NTSC-uk reviews - behind the scenes

[charlesr]

We also ensure that before writing each review, we scour the internet/metacritic to see what the general consensus is and write the text to match that, so that most people will agree with it, and if necessary ignore our actual opinion of the game.

No, wait....

[marcus]

I say do away with scores altogether. People get far too hung up on them, arguing said game should have scored at least a 7 and not a 6 and what have you. It's disheartening, not to mention futile, to see people arguing over something that cannot be proven or settled one way or the other.

The site started out reviewing games without scores, at the time I wasnt aware of any other sites which did that. People do expect a score at the end of the review though, so long as the score is appropriate to the review content I dont really see a problem with the current system as it is. There are many scores here which I strongly disagree with, but so long as the writer has justified his reasons I respect that as clearly we all experience different things with the same games.

[charlesr]

Here's a review that slates almost all aspects of the game (apart from MP) and says "only worth a rental", but then happily gives it 6/10. It read like a 3or4/10 to me. 1UP's review gave it 10/10 but doesn't actually mention anywhere why it's good - it says it's the Power Plays, but doesn't actually say why they are good (just describes them).

Anyway, the point of this post is that I have to ensure that the text matches the score and if a reviewer says a game or aspects of the game are good or bad, then I have to ensure they gives details of why.