By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JazzB1987 on 20 May 2015
Edit Thread
Kane1389 said:
JazzB1987 said:



If a game has no gameplay flaw (the last of us' framerate getting in the way of controls is a flaw) it cant be a perfect game. TLoU on Ps4 is much much better than TLoU on PS3 but the review scores dont show it (why not? make it 11/10 then your fault for giving a not perfect game 10/10 in the first place) The PS3 version is a joke compared to the PS4 version the controller alone makes the PS4 version superior.

Last time i checked,  both PS3 and PS4 versions have a same metacritic score.

Also, a game doesnt have to be perfect to get a perfect score, otherwise why bother having a score system for anything anyways?


? Why do you get 100% in school exams?
A perfect score can only be achieved if something is perfect. (objectively not subjectively)

A score system is used to determine the quality a product. It makes sense. It does not make sense the way it is used NOW because the scores are arbitrary numbers without meaning that just fool people into thinking a game is something it actually is not.

A game does not need to offer everything in the world to be perfect tho.
Zelda does not need to have 128 player online modes. Gran Turismo does not need to have items like Mario Kart. But as soon as developer decide to implement something like the before mentioned Items they should make sure to implement this without flaws otherwhise their product is not worthy of getting a perfect score for their game.  A game should be judged on what it is supposed to be. Fluctuating framerate is not desired its a byproduct of a flaw.

If TLoU would have slightly worse graphics with constant 30 fps without a single drop it would be closer to perfect than the PS3 version is now. Mario Kart8 can also never get a perfect score because you have that 60 60 60 60 59 60 60 60 59fps problem. It has minor impact on the controls of the game but a minor impact is still an impact therefore it could never be a 10/10 game (wont be one anyway because of the half assed battlemode)


TBH I would be for an INDIVIDUAL SCORE that judges the game on its own  "what does it try and how well does it execute what it tries?" and a COMPARISON SCORE. That puts the thing into a ranking if you want and comapres it to games of the same type/genre. And a third one that puts it into a GENERAL RANKING for all types of games no matter the genre. (the last one is basically what it is today and is completely inaccurate) And while we are at it we should also seperate multiplayer and singleplayer scores. People that dont care about the singleplayer campaing therefore have better understanding if a game is for them or not and vice versa.

We should include score inflation too. A 1999 9/10 game would probably be a 12/10 game today.

We need a new scale /10 /100 is nonsense because the meaning changed yet the original and new meanings get thrown into the same mix and we have nonsense like metacritic that make no sense.