Im still somewhat perplexed why people dislike the new system simply because the ratings are "like every other site" as well as some of the other reasons people dislike the new system. GS might now have a rating system similar to countless other sites but that shouldnt matter, the actual review should. If you dont like the actual review you probably wouldnt like the score and if you cant find the time to read a 3 minute review how can you even find time to play a game. Some believe that the new scores are less precious and can actually be more arbitary but I still cant agree with that. If a movie is great then I'll give it that score, if its not then I wont. Doesnt seem that arbitrary to me.
Movie reviews have all the elements people are complaining about
- no quick reviews
- no subcategories
- some elements are more important than others depending on the genre
- huge percentage of siteshave the same rating system
- smaller overall scale. 9 for the 4 stars and 11 for 5 stars
yet somehow people still read them and decides whether it warrants a viewing. Despite all of these so called problems countless people still look to Ebert for reviews and he didnt need a special rating scheme. It was his high quality reviews that drew people to his website and tv show. I thought GS was respected amongst the video game community because of their reviews and opinions and not somesilly scoring system but I guess I was wrong. If you leave because of the rating change why were you even checking reviews in the first place because it would appear that you dislike the actual review, and isnt the score just an extention of the review? In the end you have to read reviews that share opinions similar to yours.
Log in to comment