One thing never ceases to amaze me. This insane fixation on review scores that seems to have grown steadily amongst the gaming community in recent times. More often than not you see reviewers dealt slanderous comments about their decision to give a game a score (say, around 7) for highly anticipated titles, which is perceived to mean mediocre. But did they bother to read the review and notice why it was given such score? You know they didn’t. We’re becoming a group that puts our complete faith in an arbitrary number.

Often its argued that the use of a score, whether it be out of five, ten or a hundred, makes it much easier for those with hectic schedules to make quick decisions, without being

subjected to reading a two page review. And while it could be argued that this is the reason why a score is chosen, it should only be complimentary to the review itself. A review is intended to give you all the necessary information you need to make a judgement on whether or not you will enjoy it, as well as the reviewers personal take on their experiences with the game. The number is an attachment that is to give an indication of their preference.

For example, look at the recent release game - Bionic Commando. It has a top score of 95/100 and a lowest score of 50/100. If you were to read just one review score, you would likely come away feeling dramatically different to the person next to you. Though if you were to actually read a review you would be able to see the good aspects of the game and the faults that were present. This would make it much easier to make a purchase decision based on your tastes. And even more so, you'd think that during a time where we're seeing an economic downturn, making the right purchase decision demands a little more thought process than just a glance at a number. This also see's people taking the 'safe' option, by choosing a sequel they can expect to comply to their tastes, rather than taking a risk on an unknown quantity.

The length may be one issue, but could it be that reviewers are losing their personality (and therefore the readers interest) in an attempt to create an objective look. Reviews are subjective. There are no two ways about it. Though this ignorance doesn't stop people complaining about bias. Don't like their opinion? Read someone else's review. If they're the same, tell me that they're all biased. I'm sure you'll try.

When I first heard about Eidos' attempt at restricting the publishing of low review scores, I thought to myself, "How ridiculous. What's the point of having reviews then?" But if you honestly think about it, scores do effect sales. It might seem like unfair for those looking for varied reviews, but it's understandable why they'd try to do such a thing. Some publishers also base their PR and developer bonus wages on aggregate scores, so this could've been a factor.

However, on to my main point. When someone disregards a game because it has been dealt an average or below-expected score, they're depriving themselves of possible innovation. Games they might have fully enjoyed, don't even get a consideration in their mind. You can clearly see this with Mirrors Edge. This was a game that attempted to create a completely unique experience, in which many suggest it succeeded. Though the game failed to sell. Why? Because the review scores, but not necessarily the reviews themselves were not very flattering. Many reviewers claimed the game had great potential and was something that could be moulded into a potential genre, though a few issues were present leaving it to fall short of its imaginable quality.

There is no denying the popularity of scores though. They are the resource of console loyalists proving their point that their choice in gaming rules over all else. It's much easier to claim victory in the ever evolving console wars by flashing greater numbers for your exclusives than it is to discuss the points that make them better games. That would be too difficult; meaning you'd need to formulate a solid argument. And who wants to do that? That's the reviewers job. It's more fun to throw obscenities at each other. Ah... the digital age. Anonymity creates so much bravado, so many empty threats. But that's a story for another day.

If games that attempt to push the typical conventions of gaming, continue to fail, you can't help but expect developers to feel discouraged and return to pumping out sequels. Which is sad, because what would we have gained? Not a whole lot. Besides graphical intensity, its difficult seeing games become a genuine art form if boundaries aren't broken and risks taken.

So if you're looking to buy a game - read the review. You might save yourself some hard earned dollars, or help you become sure of your purchase. It wouldn't hurt.