|
I don't really trust alot of rating systems. I think that games should be marked next to what they could of achieved, so if they blatently missed out something, it would lose marks. But then, scores would need to go down over time otherwise they get misleading. For example, take the Gamespot scores: Halo 9.7, Halo 2 9.4 even though that Halo 2 is a better game. Really, Halos mark should of dropped to 9.ish over the time, letting Halo 2 slot in above it and therefore making more sense. Otherwise, what's the point? Theres no point giving games scores if the scores don't properly relate to each other.
Of course, you need to factor in the originality of a game. But if the game is just the same as the prequel, it should get the same score as the prequel, but then the reviewer can express in words how it was different. Maybe the idea would be alot harder to maintain, but in the end it would give a far greater view for gamers when trying to buy games.
|