SeriousWB said:
Picko said:
a.l.e.x59 said:
BenKenobi88 said:
alex59, I think you care about review scores a little too much. |
How else would you know if Super Mario Galaxy is truly greater than Ocarina of Time? Because Game Rankings averages the scores of compilations of multiple reviews, it is stronger than a single opinion, not just because more reviews are better than one opinion, but because the reviews are most oftenly done, professionally, by other, major websites. Sure, there is no super computer that pin points a number-based fact, on how good a game truly is, but Game Rankings is the closest thing. Opinions do have meaning, but are not as accurate as many opinions combined. Personally, I like the Mario games more than the Zelda games, but universally, the Zelda games got better reviews than the Mario games. One will use their own opinion over the fact, but one cannot use their own opinion to become the fact. Reviews are not everything. They only serve as a guidance. I cannot have an opinion on a game that I have not played, because I do not know if it is worth spending the money for, so the next best thing is to read the reviews. |
Reviews are not comparable over time. Standards and expectations change dramatically over time and SMG does not have to get even close to OoT to actually be a superior game. A "9" for a game then, is in no way equivalent to a "9" given today. Basically any game that gets anywhere near OoT is probably critically judged a superior game once changes in standards are adjusted for. It would be naive to believe that OoT, as is, would receive anywhere close to its current score under current standards, but thats to be expected. The Gamerankings rankings are effectively useless in determining whether one game is better than another when the games come from different generations. Really the only way for comparisons to be made is if older generation games are constantly re-reviewed every generation, as we witness improvements in gameplay, graphics and sound that change our expectations. |
I disagree, as most reviews always take into consideration what a game brings to the table. The table being the gaming industry, the game's genre etc. While many games now have better graphics or controls than OoT, they will not have brought as much new to the table. Our expectations do change, but that's a good thing about reviews, they are relevant to the time the game was released, and that's exactly how they should stay. |
Indeed they should stay the way they are and they are relevant to the time they were written. But at the same time, that doesn't change the undeniable fact that reviews are in no way comparable over any substantial length of time. It is quite simply illogical to compare, say a N64 game, against, for example a Wii game, and say that one is better than another because of the score it received.
A perfect example of how impossible it is to compare reviews over time is to look at Resident Evil 4.
Gamecube: 95.9%
Wii: 91.2%
Now looking at that, clearly the Gamecube version is superior. However, from what I've seen almost everyone things the Wii version is superior, it has better controls, more gameplay options etc. However, it received a lower average score and rightfully so. Afterall, expectations have changed in the two years since RE4 was originally released. In this case expectations have changed by about 4.7% (actually probably a bit more because the Wii version had extra content). That shows the change in expectations over a two year period, can you imagine what the change in expectations are over a ten year period? It seems fair to say that it is impossible to compare those scores.
