Your job would have clearly defined standards and goals, and the person conducting your review would be consistent.
You wouldn't be judged by the opinion of 71 random people of different degrees of expertise at the job, who all use a different number scale, then get your number compared to others who were reviewed by 71 different people with their own standards and grading scales.
That's absolute nonsense
This is what I will piggyback off of.
@Ciggavelli it is this idea that games and movies have a set number you can attach to it when it is interpreted in so many different ways by individuals. How can things so subjective have a number attached to them? There is no scale or absolute science to measure these games and we should not try to do so. The job argument on your end doesn't really make much sense because you and your employer have already agreed to a set number of defined standards that is expected from you. Video games cannot be boxed into these set of rules in any way imaginable. It is completely binary in terms of reviews - you either like the game or not. You can dock Titanfall 30 points for content, but many interested might find that the content provided is worth about 100 hours of gameplay...thus making the 30 points that the reviewer docked irrelevant. This can go on and on in several different ways people look to review a game.
I will use 2 Jeff Gerstmann reviews of games now to further prove my point as to why this system is absolute trash. Gerstmann reviewed Super Mario Sunshine for gamestop and gave it a "8.0 - GREAT" review...when it turns out that he really doesn't like the game all that much from all that he has said over the years on his podcast. Doesn't that come off as disingenuous to you? It does to me, why would I take anyone's reviews seriously if they rate a game as "GREAT", but then turns out that they don't like the game at all? I understand that he had to try to view the game "objectively" and try to rate it appropriately based on a number of factors, but the guy did not enjoy the package. The review should have been stamped with "Jeff doesn't like it" or something along those lines instead of a "review" trying to justify the number 8.0 listed right at the top of the page.
Fallout 4 is a recent game and Giantbomb actually gave that game TWO scores. 3 out of 5 on consoles and 4 out of 5 on the PC. It appears from all that I have heard in his podcasts...he doesn't care too much about Fallout 4 either. Once again coming off a bit disingenuous in order to hide behind this "objectivity" stance that so many reviewers in the game industry try to hide behind.
Review it based on how you feel about the overall package and A LOT of this bullshyt goes away. The Order 1886 getting a good review from the playstation magazine is going to raise a few eyebrows regardless, so why not remove the damn score. Stamp it with the way you feel so that the person can read your opinion on the piece, not a justification behind a score that doesn't mean much to anyone anyway.
Removing of the number also doesn't give a blanket numbered score to show how an entire staff feels about a title. So instead of Mario Sunshine receiving an 8.0, other editors can chime in and drop their 2 cents as well to get a better overall feeling as to what they feel about the game. 14 years later it looks as if the review was written the way it was to avoid backlash rather than sheer enjoyment of the title. The same can go both ways, it's just that his examples are the best I can come up with because of how popular he is and those 2 reviews that stood out to me.
I also assume that dropping the score will get people to read the actual review instead of just looking at the score, reading the short synopsis and going from there.
i knew this would be a funny thread on April Fools day. That's why I did it. My stannery is consistent 
unlike u
