You might want to rephrase the "3.5 to 4" statements in this page
http://www.adventuregamers.com/scoringsystem.php
I enjoy your site for its ratings but I believe you are very generous with the "3.5 to 4" phrasing on the 4 stars, maybe it has to be only for 4 stars and let people derive that 3.5 is just something between 3 and 4. The reason for this is that I consistently see the games that you rate with 3.5 to be ..almost mediocre. They are ..good-ish, but really you can see the flaws easily. For example, the first Back to the Future I just played was 3.5. It wasn't completely bad but I could see major flaws mainly in its monolithic gameplay, shallow story and even "just ok" characters. I would definitely not recommend it to "anyone without hesitation" (which is what "3.5 to 4" states). I would put it closer to 3 or at least slightly better. --- Actually BTTFuture 1 was rated 4 which means I disagree with your rating but I guess the above statement remains but I guess ignore the BTTF reference. |
Quote:
So, yeah, "mediocre" or "mode (average)", "middling", "MOR". It is sort of an indicator of thems are generally uninspired but don't suck enough to "inspire" criticism either... |
Obviously a 3.5 rating is less recommended and not as "high quality" as 4 stars. That goes without saying, doesn't it? But the general principle remains. Any game that gets 3.5 here is still getting a solid recommendation, because we think more people will enjoy it than not. If you disagree with that assessment for a particular game, well, it really doesn't matter what the wording is. You'd still disagree with whatever we changed it to.
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Design & Logo Copyright ©1998 - 2017, Adventure Gamers®.
All posts by users and Adventure Gamers staff members are property of their original author and don't necessarily represent the opinion or editorial stance of Adventure Gamers.