I didn't think K&L2 set the world on fire, but 1/10 is kind of ludicrous. I mean at the very least it had an interesting graphic style and even if it was short and O/T towards the end, the actual shootouts early on weren't bad.
Never a truer word said. I do find it faintly amusing where one reviewer says a games not great and suddenly you've a bunch of people swearing off from that one review. Look at the Hitman:Absolution WiT...read around people...Adam Smith is not the messiah.That said, though, I think the best practice is to treat opinion as aggregate yet unquantifiable: Reading a lot of reviews is better than searching for a median number, even if each individual review is itself less than stellar when it comes to reasoning and writing quality.
I'm looking at the scores Vs those of others and comparing. Neither wainwright of the french dudes scores are particularly out of wack with what most other critics gave the games. Where's Sterling's score is completely out of wack with what everyone else gave K&L2. How is that hard to understand exactly?I just don't get Kadayi in this thread. On one hand he dismisses the complaints against MCV/Lauren/Eurogamer.fr, because there is not enough proof. And OTOH he calls Jim Sterling a biased reviewer just because he give K&L a low score(without solid proof, just guess). It's like the whiners on reverse, he will just bitch about critics when they give games low scores lolz.