The argument that a score of 9.6 compared to other Zeldas points to a significant flaw in WW does not logically take into account that fact that the reviews of the each Zelda games have been given by different reviewers.
This fact alone should prove 2 things: any attempt at a comparison between the new Zelda and the old ones should take into consideration the thought that consistency in the review scores is not to be assumed in the first place; and secondly, since it is inferred from the first premise that personal biases are the greatness and the downfall of these so-called reviews, any attempt at measuring the greatness of the game by a rudimentary compilation and calculation of these reviews is a futile attempt at best.
That's part of the reason I frown upon this sort of crude score system of reviews rendered by one reviewer. I think that dialogue and communication amongst critics are the best ways to accurately portray the value of a game. But what do I know, neither Gamespot nor EGM pay me $300k a year to be their editor-in-chief.
__________________
I flame, therefore I am.
|
Threaded Mode
