Ever since Jim Sterling posted about whether or not hype should factor into review scores, I've been wondering if there's something else that should be factored into review scores for both games and movies. What should be factored in is the reason for creation; whatever the movie/game was made for. Let me explain...

Saw 5 is a horrible movie. It's plot is mindless (a dead guy is still controlling you? Cereally?), the acting is far from Oscar-worthy, and it relies on gore to put people in the seats. However, it does not deserve devastatingly low review scores. This is because it was not made to be a good movie, it was made to be a gorefest. When it came to being a good movie, which is what most movie reviews are based on, it doesn't deliver. But when it comes to being a gorefest, which was the sole reason why the movie was made, it shined.

The same goes for games. Manhunt 2 was not a great game. However, it was not made to be a great game. Manhunt 2, like any tortureporn flick, was made to be a violent bloodfest. And hey, it delievered!

I'm not saying that review scores should be based solely on the movie/game's goals. At the end of the day, most people want to know if, by industry standards, the product is good or bad. But when something isn't made to be good, and is just meant to be entertaining to people who want something filled with violence or laughs... it deserves to be reviewed based on whether or not it delivers what it wants to.