Quote:
Originally Posted by Sides
Exactly. That is the whole point of being a journalist is to give people information about an issue or a product. Reviews are ok, although i don't like them. But to give numberical scores at the end of a review can be misleading, since some people won't bother to read the whole article, and rely on the scoring, and probably some short bulletins, to consider a purchase. I blame it on peoples stupidity.
|
You can't blame the game review scores if people are too lazy to read the entire article. If people are interested in a game enough to make a purchase, I think it is only logical that they would spend a few minutes of their time to read the entire review rather than just half a second to look at the score only.
The reason why a numerical score (or an alphabetical score) is required because there are awards given to the best game every year by most, if not all of the game reviewers. If the game reviewers just write a game review without a score, then the awards at the end of the year would become unnecessary or out of place.
Also that these "awards" tend to encourage more gamers to try out the game in which case that more people are glad that they didn't miss out on a good game and not mentioning that the game company of the awarded game will also earn more profit if more copies of a game is sold. In other words, it is a triple win process!