Neoviper is right. That little box explaining, rather pretentiously, the Gamestm scoring system has become meaningless. It's obvious the scoring has moved more in line with other publications, possibly due to subconscious pressure from metacritic. (by subconscious, I mean a magazine may want it's reviews to carry a weight that that is universally recognised across the board, and move that way naturally).
It's time for that box to be removed. It gives a credence to the scoring that is not upheld by the mag. Most Gamestm readers don't need scores so their importance should be downplayed - kept only for the semi-nonsence of metacritic.
Not so average?
Re: Not so average?
Is it on the Switch?
Re: Not so average?
Hold on, who says that the average scores in a month have to work out as average?
In other words, this month there could be several above average games and a classic that drag the average score FOR THAT ISSUE up. Next month they could review half a dozen rushed and badly bugged games that don't deserve more than 4 and that issue will HAVE A MUCH LOWER AVERAGE.
It took me a while to adjust to the idea that 5 = average in GamesTM. I was used to the old days of ZZAP! where generally a game that scored 75% or more (in other words 7.5) was worth playing, between 60% and 75% there were flaws that might make a game less playable but could still interest someone who likes that type of game, and below 60% was considered poor. In fact I went through a spell where I never bought games that scored less than 80% in ZZAP!. Although I don't buy many new games, I still use GamesTM as a buying guide, but I do tend to stick to games that get 7 and above.
In other words, this month there could be several above average games and a classic that drag the average score FOR THAT ISSUE up. Next month they could review half a dozen rushed and badly bugged games that don't deserve more than 4 and that issue will HAVE A MUCH LOWER AVERAGE.
It took me a while to adjust to the idea that 5 = average in GamesTM. I was used to the old days of ZZAP! where generally a game that scored 75% or more (in other words 7.5) was worth playing, between 60% and 75% there were flaws that might make a game less playable but could still interest someone who likes that type of game, and below 60% was considered poor. In fact I went through a spell where I never bought games that scored less than 80% in ZZAP!. Although I don't buy many new games, I still use GamesTM as a buying guide, but I do tend to stick to games that get 7 and above.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests