Japanese game magazines use a collaborative scoring system for game reviews. 4 editors provide individual ratings and personal opinion of the game, and a combined overall score which is simply a sum of the 4 scores.
The idea is to incorporate subjectivity into the reviews. Readers familiar with the editors would understand which score/opinion they can relate more to.
Japanese game magazines use a collaborative scoring system for game reviews. 4 editors provide individual ratings and personal opinion of the game, and a combined overall score which is simply a sum of the 4 scores.
Wouldn’t it be more efficient if one editor did 1/4 of a review?
The idea is to incorporate subjectivity into the reviews. Readers familiar with the editors would understand which score/opinion they can relate more to.
things could get even more efficient with more editors. imagine having 10 editors, each only doing a tenth of a review.