I know it's an increasingly unpopular opinion, but I like review scores. Don't get me wrong, I can see why many people dislike them. Game reviewers and many serious gamers think a review score trivializes the act of game criticism, reduces a complex set of ideas and insights into a kind of caricature or are simply meaningless.
But here's what I like about them: I believe that the most important part of a game is its "x factor". You can talk for pages and pages about a game's framerate, its graphics, its story, its mechanics and other details both big and small. But the quality of a game is often more or less than the sum of its parts. And when I read a critic whose honesty I respect and whose taste I share praise all of a game's individual components but, in the end, scores that game merely on the low side of good, I know the game is probably missing that mysterious something that makes a great game mesmerizing. And, conversely, if a reviewer complains about the bugginess of a game , its framerate, its bad voice-acting and its clunky interface but still ends up give that a game a respectable score (say in the mid eighties or 4 out of 5 stars) I know that game might have that special something that creates a gripping experience. I think it's that moment when the critic steps back from what he or she has written and is forced - even though many would rather not - to give a final score to the game that many of the hard-to-articulate strengths and deficiencies of a game are finally communicated to the reader clearly. And, without this last little piece of revealing information, game reviews are, at least in my opinion, less useful, less interesting and less informative.
But here's what I like about them: I believe that the most important part of a game is its "x factor". You can talk for pages and pages about a game's framerate, its graphics, its story, its mechanics and other details both big and small. But the quality of a game is often more or less than the sum of its parts. And when I read a critic whose honesty I respect and whose taste I share praise all of a game's individual components but, in the end, scores that game merely on the low side of good, I know the game is probably missing that mysterious something that makes a great game mesmerizing. And, conversely, if a reviewer complains about the bugginess of a game , its framerate, its bad voice-acting and its clunky interface but still ends up give that a game a respectable score (say in the mid eighties or 4 out of 5 stars) I know that game might have that special something that creates a gripping experience. I think it's that moment when the critic steps back from what he or she has written and is forced - even though many would rather not - to give a final score to the game that many of the hard-to-articulate strengths and deficiencies of a game are finally communicated to the reader clearly. And, without this last little piece of revealing information, game reviews are, at least in my opinion, less useful, less interesting and less informative.
