Torillian said:
KungKras said:
Torillian said:
KungKras said:
Doobie_wop said:
They use Story as a sub category for scoring for all their reviews. I don't see why the criteria should change depending on the game. Mario Party may have a shit story, but it could make up it score in presentation, gameplay and sound. I think that's fair.
|
Some games don't have stories. Are you saying story should be taken into consideration when giving a score to Tetris or Pac Man?
|
When a game doesn't have a story they cut out that category, but when one is presented (even if it is just a pretense at the beginning of the game to get into the gameplay) I think it's legitimate to score on it. And then how that score affects the overall would be based on how much they think the story for better or for worse affected the game as a whole.
edit: and if you look at the scores it was 5.5, 8.2 and 8.6 with an overall of 8.3 so it's obvious the story wasn't a huge part of the overall score.
|
So they score the story part based on if a story is presented to them, and they cut out the category if there is no story. And if the story is not a big part of the game, then it won't affect the final score that much? Seems fair to me.
If you look at the comment I replied to, the guy said that they used story as a sub category for all reviews, and that was what I was against.
|
yeah I know, he was incorrect as GT has cut out categories before when they have no presence in the game. And I agree that if a game has absolutely no story then you can't have a score for it since there's nothing for you to base that score off of.
|
My bad, I forgot about sports games and (maybe?) mini compilation games. I was trying to say that they balance out the score by comparing it's strengths and weaknesses and then coming to a final score. Games like MAG though had their scored lowered because they didn't have a single player campaign and so it had to make up for it in other areas, I always thought the same applied to all games.
