Problem with the Far Cry review is the 95%. It doesn't live up to that score.
I'm not saying Far Cry is a bad game. It was a fun game but far too many faults to get that high. Replay value is very low due to the poor multiplayer. It's really not that great to play the single player through more than once. Even on ramped up difficulty the gameplay doesn't improve because the developer simply chose to increase hitpoints for enemies for higher difficulty. Damn it sure would have been nice if they worked the AI over a little and actually had the enemies behave smarter when on highest difficulty. Instead they do something that requires no extra programming. Anyone could increase the enemy damage in the game scripts.
Call of Cuty, a game I've had much longer is still racking up way more play time than my copy of Far Cry. The multiplayer in COD is very polished compared to FC.
A game like COD should get a score around 95%. That makes sense to me.
In that very same magazine where Far Cry gets a 95%, near the back there is a column where another contributor to the magazine points out what seems to be a disagreement with the review on Far Cry.
Then here lies the problem in my opinion (If these scores do matter, I think they do as some people do compare scores between games for purchases), it's obvious that the entire staff didn't necessarily agree with the review. They then need to get way more input on major game reviews. Instead of one reviewer determining the final score, maybe they should all chip in on the final score average (obviously one reviewer can write the review still).
I seriously think if all the review staff chipped in on the Far Cry review, it would have gotten closer to a 90% score. Still a great game but it does have some problems. And Doom 3 based on the faults compared to Far Cry's would score around what Far Cry originally got, a 95-97%.
Think about it. Some people actually take these scores seriously (and some of these gaming magazines are vocal about the accuracy/fairness of their scoring systems) and buy games based of these reviews. One reviewer's opinion on MAJOR game releases is TOO subjective. Some jokes that the reviewer didn't find funny in a review that otherwise pointed out NO faults gets Doom 3 a 6% deduction? Far Cry with bugs and weak multiplayer (I think that was the words they used) gets a 95%?
I really hope they change they way they review games before HL2 is released. Imagine if they give the HL2 review to someone who happens to hate HP Lovecraft?:
"So basically I can find no faults with the game, it's awesome fun, except I find some of the plot elements way to cheesy and they smack of HP Lovecraft (god I hate cheesy science fiction). Score: 93%"
Would you be happy with that subjectivity? Not much different that the reviewer who was put off by a few jokes in Doom 3.
How justified would Far Cry's score be then?