I've been listening to a lot of game review pod casts. It seems there's a reoccurring disconnect between game reviewers and game players.
Game reviewers obviously focus on game quality as #1, and that's to be expected.
Game reviewers often have to review a lot of games. They are looking to get the game finished, or mostly finished, get their game experience in and move on to the next thing quickly. For better or worse, they almost always judge games based on quality and unless it horrifically short or painfully long, they ignore game length. Long game length is a detriment for them, as it takes of more of their limited time they need to review other games.
But many gamers can't afford many games, and they've got to get a lot of mileage out of the few games they can afford. So game length can be a very valuable concept. Not to say game length reins supreme over all gamers, but for many of us, getting the most out of our money is a big factor. And although a 5 hour game that is a clean presentation, that is amazingly well conceived and almost perfect in every other way is going to be a failure in a gamer's eyes, because they're in need of a 40+ hour campaign and hopefully with some long hours of satisfying multiplayer action on top of that.
Another disconnect is price. Most reviewers don't have to pay for games, so they relationship of experience vs cost is a little bit lost on them. But as above, for many gamers cost is a very real and pressing concern. At the same time, I don't think reviewers hold downloadable $10 games to the same set of standards as a $60 AAA title, but at the same time, they reality of only affording a certain amount of games is lost on them. But also many games hit the $20 bin within a year. Is the game now 3X as good cause it dropped from $60 to $20? Probably not, cause the multiplayer crowd has probably moved on, and if you're getting the game over a year after everyone else, they've all moved on, and you're left out of the conversation, damaging your experience, if for you, part of the experience is discussing the game with other players. So I think it's fair that they have different assumptions for what the release day sticker price is, but ignore future deals and price drops. So I don't think you can judge a $60 game, a $40, and a $10-15 game by the same principles.
What do you guys think about how games are reviewed? Should game length and cost be a factor? If so, how important should they be?
Taking into account Quality, Cost, and Game Length in Reviews
I've been listening to a lot of game review pod casts. It seems there's a reoccurring disconnect between game reviewers and game players.
Game reviewers obviously focus on game quality as #1, and that's to be expected.
Game reviewers often have to review a lot of games. They are looking to get the game finished, or mostly finished, get their game experience in and move on to the next thing quickly. For better or worse, they almost always judge games based on quality and unless it horrifically short or painfully long, they ignore game length. Long game length is a detriment for them, as it takes of more of their limited time they need to review other games.
But many gamers can't afford many games, and they've got to get a lot of mileage out of the few games they can afford. So game length can be a very valuable concept. Not to say game length reins supreme over all gamers, but for many of us, getting the most out of our money is a big factor. And although a 5 hour game that is a clean presentation, that is amazingly well conceived and almost perfect in every other way is going to be a failure in a gamer's eyes, because they're in need of a 40+ hour campaign and hopefully with some long hours of satisfying multiplayer action on top of that.
Another disconnect is price. Most reviewers don't have to pay for games, so they relationship of experience vs cost is a little bit lost on them. But as above, for many gamers cost is a very real and pressing concern. At the same time, I don't think reviewers hold downloadable $10 games to the same set of standards as a $60 AAA title, but at the same time, they reality of only affording a certain amount of games is lost on them. But also many games hit the $20 bin within a year. Is the game now 3X as good cause it dropped from $60 to $20? Probably not, cause the multiplayer crowd has probably moved on, and if you're getting the game over a year after everyone else, they've all moved on, and you're left out of the conversation, damaging your experience, if for you, part of the experience is discussing the game with other players. So I think it's fair that they have different assumptions for what the release day sticker price is, but ignore future deals and price drops. So I don't think you can judge a $60 game, a $40, and a $10-15 game by the same principles.
What do you guys think about how games are reviewed? Should game length and cost be a factor? If so, how important should they be?
Personally, I am one of those people that game length is a big factor. It's not necessarily that I can't afford a lot of games or anything, but I want to be able to sink a lot of time into a game. If I were to pick out my top five games of the last 5 years or something, they would all be games that I know I've put at least 50 hours into. But, that's just how *I* am. That doesn't mean other people feel the same way. Some people are perfectly happy with a 5 hour single player campaign because they know they'll get hours and hours out of the multiplayer. But they're still getting hours out of that game. I guess, overall, I think that the amount of time you can sink into a game is really high up there for me. And if the game is short, its replayability is up there.
I can't remember the last time I cared if a game was long or short. Usuallly if it's a well-made game, I'll play through it multiple times anyway.
But most reviewers seem to be competent enough to inform the readers whether the game is short or not, and whether that's a good or a bad thing. At least from their perspective.
Game length is a big thing for me too, but the game doesn't have to be 40+ hours!
Games with at least 10 hours gameplay are vital, imo, though by no means does that mean I don't play shorter games like Vanquish, it's just that I won't purchase them, and thus only rent them, reserving purchases for those titles that have more than 10 hours in them.
I don't really care about length, I replay games quite a bit so I never get under 15-20 hours out of a game even if its only single player and/or 5-7 hours in length.
Reviewers should concern themselves exclusively with making a qualitative judgement, not a value judgement. The reviewer doesn't know the first thing about the financial situation of the reader, and therefore -once armed with the judgement on quality- the reader is always in a better position to make the value judgement for themselves.
Cost can be worth mentioning if it's unusually expensive or cheap (it's just useful to pass that information on to the reader), but it shouldn't be a factor in the score or the tone of the review. For a start you don't know when the reader will be reading the review or what the game price may be at that time, but mostly because a game doesn't become a better or worse game just because the price has changed. Black Ops is still Black Ops whether you buy it for $10 or $60.
Game Length is similar -in that it can be worth giving that information to the reader- but it shouldn't necessarily be a factor in determining the score or tone of the review. It can be a factor if it has an impact on the quality of the game (ie. the game feels too rushed or feels padded), but there is no direct correlation between Game Length and Game Quality, and reviews should concern themselves exclusively with game quality.
In short: Review the game, not the purchase.
Money is a concern for me, but if there is a game that I really think is worth a full retail price, than I will go out and get it. If the experience warrants it, I'll dish out the extra money to get something that I'm going to love.
" Reviewers should concern themselves exclusively with making a qualitative judgement, not a value judgement. The reviewer doesn't know the first thing about the financial situation of the reader, and therefore -once armed with the judgement on quality- the reader is always in a better position to make the value judgement for themselves.
Cost can be worth mentioning if it's unusually expensive or cheap (it's just useful to pass that information on to the reader), but it shouldn't be a factor in the score or the tone of the review. For a start you don't know when the reader will be reading the review or what the game price may be at that time, but mostly because a game doesn't become a better or worse game just because the price has changed. Black Ops is still Black Ops whether you buy it for $10 or $60.
Game Length is similar -in that it can be worth giving that information to the reader- but it shouldn't necessarily be a factor in determining the score or tone of the review. It can be a factor if it has an impact on the quality of the game (ie. the game feels too rushed or feels padded), but there is no direct correlation between Game Length and Game Quality, and reviews should concern themselves exclusively with game quality. In short: Review the game, not the purchase. "
For cost - do you think $10 games should be held to the same standards as $60 games then? How about Indie games? Because I would imagine across the board all lower production games would get much lower scores than higher production ones.
I'd agree with you on game length - unless the game feels like it was incomplete, like it was clearly meant to be 30 hrs, but they cut it to 20 because they ran out of resources.
"For cost - do you think $10 games should be held to the same standards as $60 games then? How about Indie games? Because I would imagine across the board all lower production games would get much lower scores than higher production ones. I'd agree with you on game length - unless the game feels like it was incomplete, like it was clearly meant to be 30 hrs, but they cut it to 20 because they ran out of resources. "I do think they should be held to the same standards tbh, because all I really want to learn from a review is whether a game is worth playing or not. If a game is bad then I don't want to play it at any price. If a game is good then I want to play it. Whether or not the price prevents me from doing so is a seperate issue, and that's something I can decide for myself better than a reviewer can.
Generally speaking, you would expect higher production games to be better than lower production games, and I have no problem with the review scores reflecting that. That isn't to say that will always be the case though - games like Braid and Shadow Complex don't need any pity points or caveats in order to be considered 5 star games. (A lower budget will also allow a developer to pitch a game at a less competitive / more niche section of the market, where it ought to be easier to achieve good review scores due to lower production standards).
Let's say Portal 1 had come out exactly as it is but as a stand-alone retail product and priced at $60. What score does that game get? In my opinion, a game reviewer's task (at least when they have their Game Reviewer Hat on) starts and stops with reviewing the game itself, so it remains a 5 star game. Whether or not it's still a 5 star purchase at that length/price is something the reader ought to be able to figure out for themselves.
for a new game i just assume that the game is short. this generation the games seem to take only be about 8 hours or so long. it is just kind of to short. i think that 15 hour game is the perfect amount of time for a game. i do think that they should put some kind of remark on how long the game is and how much it cost. it doesn't necessarily have to be in the review paragraph just somewhere.
" @Dizazter said:
I do think they should be held to the same standards tbh, because all I really want to learn from a review is whether a game is worth playing or not. If a game is bad then I don't want to play it at any price. If a game is good then I want to play it. Whether or not the price prevents me from doing so is a seperate issue, and that's something I can decide for myself better than a reviewer can.
Generally speaking, you would expect higher production games to be better than lower production games, and I have no problem with the review scores reflecting that. That isn't to say that will always be the case though - games like Braid and Shadow Complex don't need any pity points or caveats in order to be considered 5 star games. (A lower budget will also allow a developer to pitch a game at a less competitive / more niche section of the market, where it ought to be easier to achieve good review scores due to lower production standards).
Let's say Portal 1 had come out exactly as it is but as a stand-alone retail product and priced at $60. What score does that game get? In my opinion, a game reviewer's task (at least when they have their Game Reviewer Hat on) starts and stops with reviewing the game itself, so it remains a 5 star game. Whether or not it's still a 5 star purchase at that length/price is something the reader ought to be able to figure out for themselves. "
I see what you're saying but I disagree. Ideologically what you're saying (game cost/production should be ignored) makes perfect sense. But I think in the reality of game production, it does not. I understand about "value" (entertainment vs cost) being a judgment for the consumer to make. What I am more aware of is the realistic production differences between a low cost game and a high production game. Judging them the same way doesn't make sense to me. And honestly, I think every game reviewer, consciously or unconsciously takes this into account on some level. I think if reviewers were to review games as you suggest, ALL lower production games would get much lower scores.
But hold on, I think you agree with me on this:
"it ought to be easier to achieve good review scores due to lower production standards"
(High reviews as production standards are taken into account)
See I think the reality is that our judgement of games is comparative. We're unconsciously comparing new games to older games. As games advance, people's expectations advance. Why have their expectations changed? Because of previous games.
Expectations for a $60 SHOULD be different than expectations for a $15 game. To me - that's just reality.
So to me, using the same set of standard for a $60 MSRP game to a $15 MSRP game, is like saying a $15,000 car should be held to the same standards as a $60,000. OF COURSE the $60,000 car will be higher quality, will have more advanced electronics, handle better, have more features, hold its value longer, etc etc.... It cost 4 times as much!!! It would be a pretty miserable and complete failure if a $60k car was not as good as $15k car right? So to me a game needs to be judged compared to other games in it's general price point. But that it should only be based on it's release day price, not any future price changes.
Sorry, I didn't word that very well. By that I meant lower industry standards (as in, how high the bar is set) for that specific part of the market. For instance, production standards (dollars thrown at visual, audio, polish etc.) are extremely high in the FPS genre, but not very high in, say, the Adventure genre. Due to the market conditions, an indie developer would have a substantially easier time receiving a good review with a budget Adventure game than with a budget FPS game."But hold on, I think you agree with me on this: "it ought to be easier to achieve good review scores due to lower production standards" (High reviews as production standards are taken into account)..."
I agree that what constitutes a 5 star game changes over time, but I'm not really talking about old vs. new. That again is something the reader can take into account for themselves - if you're reading a 2006 review then you expect the game to be reviewed by '06 market standards and you can allow for it yourself.
I don't think the car analogy really stacks up, for a lot of reasons: It's a much more important financial decision, it's an inherently valuable physical object rather than a copy of software and because there's a much stronger correlation between quality and price in new cars than there is in games. It goes without saying that the $60k car is better than the $15k cars, so they can concentrate mainly on comparing it to the closest competitors. This is not the case with games - there are plenty of budget games that are straight up better games than a lot of $60 games. I would choose to spend my time playing Braid, Limbo, Shadow Complex, BK: Nuts & Bolts etc. over the vast majority of $60 titles - not because they're cheaper, but because they're better games. Currently with budget games (also Wii games for that matter) I often find it difficult figuring out whether a reviewer actually means "This is a good game." or merely "This is a good game.... for $15". I suspect if I knew for sure that games were being judged on a level playing field then I'd end up playing a lot more budget games than I currently do.
I don't think low budget / low sale price games would necessarily take the hammering in this system that you might expect them to, but even if some of them can't compete directly with the AAA titles in their respective genres, the reader can still take into account the fact that it's cheaper, assigning as much importance to that fact as is appropriate for their personal circumstances.
Fundamentally this comes down to whether you want a reviewer to be asking themselves "Is this game worth my reader's time?" or "Is this game worth my reader's money?". I suspect this largely depends on whichever you personally happen to be more constrained by -free time or discretionary income- but I still feel that if the reviewer answers the former then the reader should always be able to answer the latter.
This is part of why I get a lot of RPG's. There's just straight up more to do with them. But the '5 hour' games that I do have also come with a substantial multiplayer component, which is a significant balancing factor. 50 hours of my own time, or a relatively equal or greater amount of playtime with friends, it usually works out in the end.
" I like diversity. Short and long are both good with me. "That's what she said.
Game length should be a factor, as it's connected to quality -- a game can be too short or too long for its own good. The price, though? Never. A groundbreaking, mind-blowing game that costs a million dollars is still a groundbreaking, mind-blowing game, and a shit game that's free is still a shit game.
I used to buy a lot of games. Now I resulted to renting and buying games that have decent multiplayer. I rarely replay a game.
$59.99 is pretty high for a lot of games being released.
" Game length should be a factor, as it's connected to quality -- a game can be too short or too long for its own good. The price, though? Never. A groundbreaking, mind-blowing game that costs a million dollars is still a groundbreaking, mind-blowing game, and a shit game that's free is still a shit game. "Right, but shouldn't a million dollar game be compared to other million dollar games, and free games be compared to other free games, instead of having million dollar games and free games compared to each other? To me its like judging professional basketball players and grade school basket ball players by the same set of criteria. Clearly across the board ALL grade school players will be substantially less good than all professional players. Why not judge grade school players by the standard performance of other grade school players?
The term "groundbreaking" is clearly comparing the game to other existing games. And so you're saying it's groundbreaking compared to $60 games? Well it DAMN well better be a hell of a lot more than just "groundbreaking" if it costs 16,667 times as much!
" I used to buy a lot of games. Now I resulted to renting and buying games that have decent multiplayer. I rarely replay a game. $59.99 is pretty high for a lot of games being released. "OMG you're totally robbing the industry of it's hard earned revenue!!!! (kidding!)
Actually $60 is cheap when you take into account inflation.
NES games cost $50 in the 80s - that's over $100 by today's dollar!
A lot of games shouldn't be priced at $60, though. Remember Rogue Warrior? Yeah, definitely not worth $60." @Axxol said:
" I used to buy a lot of games. Now I resulted to renting and buying games that have decent multiplayer. I rarely replay a game. $59.99 is pretty high for a lot of games being released. "OMG you're totally robbing the industry of it's hard earned revenue!!!! (kidding!) Actually $60 is cheap when you take into account inflation. NES games cost $50 in the 80s - that's over $100 by today's dollar! "
" @Dizazter said:The perfect budget game that comes to mind is NFL 25K. That game was $20 and arguably better than Madden which retailed for $50.Sorry, I didn't word that very well. By that I meant lower industry standards (as in, how high the bar is set) for that specific part of the market. For instance, production standards (dollars thrown at visual, audio, polish etc.) are extremely high in the FPS genre, but not very high in, say, the Adventure genre. Due to the market conditions, an indie developer would have a substantially easier time receiving a good review with a budget Adventure game than with a budget FPS game."But hold on, I think you agree with me on this: "it ought to be easier to achieve good review scores due to lower production standards" (High reviews as production standards are taken into account)..."
I agree that what constitutes a 5 star game changes over time, but I'm not really talking about old vs. new. That again is something the reader can take into account for themselves - if you're reading a 2006 review then you expect the game to be reviewed by '06 market standards and you can allow for it yourself.
I don't think the car analogy really stacks up, for a lot of reasons: It's a much more important financial decision, it's an inherently valuable physical object rather than a copy of software and because there's a much stronger correlation between quality and price in new cars than there is in games. It goes without saying that the $60k car is better than the $15k cars, so they can concentrate mainly on comparing it to the closest competitors. This is not the case with games - there are plenty of budget games that are straight up better games than a lot of $60 games. I would choose to spend my time playing Braid, Limbo, Shadow Complex, BK: Nuts & Bolts etc. over the vast majority of $60 titles - not because they're cheaper, but because they're better games. Currently with budget games (also Wii games for that matter) I often find it difficult figuring out whether a reviewer actually means "This is a good game." or merely "This is a good game.... for $15". I suspect if I knew for sure that games were being judged on a level playing field then I'd end up playing a lot more budget games than I currently do.
I don't think low budget / low sale price games would necessarily take the hammering in this system that you might expect them to, but even if some of them can't compete directly with the AAA titles in their respective genres, the reader can still take into account the fact that it's cheaper, assigning as much importance to that fact as is appropriate for their personal circumstances.
Fundamentally this comes down to whether you want a reviewer to be asking themselves "Is this game worth my reader's time?" or "Is this game worth my reader's money?". I suspect this largely depends on whichever you personally happen to be more constrained by -free time or discretionary income- but I still feel that if the reviewer answers the former then the reader should always be able to answer the latter. "
" @Dizazter said:Agreed, not all $60 games are....$60 games. But that's kinda my point.A lot of games shouldn't be priced at $60, though. Remember Rogue Warrior? Yeah, definitely not worth $60. "" @Axxol said:
" I used to buy a lot of games. Now I resulted to renting and buying games that have decent multiplayer. I rarely replay a game. $59.99 is pretty high for a lot of games being released. "OMG you're totally robbing the industry of it's hard earned revenue!!!! (kidding!) Actually $60 is cheap when you take into account inflation. NES games cost $50 in the 80s - that's over $100 by today's dollar! "
I completely disagree. I think games should be judged on how good of a game they are. Length is irrelevant. That being said my opinion on reviews seems to be out of touch with the average video-game website goer. Personally I never read Giant Bomb reviews, because I find them completely boring. I get more out of the podcasts. And I really like Tim Rogers' stuff.
" @Jimbo said:Maybe quoting wasn't a good choice there man. :)
The perfect budget game that comes to mind is NFL 25K. That game was $20 and arguably better than Madden which retailed for $50. "
But yeah, to me if a $50 game is worse than a $20, it is a critical failure.
" @Icemael said:The answer is no, for a variety of reasons. One of them: video game prices change depending on time and location. Imagine a critic who's been tasked to review a game both for an American publication, and a Northern European one -- if price was a factor, he'd have to lower the score for the European publication, since games cost more there. So you'd end up with the exact same review, only in America the score would be perhaps an 8, and in Europe perhaps a 6. And what if Best Buy has a special offer? Then the American review would need two scores: a 9 or a 10 for the Best Buy version, and an 8 for all the other ones. And maybe there's a European store that charges extra -- then he'd have to add an alternate score in that review too, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. And we haven't even considered the price drops that happen over time. Suddenly we end up with shitty shovelware for the original PlayStation getting 9s and 10s because you can get it for like one or two bucks on Ebay." Game length should be a factor, as it's connected to quality -- a game can be too short or too long for its own good. The price, though? Never. A groundbreaking, mind-blowing game that costs a million dollars is still a groundbreaking, mind-blowing game, and a shit game that's free is still a shit game. "Right, but shouldn't a million dollar game be compared to other million dollar games, and free games be compared to other free games, instead of having million dollar games and free games compared to each other? To me its like judging professional basketball players and grade school basket ball players by the same set of criteria. Clearly across the board ALL grade school players will be substantially less good than all professional players. Why not judge grade school players by the standard performance of other grade school players? The term "groundbreaking" is clearly comparing the game to other existing games. And so you're saying it's groundbreaking compared to $60 games? Well it DAMN well better be a hell of a lot more than just "groundbreaking" if it costs 16,667 times as much! "
See how ridiculous this is?
All I want to know from the reviewer is if the game is good, what it's qualities are and if they liked it or not. I should be the one to worry about about length and money, not them.
I really don't think the length of a game nor the cost should be relevant to a review. If the reviewer says "it's not worth the money", then that speaks to the quality of the game, not the actual cost of the product.
" @Dizazter said:
Sorry, I didn't word that very well. By that I meant lower industry standards (as in, how high the bar is set) for that specific part of the market. For instance, production standards (dollars thrown at visual, audio, polish etc.) are extremely high in the FPS genre, but not very high in, say, the Adventure genre. Due to the market conditions, an indie developer would have a substantially easier time receiving a good review with a budget Adventure game than with a budget FPS game."But hold on, I think you agree with me on this: "it ought to be easier to achieve good review scores due to lower production standards" (High reviews as production standards are taken into account)..."
I agree that what constitutes a 5 star game changes over time, but I'm not really talking about old vs. new. That again is something the reader can take into account for themselves - if you're reading a 2006 review then you expect the game to be reviewed by '06 market standards and you can allow for it yourself.
I don't think the car analogy really stacks up, for a lot of reasons: It's a much more important financial decision, it's an inherently valuable physical object rather than a copy of software and because there's a much stronger correlation between quality and price in new cars than there is in games. It goes without saying that the $60k car is better than the $15k cars, so they can concentrate mainly on comparing it to the closest competitors. This is not the case with games - there are plenty of budget games that are straight up better games than a lot of $60 games. I would choose to spend my time playing Braid, Limbo, Shadow Complex, BK: Nuts & Bolts etc. over the vast majority of $60 titles - not because they're cheaper, but because they're better games. Currently with budget games (also Wii games for that matter) I often find it difficult figuring out whether a reviewer actually means "This is a good game." or merely "This is a good game.... for $15". I suspect if I knew for sure that games were being judged on a level playing field then I'd end up playing a lot more budget games than I currently do.
I don't think low budget / low sale price games would necessarily take the hammering in this system that you might expect them to, but even if some of them can't compete directly with the AAA titles in their respective genres, the reader can still take into account the fact that it's cheaper, assigning as much importance to that fact as is appropriate for their personal circumstances.
Fundamentally this comes down to whether you want a reviewer to be asking themselves "Is this game worth my reader's time?" or "Is this game worth my reader's money?". I suspect this largely depends on whichever you personally happen to be more constrained by -free time or discretionary income- but I still feel that if the reviewer answers the former then the reader should always be able to answer the latter. "
Very well said. And I half agree with you. In an ideal world, we judge all games by the same standards, and let the reader decide on their own about price value and game length. But I think the reality is that those factors still effect reviewers, and some readers do want answers to those questions.
I think big part of what I'm homing in on is this:
' I often find it difficult figuring out whether a reviewer actually means "This is a good game." or merely "This is a good game.... for $15". '
I think subconsciously reviewers do take cost into account, well more specifically, production level. I think they do actually judge high production games by one set of standards, and low production ones by another, they're just not up front about it, or aren't aware they're doing it. And like you said, there's often this subtly implied "This is a good game for $XX" or "This isn't a good game for $XX".
I think price is a function of market forces (or should be) and review scores should be a function of quality. I don't think length is as much of an issue- as in a quality game that's short will merit multiple playthroughs. (and vice versa)
Example- I liked Wet, but it wasn't the greatest quality game- quality was actually pretty low in certain spots. If the game was of a higher quality I would have made it through my second playthough. As such, I did not. So it was a short game- but no strikes against it for that. Strikes against it for being a game that did not have very high quality.
Price-wise, markets should determine that. I don't think review scores should take that into account, either to handicap cheaper games for the lower revenue stream or to penalize expensive games by holding them to a higher standard.
@LordAssinhiemr: makes an excellent point about the 2K nfl games. If they hadn't come out and hadn't sold at the price they did, EA may never have locked up that whole exclusive NFL thing. Those games were good, and cheap. 2K did that with all their sports games for a while- and at a time when they put effort into making a better product. But if those $20 sports games weren't quality products (read as good as the EA counterparts), they should have gotten low scores (and crappy comparisons) on virtue of the quality, no handicap given to the games being $40 cheaper than their EA counterparts.
Those games came out when I was big into Hockey games- and the 2K games were cheaper and better than the EA games. So I bought the 2K games. At the time, I was younger and money was more of an issue and I probably would have gone without if the EA games were good and the 2K games were crappy. That would be market forces determining my actions as a buyer. Now if review scores took that into account and the 2K games were sucky, but scored better (I was a relatively uninformed consumer at the time, making purchases based on review scores) that would have sucked. So I think quality should be the number one consideration in giving review scores.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment