No.
This is completely incorrect, since it's essentially an attack to every gamer's freedom of speech.
Anyone who purchased the game and tried to play it for several hours (more than a day, even) with no success is, at the very least, entitled to make a review with a score of 0.
- If I purchase a printer and it decides to never work on the first day, and I find out that the printer model is having the same problems around the world then you can bet I'll be making a review and give it a 0.
- If I purchase a book and the pages come out blank and I find out every book is like that and it's not me who has a defective book, I'm going to rate it a 0.
- If I go to a buffet restaurant where I pay upfront and there's no food in the serving tables after 2 hours, I'm going to leave the place and rate it a 0.
- If I purchase a blu-ray that comes with a blank disc and I find out every other blu-ray disc coming from that movie is also blank, I'll return it. And rate it a 0.
I'm not going to patiently wait 5 hours for an employee to fill the tables, or wait for the book/blu-ray publisher for weeks until they send me a replacement. Likewise, I'm not going to wait days until the HP's/Epson's servers start working again in order to re-establish their draconian DRM control over my printer so it can print pages.
The product is either ready for market, or it isn't. A service is either prepared for its customers or it isn't. If there's not enough food output, the restaurant can't accept my reservation. If the books/disks are blank, they cannot be sent to the store. If the printer doesn't work, it can't go to the store either.
A very serious and very grave fault such as the game not working at all must not go unpunished or unspoken.
Customers owe nothing to publishers. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why someone should wait in silence for days for a single-player game to be playable, after having to pay the full price up-front.
To rate a game that doesn't work by 0 is, by itself, a responsible action. After returning the game and asking the money back, it's the most relevant action any gamer could - and should - do. It's sending the proper message to other buyers: that the game isn't good enough to be bought. It isn't, it isn't even playable in many countries.
The gaming community must show Activision/Blizzard that they won't take faulty products and stand idle. Just because they're milking a popular franchise, it doesn't mean they can sell snake-oil. And that message must go through, as it went with many other games with much lesser problems (DNF, for example).
Look how I'm not even going into the draconian DRM thing, or the pay2win stores or the design change from realistic horror to childish cartoonesque.
That was widely known from day one, and to any person who would at least bother to look at the game's box.
I didn't write any review either because I didn't purchase the game, and I'm not interested in playing, honestly.
But to try to stop people from letting the world know they've been tricked? Based on what, brand loyalty? That's just wrong, IMO.
Regardless of your opinion, Skyrim was playable and awesome at day one.
Some did go to the MC site to bitch about bugs and gave it a 1. Some considered the bugs too irritating and gave it a 5. Others (most, apparently) rated the game in the later months and gave it a 9/10. In the end, the average user score was 8.1.
The game's rate did suffer from bad reviews at the beginning because of the bugs, and the final score is reflecting that.
But that's the brilliance of statistics. There's this enormous amount of people who gave their opinion based on their experience and 8.1 is the score that you, or any other, will most probably give to that game.
Diablo III's current 3.5 score isn't any worse or better deserved than Skyrim's 8.1 score.
Don't worry. When the game works, people will start giving it better reviews. I don't think they'll be as good as you're hoping for, though.
