Its a neat idea, but I would still prefer the number system. Plus that wouldn't work worldwide (or would need adjusted) because games are more expensive in Europe/Australia than they are in North America I think.
I would keep the number system but this is how I'd do it:
10 - Absolute perfection. Only games like Pokemon Red/Blue, Ocarina of Time, etc. get 10's.
8-9 - Great games with very minor bugs/glitches that could easily be fixed by a patch. Would be enjoyed by pretty much everyone except haters of the genre/series.
6-7 - Average/Decent games. They might have some annoying bugs/glitches or just aren't all that fun. With this rating the game would only be recommended to fans of the genre or series. Game would be significantly improved by patches.
4-5 - Bad games. Not quite unplayable, but in dire need of post launch support to make it good. These types of games should be avoided until they are patched.
2-3 - Horrible games. Games so bad that no amount of patching/support could make it worthwhile as a purchase. These games would be a rent at absolute best and probably only gamerscore/trophy whores would bother with them.
0-1 - Unplayable.
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.
