I can't believe how many times I've seen this sort of comment on the comments section on gaming sites.
Sites that review all games on all platforms are often accused of biased towards a particular console because they rate games higher. This may be the case for some individual reviewers, but I think people are taking things a little too seriously when they think entire gaming sites are corrupted by MS fanboys or whatever.
Recently on a review of Uncharted 2 the game was given 9.3/10 to which someone commented that the game 'looked like it should get a 9.7' to which it was then speculated the reviewer was biased. In what way exactly? It's a very high score. VERY.
I have been a reader of PC Gamer (in the UK) and they have never, NEVER given a game higher than 96%, and games don't make it in to the 90's all that often. The same goes for the US version (although I believe they gave a 98% once). They never receive any whiny complaints. No one ever says they think a game should have gotten 3% more. For the mathematically illiterate, 9.3 = 93%, so when people call for a game to be rated 9.7 instead, they're asking for a 4% difference.
4%. In my books, that doesn't make someone a fanboy. Like at all. And yet there are huge debates on scores about what people that have never played the game think it should get.
Yeah OK, if you'd of played the game and someone had given it a 6 and you thought it deserved a 9, go ahead and DEBATE.
If you haven't played the game, and the difference is minuscule and totally irrelevant, then shut up.
On a side note, does anyone else agree that 100% and 10/10 scores don't exist? No game is perfect, so don't score it so.
Sites that review all games on all platforms are often accused of biased towards a particular console because they rate games higher. This may be the case for some individual reviewers, but I think people are taking things a little too seriously when they think entire gaming sites are corrupted by MS fanboys or whatever.
Recently on a review of Uncharted 2 the game was given 9.3/10 to which someone commented that the game 'looked like it should get a 9.7' to which it was then speculated the reviewer was biased. In what way exactly? It's a very high score. VERY.
I have been a reader of PC Gamer (in the UK) and they have never, NEVER given a game higher than 96%, and games don't make it in to the 90's all that often. The same goes for the US version (although I believe they gave a 98% once). They never receive any whiny complaints. No one ever says they think a game should have gotten 3% more. For the mathematically illiterate, 9.3 = 93%, so when people call for a game to be rated 9.7 instead, they're asking for a 4% difference.
4%. In my books, that doesn't make someone a fanboy. Like at all. And yet there are huge debates on scores about what people that have never played the game think it should get.
Yeah OK, if you'd of played the game and someone had given it a 6 and you thought it deserved a 9, go ahead and DEBATE.
If you haven't played the game, and the difference is minuscule and totally irrelevant, then shut up.
On a side note, does anyone else agree that 100% and 10/10 scores don't exist? No game is perfect, so don't score it so.
will interest you" or some such. Or even, "this game will only appeal to die-hard fans of (z), and even some of the will be disappointed by (list of flaws)." The number of titles that deserve a blanket "must buy" or "avoid at all costs" is actually fairly small these days.