@Doctorchimp: I guess all I'm really getting at is that I just dislike the disconnect they have between how much reviewers in general complain about people pigeonholing review scores, and how everyone should just "read the review," and how far some reviewers go to then make sure they never actually get rid of the review scores. It's a problem they themselves create and they themselves can solve. I understand that in a larger and more mainstream establishment video game site, say IGN or Gamespot, scores may serve well for the passerby type of browser, but Giant Bomb is still a more niche site that maintains a relatively loyal base. People aren't going to ditch the site en masse because they remove scores.
The type of consumer who bases their purchasing decisions on reviews and critical advice is probably the type of consumer willing to dig a little deeper. I just don't think there's a huge amount of room between the informed consumer that reads a lot before a purchase and a consumer that buys without thinking much about critics, and rather just how the game looks. That just feels like a small group of people.
As far as them removing reviews altogether, I definitely think that's the best way to go, to be honest. I question what reviews are even for, at this point, and have for a pretty long time. It's always seemed like an archaic feature for a site that otherwise embraces more of a personality driven and entertainment-based role. Quick Looks are superior purchasing advice, IMO, to a review score. The review scores just seem like a means to stay on metacritic and forum conversations, or as badges of honor to developers and publishers. Scores do more for the score aggregates and developers than they do for the public.
Log in to comment