking is attention and respectively more hits/money and doesn't possess a fibre of integrity...

It's only more saddening to see how many people are falling for this based on the Comments...

If you hear a profound statement that you truly believe in and want to use as a mantra to follow in your own life, does it really matter where that statement came from?

Does a statement about having the ability to do something and using that ability responsibly lose its meaning when it came from a comic book about a guy in red and blue tights?

Does judging a person's complete life by examining both the positive and negative aspects to reach an ultimate conclusion not mean anything when it was said on a cartoon about robots that change into animals?

So even if you believe that this is just a ploy to gain attention, does that mean that the point itself about reviews is suddenly invalid?

 

[The Lugz]

i think people really need to get over themselves and realize 10 is a perfectly valid score for a game, so is 5 and 1
AND get over the idea that 10 doesn't necessarily mean 'perfect' but could be
'the best that game could have been'
if you use the same 7-9 score for everything the scale is too small to be expressive.

if i had a rating system i'd go down to the microscopic scale and rate out of 1000
and start at 500 ( average )
so you'd have to actively have more things wrong with your game than right to go below 500.

then add or subtract score depending how the game pleased or annoyed me
for example having quick time events:

let's rate some games on my system for the lols..
( comments beyond this point are for hyperbolic purposes only,
and should be treated as such. )

so, cod,

basically gets 774/1000 ( oh look a 7.7 heh.. )
( crappy net code makes the multi-player a nightmare, rehash of every game before it, but it makes up for it by being well optimised, running smooth graphically and having very good shooting elements and ui ( it's core 'shootery' game-play is good. ))

skyrim basically gets 863/1000
( lost allot due to it's ui, and several bugs / crashes and a few instances of slow sloppy code, and dragon skeletons glitching out and following me around the place.. )
massive world, pretty well optimised and so much content it would take years to fully appreciate it ( and it's pretty, did i mention that? ) plus the modding community is already a buzz theory-crafting whole new game modes, such as dragon mounts, dragon sieges on towns ect.
i hope some of that comes to pass!

rage would be a 362/1000
basically a punt in the wrong direction for bad art, bad gun-play ( it's core mechanic ), terrible graphical optimisation, though it is hd.. when it works.

minecraft would have to be a 946/1000
why?
it's a block building game, and despite a few bugs..( which is why it didn't quite get 950+ ) you build blocks, it also represents extreme value for money entertainment ( it got allot of points for this.. ) wise as you can build almost limitlessly for a reasonable price, and there's multi-player and an enormous modding community to back it up unlimitedly
it's the simplest purest game-play of any category



Two worlds
would simply get 110 points out of 1000 for actually working, and you can play it.. i guess.
and mostly gets marked down for being a blatant and terrible horrid looking, horrid sounding, horrid to use clone of something that was actually quite good.
( perhaps a malformed, evil Satan twin ) of oblivion


you see how my rating system is at-least 20% more awesomer than anyone else's ?
thought so.

 

[ZenoX969]

Yeah... review scores, and reactions to review scores, have hit it's alltime low. I saw a review of Assassin's Creed Revelations on Gametrailers. It got an overall score of 8.8. Which I consider a very high score. And then I see someone in the comments who has the nerve to say "It should've gotten a 9 at least." It's 0.2 points more!! But just because it had an 8 in it, and not a minimum of 9, the review was wrong?

And it's funny how anything below 8 is now considered 'shit'. I've seen many movies that I enjoyed. But the overall score I would give for them would be around 5-7. Because they might be fun to watch now and then, but they're not quality movies. Like Michael Bay movies for example.

But I hope that, as gaming gets older, it will become more serious. Fairer review scores and no longer an outrage when someone gives a game less than a 9. The problem is the kids and fanboys of the games. They're not fit to rate their own favorite games. Because they're perfect 10's to them. And anything below 10 is an insult.

And last but not least... who cares?! If you like the game, enjoy it.

 

[qeinar]

What the reviewer has written about the game to me is more important than the score that is given. The 10/10 thing i sort of noticed in school years ago where when someone were asked to rate something they like they would give it a 10/10, where that has always for me ment that it was perfect. If i rated things i would rarely ever give a 10/10 which should be the proper way to rate something.

 

[Arfreid]

Is it wrong to rewatch this video only to see Jim rage at the end? It's strangely pleasant.

Oh, and Jim made a fine point. Reviews with score needs to be put in a more objective perspective.

Shouldn't the average be like... 5 or something that?

A 5 out of 10 average? Hmmm... no, at least from my perspective that would be a game that is bad, but not that bad. Playable even, but it goes right back to the store/rental the minute you are done with it.

A 6 out of 10 would be average for me, a game that wasn't so good but it can pass as something memmorable, something you would play again.