3 ms·
They cover that at the end of the review. It's basically the score of the system as it is today. It's a fair way to judge something that people will consider
by jwcooper 13y ago
They cover that at the end of the review. It's basically the score of the system as it is today. It's a fair way to judge something that people will consider purchasing and wanting to have fun with right away. I wouldn't want to buy a console only to hope I have fun with it in 2 years (buy it in 2 years instead). [1]
"But the PlayStation 4's focus on gaming — and only gaming — is undermined by a distinct lack of compelling software. That failing is sure to improve — better games and more of them will appear on the PlayStation 4 — but right now, this is a game console without a game to recommend it. Early adopters of the PS4 this fall are buying potential energy. We're just waiting for a place to spend it."
[1] http://www.polygon.com/a/ps4-review/conclusion http://www.polygon.com/a/ps4-review/conclusion
- hugofirth 13y agoI understand the concept of scoring the system as it is today. On the other hand I disagree emphatically with the premise for doing so. A "general impressions" wrap-up paragraph would be fine. A rating system with a very low granularity (Thumbs up/even/down for example) would even be acceptable. A score of 7.5 implies, at the very least, a granularity of 20. This is only useful in a case where you have either 20 binary criteria, or ~5 criteria with some kind of sub-scoring system. Where, or what, are these criteria? Are they implicitly, yet obviously, defined through the content or structure of the article? No. I'm not defending the PS4 - I am ranting at the profligacy of meaningless scoring systems throughout the entire video games industry.