-Eurogamer 5 / 5
-IGN 9 / 10
-Game Rant 8 / 10
-PC Gamer 86 / 100
-TheGamer 3.5 / 5
-GamesRadar+ 5 / 5
-GameSpot 9 / 10
-Hardcore Gamer 4 / 5
-Eurogamer 5 / 5
-IGN 9 / 10
-Game Rant 8 / 10
-PC Gamer 86 / 100
-TheGamer 3.5 / 5
-GamesRadar+ 5 / 5
-GameSpot 9 / 10
-Hardcore Gamer 4 / 5
Generally speaking there is an inverse relationship between average review scores and the quality of the game. Considering the game is probably going to be another open-world collectathon, I’m going to wait.
I uh… what? I mean, sure, some reviews are bought etc but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a superb game average 1/10 in reviews. Did I misunderstand you?
Reviewers almost never give 1/10, the lowest I’ve seen recently is 5/10. And anything below 8 should be seen as the reviewer not liking it.
Of course, but if a game’s quality was typically inversely proportional to the review scores, wouldn’t that mean 10/10 reviewed stuff like Elden Ring and BG3 was garbage and the truly great games averaged 1-3/10? I’m just confused by the statement.
Look past enemy and look at the sentiment: scores from big name reviewers aren’t a good metric for whether you’ll like a game. Statements don’t all need to be taken literally.
There’s a big difference between “not correlated” and “inversely related” though. The latter is very deliberately saying that good scores are a bad thing.