People give ratings depending on how fun the game is, I want FUN GAMES no does stupid boring fps(halo 3 im starring right at you with ur wierd multiplayer), super mario etc...fun.
2008 end of year predictions:
PS3: 22M
360: 25M
wii: 40M
| The_vagabond7 said: Good lord, I've lost all faith in review numbers. Not because Assassins creed isn't good, it's just that's good this gen get's 9s and 10s across the board. There have only been a couple of games that deserve some 9s and maybe a fringe 10 or two, but EVERYTHING is getting perfect scores. |
What if a large number of game developers are just getting THAT good? This is a craft, and if this gen means more and more people hone it, then let the high scores come.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
well a 10/10 doesnt mean 100%. If the site gives scores in .5's then 10/10 is anything from 97.5%-100%, so in my opinion you can give a game 10/10.
Well I'd certainly say that 1998 compares pretty favourably. Both OoT and MGS were released and they are generally considered the best games on their respective consoles. Also released were Banjo Kazooie, Half-Life, Starcraft, Unreal and Baldur's Gate, which makes for a fairly impressive bunch of software.
What appears to be different this year is that all these games have come one after another fairly quickly and they've all been pretty fantastic.
Not really... There are many games that aren't in the top 10 at Game Rankings because they don't have enough reviews. If they did the list would look a lot different.
| zackblue said: People give ratings depending on how fun the game is, I want FUN GAMES no does stupid boring fps(halo 3 im starring right at you with ur wierd multiplayer), super mario etc...fun. |
Well I'm sure the hundreds of thousands (if not more) that will rack up hundreds of hours on it would disagree with you.
The thing is, it's a curve that games get graded on, there is no set mark of 9 or 10. If you took Dragon Blade Wrath Of Fire back to 1990 it would score 10s across the board for being revolutionary with almost photorealistic graphics, intense action and an amazing provocative storyline. But it was released now where it's a fairly average game that has a shallow storyline, last gen graphics, and ordinary fights.
If developers are getting SO good that every month has a game or two that gets a 9 or 10, then maybe they aren't keeping up with the curve. 9s and 10s should be the top tier and revolutionary/apex of the art form scores respectively, but it would seem 9 and 10 simply represent "alot of money went into this game, and it's pretty fun, so TEN!"
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
| The_vagabond7 said: To put this into perspective, If it wasn't for the reviewers doling out the occasional 7.5 or 8, gamerankings and metacritics top 10s would be almost entirely dominated by this years games. That would mean that this year in gaming has seen more quality than the past two decades combined. Bioshock was great, but it was no mind blowing revolution. COD4 looks beautiful but after playing it, it doesn't seem like anything else other than a good FPS with high production quality, Halo 3 is just the third Halo, it didn't change the face of gaming at all, The orange box is 5 games in one, it's a bargain, but is it gaming beyond what we have ever seen? Or is it just 5 really good games. I could go on. I'm not knocking the above games, they are all great games, but reviewers are just tossing out 10s to anything that has either hype, graphics, or production values. It's been a good year, but certainly not better than the past two decades of gaming put together. Can anybody honestly say that in the past twenty some years of gaming, that there hasn't been as many incredible ground breaking games as this year alone? |
You seem to think a game can only get a 9 or 10 if it changes the face of gaming. I don't really agree. I hate dark, scary games and Bioshocks poduction and the way it sucked you into its world was so well done that I get it's 9s and 10s. Halo 3 isn't much different then prior outings but again I'm not much a multiplayer fps kind of guy, in fact I could have cared less about Halo 3 until about July or August and after getting the depth of the online community sucked me in, I'm amazed at how much is there.
And Orange Box I don't know if you played it or not, but Episode 2 is probably the best piece of gaming ever, It's simply amazing fun. Portal is revolutionary never has puzzle solving been explored to that degree in a fps, and with such a great concept with the computer talking to was brilliant.
And I think these titles are better then Splinter cell from last year that got great reveiws what about Perfect Dark Zeros review? that got near halo 3 reviews and it's not nearly as good.
Arg. I own both a PS3 and a 360. Which version to get? I actually prefer the PS3 controller for this type of game (I prefer the 360 controller for shooters though) but will the game look and perform the same on both consoles? I don't want to get the crappy version if there is one.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
