I have been wanting to make this topic for a long time now. To prove how a better game can theoretically get a worse score.

I want to do this from a neutral perspective so I will not be mentioning any games or platforms, just the different aspects a game could possible have, and some numbers.

So lets start by comparing 2 games A and B in the following categories:

Graphics

Physics

Audio

Controls

Story

(There are more, but since we are assuming both games will score equally so it doesnt matter too much)

Now lets say only 1 game had multiplayer which was extremely good, but had a couple of issues. we give it an 8.

this means the game without multiplayer gets 10/10 overall but the other game, just as good but includes an awesome multiplayer mode scores 9.67 overall.

Now take 2 different games, game C and game D

Game C is fully reliant on gameplay which does not have a storyline. It gets perfect 10's.

Game D is just as good as game C in all aspects (graphics, physics, audio, controls...and so on), however it has a great storyline that complements the gameplay. unfortunately some of the dialogue in a couple of cutscenes is very bad. you give the story an 8/10. Game D also comes with multiplayer, and while it is great, there are some glitches and is not perfectly balanced. you give the multiplayer a 7/10.

Game C ends up with a perfect 10/10, yet game D with the great storyline and a good multiplayer mode gets 9.17.

Should developers who add more content which may not be perfect be penalised in this way?

I have seen a lot of people saying game 'a' is better than game 'b' because it got a higher score without acknowledging the fact that game 'b' comes with much more content and was equally as good as game 'a' in everything it could be directly compared with.

Next is graphics comparisons.

Lets assume there are 2 systems, both in the same current generation, system 1 and system 2. System 1 has a better CPU, more RAM and its GPU is 50% more powerful than system 2.

A multiplatform game is released on both systems and the talented developer maximises the hardware capabilities of each.

It gets 10/10 on both systems even though comparisons show the game looks significantly better on system 1.

Why is it that system 1 is given no advantage over system 2?, not even a little.

I know some of you will be saying 'well thats because reviews are specific to a system' and that is exactly my point.

certain platforms get an advantage, certain games get an advantage and certain games on certain consoles get a massive advantage.

I would not always accept that a 10/10 game on a certain system is better than a 7/10 on another system, or even that a 10/10 game is better than a 8/10 game on the same system.

Reviewers should add marks from 0 going up to 10 when there is enough content of high quality, its the only way scores can be comparable.

Starting at 10 and deducting marks is completely wrong, and it makes comparisons useless.

Leave your opinion.

You could just compare GTA4 scores to any other mainline GTA game. Proves your point pretty much. Lot shorter too.

Why are Sony fans this bothered by review scores?

I didn't read anything of what you wrote, but it's pretty obvious that review scores aren't set in stone. Your own oppionion can be different from reviewers. Also, certain games get high scores because there's a certain hype or status tied to the games, just as popular football teams might have the referee on their side from time to time.

I say a lower score is better because it stops you from approaching a game with unrealistic expectations. A 10/10 game will let you down every time. That's why I was let down by MGS4...aside from the fact that it sucked balls.

Yeah actually this is totally true. BF4 would have gotten 9's if it had no SP, but why?

Review scores are bunk anyway. You really need a fun meter. Did you have fun playing it? IF yes the meter reads 10 if no the meter reads 1.

that's how games should be rated. They are either fun or they are not...

I bet we wouldn't have seen this thread if Killzone and Knack would be above 8.5 on Metacritic. Not trying to be offensive but that's what I honestly believe.

Metacritic is kind of crap. I feel kind of bad for anyone who takes it as gospel.

Just think about how ridiculous it really is: you're taking bad reviews from bad web sites, reviews from sites that use completely different grading methods and scales, reviews from writers that have different tastes and preferences than you, then you're combining them with reviewers that you actually like and respect, and you're giving them all the same exact weight.

Why would anyone really care about that?

"Well, this one writer I like gave it an 8/10 but this other guy I don't know who writes for a site I've never heard of gave it a 4/10--Ohmygod, it only has a 6/10 average?  What the hell!  I can't play this junk!"  

Um.....Metacritic is pretty clear that they give weighted averages. Like a Gamespot/IGN/Game Informer review is worth more then a few reviews from a smaller, lesser known source.

It isn't perfect, but it is actually the best system have have. Trusting one review over 4 dozen.......hmm what to pick.

What does need changing is peoples perceptions of games in the 70's. I personally think 70's games are just as worthy of ones attention, but we seem obsessed with 80+ games. Anything below 70 I think we can safely say that the game has enough faults that can really detract from its strengths