I find the notion that a game has to be "revolutionary" in it's genre in order to warrant a score over 9 (or whatever artificial limit someone might choose) to be ridiculous. There are games like Starcraft, Warcraft, Unreal Tournament, Final Fantasy 3, Baldur's Gate 2, and others that are truly brilliant games in their own right and genres yet there're people here saying they don't deserve perfect scores not because of problems with the games but because they aren't considered "revolutionary"?
Even though those games are extremely polished and there are technically no gameplay problems (some of those games are pefect) they don't deserve a perfect score because the designers chose not to add something that wasn't in their vision of the game they wanted to make? Should a game be reviewed for what it is or for what it isn't? Should it be docked points because it doesn't add anything new even though the people reviewing it can't think of anything that could be added to the game (within the limits of the hardware the game was made for) to make it better?
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
