"stupid and pointless" is basically my view of numerical scores in general. But I know some people swear by them.

So nintendo needs to have the most powerhouse console in order to sell to hardcore gamers because specs and graphics triumph over good gameplay and styilistic design?

True, but we are above such petty thoughts, right? ;P I don't want to play a game only if it's universally hated, like MoO3 :P

I'm talking about markets, not personal preference. "Core gamers" won't care about the pad thing, and the graphics, world size, AI and other things will be the same as the last 7 years. There is no motivation there to buy a new console 10 months or less before the real tech increase comes.

And tech increases mean more than graphics.

Tell that to the people how bought a PS2 a year before Xbox and Gamecube.

EDIT: let me guess that is not a good counter argument.

No, they need to have a console that isn't completely centered around a control scheme wholly unsuitable for most kinds of games. The first Wii was a hit because of the gimmicky controls. However, lots of the people who did buy a Wii would now never dream of buying a Wii-U, as they have tried firsthand how poorly the control scheme works in the long run, and have experienced the not-very-interesting-and-awkward-to-control games that were made for it.

In practice, yes that seems to be the case.

The gamepad is not the Wii nunchuck, the gamepad is basically an Xbox 360 controller with a touchscreen on it and Nintendo are offering people to use the Normal Controller that is an Xbox controller.

I rather take the gamepad over the Nunchuck.

Yeah, the motion controls ended up not really evolving into anything more than a gimmick. However, I still maintain that the IR aiming was a perfect fit for FPSs. Even within only a few games, it already was starting to feel really nice and fluid (sure, some of the early ones like Red Steel controlled like crap). Yeah, it took some getting used to, but I was far happier with the Wii remote and nunchuck than I've ever been with analog sticks.

Scores are far from stupid and pointless, in fact they're an absolute necessity for any big reviewing site. And if you call the steps 1, 2, 3... or very bad, bad, average... or *, **, ***... doesn't really matter in the end. I do however think that a percentage based system is ridiculous and encourages reviewers and gamers to fetishize the score. In fact, even the regular 10 step system is needlessly specific, who the fuck cares if a game gets a 1 or a 3? 4 or 5 steps on the rating scale is all I need if I don't feel like reading thousands of reviews just to find out which games I might have missed that the site feels I should check out.

At least that actually describes something (now what it describes is another matter). As it is today, it seems 3 (60%) and down are considered "very bad".

Huh? Are you sure you've got that right? There was a controversy, but that was due to the Robert Florence article that was edited after a certain person threatened with a lawsuit. Nothing to do with staff being paid off by anyone.

I see reviews differently than most people. I see them as a deconstruction and examination of the game's strengths/weaknesses first and an overall opinion second. In other words, I care far less about what a reviewer thinks of a game, and far more about what he specifically has to say about it. WHY they think it's bad or good. Because frankly, there are very VERY few people whose opinions I trust enough to just take their word. And absolutely no professional publications. Also, I think numerical scores can be a crutch. An excuse for unclear writing. Which is why I don't use them in my own reviews. If I can't communicate what I want to say about a game in the review text itself, I consider the review a failure.

Even setting all that aside, I find the idea that you can take things as varied and complex as videogames and mathematically rank them to be absurd. Because that's what complex numerical scoring systems do. They encourage people to do ridiculous shit like "oh, this one got a 84/100 and this one got a 86/100. That one must be objectively better." Or one of my favorites (and this actually happened): "Modern Warfare 2 got a 9.5/10 and Uncharted got a 9.3/10! The reviewers are so biased!" But you already touched on that, so I expect I'm preaching to the choir :3

But on the other hand, you do have a very good point. It's impractical to read through dozens and dozens of reviews to try and figure out which games you want to buy. Some sort of quick-glance way of determining what games are more recommended is certainly useful. And I agree with what you have to say about 1-5 being far better than the ridiculous "x/100" or "x.xx/10" scales.

The last one I heard of was the fact that the Black Ops II review was written by some guy who had actually worked on the Black Ops II publicity campaign. Which in my opinion is just as ridiculous as being paid off by a company.

There was something about them withholding the review until they attended the review event, as well.

Right, that was Eurogamer France (and I don't think he'd worked on the Black Ops II-campaign, but the one prior). But Eurogamer France and Eurogamer.net are not the same thing (and this is still not the same as anyone being paid off to do something).

No, it's not the same. Unless there's some newer thing I haven't heard about.

I think it was Eutrogamer.net that did the whole "waiting for the review event" thing. I dunno. I've never really read Eurogamer, and I don't really care about Black Ops II :P

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/eurogamer_frances_black_ops_2_review_is_written_by_the_architect_of_the_black_ops_1_pr_campaign