i wonder if writers for orgs ever have to consult previous reviews for like "sitewide consistency" or if it is just implicitly understood that different reviews by different ppl may have drastically different scores (as it should be imo!) Like I'm assuming the current pc gamer reviewer would have given BL2 a low 70 or high 60s score as well, which is totally valid, but it's a far cry from the 90 BL2 got on the site, I wonder if there is a "consistency" that needs to be kept up for appearance/reputation's sake
also yeah, I might pass on this game, all the reviews kind of seem to be screaming at me "you wont enjoy this! It's not a game for you!", but it's hard to resist if ppl in my circle are picking it up too...