I'm finding that about two thirds of the reviews with stars are terribly biased, in a negative or positive sense. For example, Zelda: Ocarina of Time has a starred review giving it 3/10 written by someone horribly misinformed; he complains that Nintendo is unoriginal by adding a new villain with four extra letters at the end of his name, when, in fact, it is the same villain. --- Know the nature of light and darkness...Darkness is cool, light sucks.
We need a litmus test to determine what *truly* deserves a star, and what doesn't. For example, if anything I've ever written gets a star, then someone has failed. There ya go. --- "No matter how hard you shine it, crap is still crap."~Me
I just noticed I still have a good number of unstarred reviews. Obviously, this system needs a lot of work to not be pitifully flawed. --- http://www.honestgamers.com — Where I freely roam, putting all challengers to rest....
What was wrong with having all the reviews grouped together, without all of these sub-categories and the star treatment? How is it possible to balance the quality of a review for a rare game against one people would be more likely to search? It's just the percentage of people who are recommending things, out of everyone who reads the reviews, or what? --- thunderboltgames.com