Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ninth
By the way, seeing Runaway get a higher grade than all these games shows the weakness of the grading system, in my opinion. Not that I've ever seen a good rating system, mind you, and this one is better than most, anyway.
|
How so? It really just reflects the subjective nature of reviewing. The review would still be glowing (and therefore hotly disputed) without the score attached. All the score does is show the overall impression at a glance.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I don't know what you mean by "wrong ideas", but there are several major problems with re-evaluating grades.
The biggest one is that a review score is inseparable from the review. It's a reflection of the writer's experience of the game. There's absolutely no way we'd unilaterally edit a score, as then it wouldn't fit the review, so the only person capable of re-evaluating a grade would be the actual writer.
Assuming a writer was willing and available to re-evaluate one, that would still require an entire replay, as trusting to memory is no way to "evaluate" something. And even then, that raises issues, like the "comparing to new games" problem listed above, or experience being improved/worsened by nature of being a replay, etc. So I'm not sure that idea doesn't create more problems than it might solve.
Now, what we might consider doing is entirely re-evaluating a GAME at some point in time with a whole different review (we've done this already), but there'd have to be a pretty strong motivation to do that, rather than just going ahead and reviewing the other games that have no review at all.
