lyricsforce24 said:
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.
|
The reason the original gets the higher score usually is because it's innovative. The sequel is usually more of the same with some additional features. Most reviewers find it repetitive and it affects the score. Brawl is essentially Melee with more content. Prime 3 is essentially Prime 2 and Prime 1 with new controls. The reason the first Prime scored so high is because it brought eveything that made a 2D Metroid game great and completely flipped the script by making it a first person shooter. It's the fresh innovative experience that gave it that score. RE4 scored so high because of how vastly different it was then the last tired tank controlled Resident Evil before it. If it kept the tank controls, it would have scored below Code Veronica and RE3 without a doubt no matter if it were slightly better.
Gaming is constantly moving forward, and a developer's forward thinking with a game is tomorrow's norm. Unless you constantly raise the bar way above the competition, you'll never acquire better review scores. This is why MGS3 scored so badly compared to MGS2 even though many would agree it's a better game. MGS2 came out before Splinter Cell, so it still seemed fresh and innovative. MGS3 came after Splinter Cell trumped the MGS gameplay and reviewers saw it in a new light, because it had been improved upon by another series.