Onyxmeth said:
lyricsforce24 said:
Lyricsforce24 IGN has more than one reviewer each channel. One of the guys for the IGN Wii channel wasn't with IGN when MP1 was released. That stated, I find all reviews utterly useless. If a game is a new IP it gets screwed and known IPs are usually scored to highly. The last straw for me with reviews was Lost Odyssey. That game has been pretty much underscored by all western reviewers and the Gamespy reviewer should be fired for incompetence. Darc Requium....I know IGN has more than one reviewer. I was stating that as a whole, for every game system website on ign...ps3, 360. wii, ds, psp, ds, etc, they review sequels, even when they say they are better, with a lower review score than first game released. I believe they need to address that better because it does not make sense. If a game is better it deserves a better review score, even if it is a different reviewer, in my opinion and i understand that is also debatable because of different reviewers. I dont remember Bozon being with IGN at the release of Metroid Prime , but Matt Cassimassina was even though he didnt review the first metroid prime game, and he is one of the top dog for ign Wii. I dont like the games reviews he has given because he just seems to be with silly nitpicking that knocks the scores down lower than it realy should be, IMO. I was basically just agreeing with the guy who started this thread that i did not like most game reviewer scores, especially of a game i really enjoy that i feel that deserves better. You probably understand where i am coming from with your displeasement with the Lost Odyssey review score. I think it sucks that those websites get so much attention and so many people see only their review scores and they assume it was a bad game. Remember IGN's assassins creed score was also a highly debatable low score. |
Your logic doesn't make sense. Just because a sequel is better does not mean it deserves a better score. It matters how much it improves or reinvents the formula. Sports games usually get a little better each year, but you don't see Maddens and NBA 2K games rising by a few review points every year. In your logic, here's how the lineage of NFL 2K should have gone on IGN, since each year improved upon the last: NFL 2K: 9.7(actual score)
NFL 2K1: 9.8
NFL 2K2: 9.9
NFL 2K3: 10.0
ESPN NFL Football: 10.1
ESPN NFL 2K5: 10.2 Yup...real logical. This logic can be used for Soul Calibur also. Soul Calibur: 10.0(actual score)
Soul Calibur II: 10.1
Soul Calibur III: Who cares? This one was universally known to be garbage but you get the point. |
No. 10 is the limit. Dont give a game that is said to be better a lower score that the other game. This logic makes sense. Lets say 1 game gets a 10, the sequel comes out and is better, then give it a 10 and explain in the review that you feel this is a game is as good as the last one, or it is a better game but it cannot exceed a 10 and get a better score. If you cannot give the game a "better score" in the case of the review score being a perfect ten, than its a different story, and you are right in that situation, and that logic does not make sense, i should of clarified that more. But why give a game you say is better than another game, like in certain situations i was talking about, a lower score, like with smash bros brawl a 9.5 and melee a 9.6? They said it was a vast improvement upon the melee. I know with sports games it gets redundant, you are right in that situation, but i feel you have to at least match that score or surpass it if possible, if it is a better game, when comparing sequels. not one game to a totally different game like pac man vs. halo or something like that.
