Free-to-play is fundamentally different in comparison to Pay-to-win. The games in question in the articles are not F2P titles.

I just thought your comment was funny because GT's bonus round episode I watched today was talking about the original Xbox's issues. But hey, it's your testimony against theirs.

Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulz

If the console versions sold simultaneously with the PC version, I would have definitely picked it up instead since it's got the upgraded loot system.

Instead now I'll have to wait another quarter for PC to hit parity.

This is an engaging conversation we're having.

Methinks your reasoning of QA doing their jobs properly is more farfetched than mine - a cultural perception when dealing with percentages. Plenty of games have skated by with plenty of game-breaking bugs, non-functional features, or other technical issues when reviewed (Skyrim, D3, SimCity, Pokemon X/Y, to name a few). The scoring trend itself is evident enough, I don't think there's any arguing that, and it's fairly consistent with the grading theory. The fact that you pointed out how games seems to be scored on a curve is pretty revealing; other than academic excellence there's almost nothing that's comparable, and certainly no other creative works is evaluated like this as far as I know. I look forward to a better explanation(s?) as to why games are always rated using a limited portion of any rating scale.

Really, in some sense, people perceives the larger denominations scales into a simplified one. From what's seen in the forums, people won't touch anything below a 50%, 60-70% is ridiculed except for those with strong feelings for the games in question, 80-90% is what most have come to expect as a minimum to warrant purchases, and anything above that are must-buy's.

At the end of the day, I'm not saying percentages isn't viable, it just faces a lot of the same problems large scales also face. You've made a case for it being better than a 10-point ( based solely on the fact that it's more universal), but I don't think you've established that it's better than a 5-point.

Why should a game be judged based upon its predecessor? A good game is a good game is a good game, regardless of its prequel(s). If a series is guilty of being stagnant in its evolution, then it's the reviewers' job to reflect upon that within the review itself. A newcomer to a game series is not going to recognize the significance of a score difference if you don't give it context in the text. The series itself, as a whole, should be reprimanded in its own light on a separate occasion (original journalistic content instead of copy-paste news, imagine that right?).

Percentages doesn't work simply due to how it's so intertwined with the school grading system. There's so much connotation implied within the ranges of numbers that you end up only using a portion of the scale that the public finds "acceptable" (ie. anything above 60%). This is the exact same problem that we see with a 10 point scale and clarifies nothing.

A 5-point scale is simple and elegant: the entire scale has practical applications, every rating is meaningful and distinct from one another, and with personal preference/bias or disagreement with review you can shift 1 rating either way and it'd still make perfect sense.

For example: if a superhero title managed to swing an 'okay' (3/5) because of its licensed content, you can personally knock it down one rating and it's now something that you'd pass on or only as a bargain bin pickup; on the other hand, if you are a pretty avid fan of said superhero license, maybe you'd bump it up 1 rating and it's now something you see yourself buying.

If you're using the 5-point scale then mentally converting to a 10-point scale, then you've completely missed the point.

Stay away - Poor - Okay - Good - Great

Handhelds if it's not trying to break new grounds.

Next-gen if it's doing a revamp.

Don't worry, it comes off as one on the outside too.

Weren't you the one that campaigned for months to be voted the king of this place?