Currently Online 
| sundin13 said:
I disagree with a lot of the specific things you said, however, its 4AM (and I still plan on watching more anime) and this has already been discussed to death, so I will leave you with this example (which you may disagree with, but I would find that disagreement ridiculous): Two Scenarios: 1. A game is released with a fairly low amount of content. The publisher says that no additional content is coming and the game will recieve no post launch support. 2. A game is released with a fairly low amount of content. The publisher says that there will be regular content updates including some major content updates and all of it will be free. How could you justify giving both games the same score? It wouldn't be helpful for the consumer at any point in time to do so. Game two obviously will have greater longevity to it than game one... Saying otherwise (or scoring otherwise) would be a disservice to the consumer. PS: I think you need to stop looking at things from the Publisher's perspective. You seem to be acting as if anything that benefits publishers should be thrown away, however Pro-Publisher does not mean anti-consumer, and from the consumer's perspective, I believe that assessing longevity as I suggested provides a more accurate (although not perfect) depiction of the game. |
If a game with promised content got a higher score based on that promised content, and that promised content turned out to be of inferior quality and offered no real reason to keep playing the game, would you be okay with that?
What if we have two games, both of which promise additional content. One under-delivers with shallow, redundant content, while the other hits a grand-slam with content that improves the value of the base game greatly. Are you okay with these two games getting the same score?
Your solution is not a solution.
