Why people are mad when GS doesn't give their game 9/10

#1 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

The majority of people only buy a handful of games per year because they have limited time and money. Whereas critics play like 20+ games in a given year.

So most gamers say "Wow, this is an amazing game! I've never experienced anything like this! 9/10! 10/10!"

Then GS critic says "This is a cool game but I've played lots of games like it. 7 or 8"

#2 Posted by lostrib (34582 posts) -

why do you continue to make awful threads

#3 Edited by Ackad (3159 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

The majority of people only buy a handful of games per year because they have limited time and money. Whereas critics play like 20+ games in a given year.

So most gamers say "Wow, this is an amazing game! I've never experienced anything like this! 9/10! 10/10!"

Then GS critic says "This is a cool game but I've played lots of games like it. 7 or 8"

Majority of people? Also, limited time and money rather points to the contrary, don't you think?

#4 Posted by SwagSurf (3016 posts) -

@Ackad said:

@drekula2 said:

The majority of people only buy a handful of games per year because they have limited time and money. Whereas critics play like 20+ games in a given year.

So most gamers say "Wow, this is an amazing game! I've never experienced anything like this! 9/10! 10/10!"

Then GS critic says "This is a cool game but I've played lots of games like it. 7 or 8"

Majority of people? Also, limited time and money rather points to the contrary, don't you think?

Was thinking the same thing. Op, stop making threads. Please.

#5 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

will continue to make more and more and more threads. more threads than a tailor, son.

#6 Posted by inb4uall (5358 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

will continue to make more and more and more threads. more threads than a tailor, son.

inb4 you get banned. lel, won't miss you.

#7 Posted by XenogearsMaster (3099 posts) -
@drekula2 said:

The majority of people only buy a handful of games per year because they have limited time and money. Whereas critics play like 20+ games in a given year.

So most gamers say "Wow, this is an amazing game! I've never experienced anything like this! 9/10! 10/10!"

Then GS critic says "This is a cool game but I've played lots of games like it. 7 or 8"

Makes kind of sense but that's just one possibility.

#8 Edited by bulby_g (1049 posts) -

I've always thought critics should be harsher with scores so it's good to see it going that way a bit. The majority of games are average so we should see a lot more around the 5 mark and it shouldn't even be considered a really terrible score.

#9 Posted by always_explicit (2715 posts) -

Having limited time and money to play games does not devalue your ability to accurately express your opinion on how good they are out of 10.

Whilst I enjoy reading reviews and respect most of their opinions I dont consider their opinion to be more valuable than my own or anyone elses.

I had much more time and money to spend on games when I was a teenager without kids. I resent the concept that because now I have a family and other financial commitments my ability to review a game is somehow less valued than a spotty teenager with 10 weeks off a year from school.

I dont have a degree in art history, nor am I wealthy enough to own a Rembrandt, but I still have eyes and the capacity to enjoy art and rate it on a numbered scale.

#10 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150355 posts) -

@bulby_g said:

I've always thought critics should be harsher with scores so it's good to see it going that way a bit. The majority of games are average so we should see a lot more around the 5 mark and it shouldn't even be considered a really terrible score.

You really need a score that much?

#11 Edited by bulby_g (1049 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: Not really, I play any game I fancy the look of. If they're going to use a scoring system though them may as well make it true/useful (which it isn't at present). I don't believe for a minute that critics find nearly every game above average as the scores would suggest.

#12 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (6162 posts) -

My game got a 9/10 so I wasn't mad.

#13 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6389 posts) -

Blame it on the hype trains. The Hyperbole swallowed up by the naive in order to buy thier games, so getting tols that "this is going to be the NeXT big thing, this is going to be the shizzle!" the consumer naturally might feel betrayied by a site that dismisses that belief (especially since we do have a fair bit of gamers, WHO rivals religious fanatics).

The notion about reviewers review alot of games and Thus the impact is lessened, is a fairly good point aswell.

And lastly: reviewers needs to be more strict with scores, or abandom them entirely, there is a 10 point scale, yet we keep seeing games get placed in the upper range, despite Glaring flaws.

Ironically GS is not as bad as other sites, but still. Time to reign in those scores lads! A 9 should only be given out to games that are exceptionally crafted and with the ability to shape the future of genre and industry. A 10 would be a bloody high mark of gaming if there ever was one, so pretty much no flaw should be accepted, nor should poor texturework, soundwork, or the like.

#14 Posted by Evo_nine (1648 posts) -

because cow.

#15 Edited by MonsieurX (29553 posts) -

You can go back to where you were without creating any threads