I don't get why reviewers allways give follow ups a lower rating than the one before.
Example: Gran Turismo 4 lower rating then Gran Turismo 3, Dynasty Warriors 6 lower then 5, God of War 2 lower then 1.
I think you get the point.
The new games are always better then the last version but because the developers didn't innovate enough they gave it a lower rating than the one before.
That way a strange situation is created, when sometimes launch games keep a higher rating then the second or even the third.
What's a person, who's a beginning gamer, to think when they read sites to find advice of what to buy and they see these ratings? Like someone just bought a PS2 and wants a good fighting game and sees that Tekken 4 got a better rating then Tekken 5.
It would be strange to say that although Mario from the 80s is considered the best game ever for someone to buy that now instead of Mario Galaxy. (just an example)
I'd say, sites should make something like a ''Hall of Fame'' and put all the classic games in there (from mario to gran turismo to tekken to gta), and start rating games properly. It would also be wise to update the site once a month to lower the score of a game with the passage of time that way you don't get those confused ratings.
Log in to comment