Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ninth
Didn't you ever consider a periodic (annual or something) re-evaluation of grades? I know it depends on various authors and it's difficult, etc... but as such it gives some wrong ideas.
|
Surely if you made annual reviews of ratings you'd be judging them against games that came later. Wouldn't this be unfair if a game was successful for an innovation that helped create later (better) games of the same type? Games that wouldn't have existed without the original innovation proving it could be done.
I don't have a beef with any review scores. A review is always going to be someone's personal opinion. If I read the review and I find the things they've marked a game down for are things that I don't mind then I'll mentally mark it up. Likewise if the reviewer raves about things I can't stand then I'll mentally mark it down. The text is always more important which is why I like the detail that AG reviews usually go for.
