Any time we publish a review that takes a strong stance – positive or negative – on an anticipated game, we get a lot of feedback from our community. Beyond the unavoidable differences of opinion on the quality of a given game (there’s never been a review in any publication that everyone agrees with), there are interesting philosophical questions that arise around how we make our evaluations.
In the case of last week’s Crackdown 3 review, two often-debated topics were raised: Why is a sequel that’s so similar to a well-regarded original now thought of as uninteresting, and what consideration should be given to a game that can be played for next to no cost? These are questions we actually spend quite a lot of time thinking about, and so now seems like a good time to shed light on how we approach those questions and the reasoning behind it so that you can have a better idea of how we review.
Source: IGN.com Crackdown 3: Why a Good Deal Doesn't Make a Game Score Better