n my view BG3 isn't unfinished - it is overambitious.
Which is concerning when you remember that Larian said their next project will be "Larger in scope than BG3"...
Originally Posted by Wormerine
I don't know why gaming refuses to use scores beyong 7-10 unless something really, really sucks. If you have max 10, than surely 5 should be an average, unremarkable score. 5 is meh anything above is to some degree positive, anything below is to some degree negative
Money.
The vast majority of professional "Reviewers" are paid for their reviews and thus, that buys them an instant 6 points of "Rating". Meaning the 1-10 scale gets condensed into 7-10 (Which leads to the really dumb decimal points so something isn't rated 7 it's rated 7.2) because then a "Bad" review still is a 7/10 which is a positive review.
It's one of the reasons I tend to put more stock in community reviews because they will actually use the full 1-10 scale so it's much easier to gauge user sentiments (You just have to check out some actual reviews to see if there's any outside influences, like review bombs because the company is bad rather than the product).
The professional vs community reviews also tends to reflect the "Objective analysis" vs "Subjective opinion" dichotomy. To which, the latter tends to be more informative. Since something like Forspoken can get a good score objectively, it was a mechanically sound game with the only major flaw being low tier writing. While anyone who actually played the game was bored out of their mind because just because the game is mechanically solid doesn't mean it's a fun experience.
Since I play games for a fun experience (Or more accurately, an engaging experience), reviews based on experiences matter more to me than an objective assessment of development quality. (I mean, I liked FO3 and Skyrim and both of those were buggy messes full of jank - Which would objectively cause a low score which doesn't account for my many hundreds of hours spent on each title)
