In that case, we have the same number of Final Fantasy games. I also bought them without checking any reviews. :)

Why does that require a score? They could just decide out of the top games which one deserves the award based on their qualities.

There had always been a score system. Its nothing new.. More over, most game reviewers would like to give a score to the game they rate; otherwise there wouldn't even be a point in writing a review in the first place.

As far as online sites go, I kind of like Kotaku's review system.

They don't provide a score, and instead they simply talk about the game and conclude by listing down what they "loved" and "hated" about it.

I guess it's really the same thing... but let's admit it, some people either skim down to find a number or are too focused on the score itself.

Personally, I find previews and reviews (with scores or otherwise) helpful as I like to research about a game before buying it. I can't always make an impulsive purchase, nor do I always have the mood to play a demo.

I agree with you, the main problem with score system, it's that many people just focus on the score and forget to read the review. It's sad because the most important thing is the review not the score. Another problem with the score system, is that sometimes, the score don't fit the review and in the end, it leads to big debate :heh:

This is not a good argument for having one.
Which is, of course, bullshit.

A lot of game reviewers are actually hesitant to allocate a score to their reviews.

The only reason why they HAVE to include a score, is so that their site gets put up onto Metacritic.com, gamerankings.com and other aggregation sites which equals more exposure.

I consider IGN the most villainous of the lot. Their style is too corporate. For a big company, they have to be I suppose.

What do you mean by that ? Their style is too academic ?