@MrNWatson @skelly1331 I wouldn't go that far, even jokingly. There are points to be made on both sides of this argument and this is a complex situation we find ourselves in. Even though this is the internet, I still think it is possible to have an intellectual conversation and not just dissolve into insulting each other.
@philMcCrevis I have three problems with your comment. The first is calling Dark Souls' difficulty a problem. If Dark Souls was not difficult, it would not be as good of a game. The game is all about despair and how near utterly powerless you are in that world, with the key word being near. It is because of this difficulty that beating any boss in that game feels so amazing. Second is more of a problem with the scoring system in general. This system attempts to objectify an experience a game gives us. The problem is is that not all games that are objectively great are fun and not all games that are objectively bad are not fun. So how much trust should we put into a system that does not consistently tell us what games are fun and what games are not fun? Finally, I think your comment on the economy of video games is completely uncalled for. Do you really think a reviewer should take into account how many jobs could be lost for what critical score a game receives? Why don't we just give every game a 10 if we are worried about job loss? Don't get me wrong here, I think it is a messed up practice for gaming companies to layoff workers based on how badly their game sells are. I think the root of this problem is how much money is put into games now a days, rather than how critical reviewers are. p.s. "totally subjective, scientific process..." makes not sense seeing as "subjective" and "scientific" are antonyms.
ZaGodmon's comments