@zellisgoatbond Yeah, the suggestion is to Nintendo Life rather than the author. It's just this particular review that flagged an issue again that I've seen a few times now.

Well this is why you have an Overall score at the end (which doesn't have to be a perfect "average" but a more holistic total taking into account various weightings). But breaking down the elements that make up a game (or a movie or whatever) is something that's happened since the beginning of time and just makes good sense. You can totally look at each individual part even though they combine to make a whole. And as mentioned, the "average" doesn't have to been a mathematically perfect average but more a rough coming together of the various scores to give an Overall rating that balances them sensibly. You get that final score too but you understand better how it all "adds up".

Whatever the review is supposed to reflect, that score just makes the game look pretty terrible imo, as in that's what I believe most people will take away from the review, and that's actually not true of the game being reviewed hear at all. A short game does not equal a bad game at all, just a short game. And, even though it's easy to say "you should read the full review text for more context" or whatever, I think making the final scoring system in its own right better indicate the actual truth of the game is still just as important.

A 4/10 just does not say "A really solid game but too short"; a 4/10 says "avoid this pile of **** like the plague!"

I think we all know that's probably the truth of what most people will take away from it, because we all know most people rarely bother to read full reviews in this day and age, even ones that are literally only a few paragraphs long.

That's the problem with a scoring system that's so basic and doesn't break down anything further for you (and reviews that go into very little detail beyond the broad strokes, show a handful of screenshots and no footage at all)--so I return to my original point.

Also, I know everyone keeps going on about how short this game is--but it's only frkin' 5 squid. Not 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10, just 5. And yes, we've all been spoiled on cheap-free mobile games, and the digital stores on consoles/PCs are similarly spoiling us now too with hundreds of dirt-cheap indie titles too, but it's not like 5 squid is a fortune, and if it's 45 minutes of good fun then it's not that BAD. I mean, seriously, a 4/10 basically indicates BAD by most metrics.

I mean I don't know how Nintendo Life specifically defines a 4/10 game, but look at what IGN defines it as:

"For one reason or another, these games made us wish we’d never played them. Even if there’s a good idea or two in there somewhere, they’re buried under so many bad ones and poor execution we simply can’t recommend you waste your time on it."

Is this game really BAD, or is this game good but just SHORT. . . .

So, one more time, I go back to my original point about how review scoring is handled and how maybe it could and should be approached slightly differently if we want it to be truly fair and reflective. . . .