@ZenfoldorVGI

An 8.5 is a really good score. GS tends to review games very critically on many aspects most reviewers don't such as doing something new in the game. GS's most critical point against GoW:CoO was that the gameplay seemed recycled from GoW2. Of course, the amount of fun a game gives you is the most important thing obviously. GS is just a very academic review website weighing in more details on a game than most reviewers.

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.

I would love to do an analysis of game review scores for bias and trends. But alas, I don't have the time (or the energy).

I use reviews to (a) tell me something about the game content and (b) give me a general sense as to the quality. I prefer using meta-review sites so I can see a variety of opinions at once, giving me the opportunity to read/review several and determine their validity.

Mike from Morgantown

An 8.5 is a "hater" review? That's a great score.

CoO is derivative -- it lifts its visuals and gameplay directly from GoW2, with little to no additions. It is God of War lite, in the sense that it's not a full-scale epic GoW game and it doesn't move the series forward the way a true sequel would. But neither of these means it's bad -- in fact it's great! -- and that's exactly what an 8.5 score reflects.

Don't get me wrong. I think Gamespot has almost zero credibility at this point. But when they're right, and they can back up their opinion with solid arguments, I'm ready to defend them.

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.

I've been saying this for quite some time. Reviewers pretty much suck at reviewing games. I hate when a game gets a perfect score because let's face it no game is perfect. Now what i do is look a screenshots then look at gameplay vids and then make my decision (or if still not convinced rent it).

As a whole, I love reviewers. They provide a great service to me in providing me with guidance to choose which games I want to play.

What annoys me is people that complain about reviews.

Games don't have to be perfect to get the highest score. Try again.

This is your finest post that I have seen and I apologize for not quoting you before I posted.

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.