Dear Future Gamer,
I decided that I would total up the scores given for games over the last six issues. Between FG57 and FG52, 4,385 percentage points have been given out to a total of 60 reviews. Dividing this in, you get an "average" score of 73 per cent. The percentage system for judging games, by definition, means that an average game should get 50 per cent, not 73 per cent. If your total is too high (which it is) I think FG should rethink on how much each game is given. People are often commenting on how you never give a game 100 per cent. I think what is just as relevant is that you never gave a game zero per cent. Games that are excellent should only be getting in the 70s or 80s, not all in the 90s. They should only get 90 per cent-plus if they are absolutely superb. Similarly games should only get less than 10 per cent if they are completely rubbish. I think you should be a little bit harsher overall in your scores. You should err or the harsh side, not on the generous side when deciding what scores you give.

Conor

FG: We agree in principle Conor, average games should get an average score. Your little test falls down though because the 73 per cent you've come up with is the average score of all the games we've reviewed in that period. This doesn't mean we give average games 73 per cent, it means the average score for all those 60 games we've reviewed is 73 per cent, that's all. We tend to get the chance to cherry pick which games we review and which we don't and we therefore tend to lean towards the better games (because they're the ones people are more likely to be interested in buying), so I'm rather pleased the average has come out as high as it did.