They use to, maybe they should go back to that formula.
Regardless of the way GS reviewers judge what deserves a 10/10, its doesn't take away from the fact...
A 10 out of 10 to most, would typically mean something "perfect" or "without fault" nothing "bad" to say.
I don't know about any of you but, I personally have never played, or heard of anything (no matter how minor) that's perfect or without some sort of fault.
It terms of video games or movie/tv shows, there will always be some sort of flaws, whether that be graphical, technical, narratives ect.
If we should "watch this" or "play that" IMO there are better ways to tell us of a "recommendation" than by saying whatever is 10/10
Maybe that's why the decimal formula works better, you can still rate something high, but still acknowledge there is some flaws.
I believe everyone has something they would change, or a problem (again, no matter how small) with their favorite video game, tv series, movie...ect. that they would knock it down a point or two, but didn't ruin the overall experience.
For the reviewer of this particular article, this game (in their opinion) "Some latter chapters aren't as visually interesting"
so maybe a 9.9, 9.8... Just a few decimal points because only a few of the latter chapters aren't "as visually interesting" as the rest (and at least its not the whole game)
I don't know, just my opinion on the whole rating system...
Some sites use decimals, some use stars, it may be me being "too particular"
its just whenever i see a 10/10 i think of "perfect 10" or "flawless" and if a reviewer says something "bad" about whatever their reviewing, than why give it a 10 out of 10?!
Just to convey to us that we should play it?!
Again, that can better be said, than giving something a "perfect" score, Regardless if GS uses the word "essential"
A 10 out of 10 (10/10) is a "perfect" score anywhere else you look.
The only reason I see would be to push their own hardware sells, but if that was the case, why not just come straight out and say they (MS) plan to make CoD exclusive... Throw enough of the MS money at the lawyers (like they've been doing) to fight the appeals, eventually win, than Sony wouldn't get no CoD at all.
MS was trying to make a deal with Sony to keep CoD on PS platforms for the foreseeable future, because it was not only in their best interest to do so, to end the appeals, and finalize the acquisition, but exclusivity on a game as big as CoD would just reduce the revenue MS would make selling it to as many people, and their preferred platform as possible.
Long story short... It wouldn't be in MS best interest to make it more "worst" on ANY one platform.
Especially in the age of, "put it out, take the consumers money first, and half ass fix the issues by way of updates/patches later" attitude, more and more publishers have nowadays.
Gone are the times of putting out a decent product in the first place... so much relying on the internet, pushing out patches, to pull their bacon outta the fryin' pan...
j3DiKNiGHtDAVE's comments