[quote name='gamerdogbert']I just started writing the reviews last year, because I'm working toward starting a new web site about a year from now, so I haven't reviewed very many current-generation games yet. I've been mostly working my way forward from older generations, building an archive of reviews.
It is indeed rare for a game to score much above 90. Which I feel is quite realistic. Honestly, how many games have ever been released that were truly 10 out of 10 perfection, or even 9.5? Maybe half a dozen games have ever been truly that good; when you read the detailed reviews on a lot of gaming sites, their in-depth comments never seem to match up with the score they gave. The most god-awful game will still score 5 or 6, and I've seen games score 7s and 8s while the paragraphs below recommend avoiding the game. Really? Come on.
Among my limited list of 7th-generation console games, GTA IV is currently my highest rated game at 87/100, while Eragon is my lowest at 24/100.
Expanding to include all platforms, my highest rated game so far is Diablo II (with Expansion) with a score of 97/100. The worst review thus far is Jinks for the Atari 7800, scoring 18/100.
So far I've reviewed approximately 100 games, but my goal is to have >500 reviews completed by the time my new project is up and running. I have a backlog of over 1500 games spanning all systems from the Atari 2600 on. I should have them all completed within 4 years. Maybe 20% of the games I play this year will be current-gen; next year will probably be 50%, and after that >80%.[/QUOTE]
If a game does not have multiplayer then you need to take that out of your equation instead of automatically giving it a 0/5. You shouldn't punish a game for no multiplayer if it isn't a multiplayer game.