Considering the year it was released, I don't think that MGS 4 deserved a perfect score because
1. It was too early for critics to give a game a perfect score since more games will be released and I think that they didn't consider that.
Alright, I'll bite.
You should understand that your argument is based on a few flawed assumptions. First, you assume that critic's ratings have a planned format or a certain "score quota." Second, you assume that there's a relationship between the time a game is released and that game's resulting score. Now unless you can support your claims with sufficient and relevant evidence, you should think twice before posting nonsensical conspiracies.
2. No game is perfect.
Depends on how you define perfection (biases included). Remember, perfection from a preference standpoint is not the same as perfection from a mathematical one. And game score is simply used to help quantify enjoyability/preferences/etc of a particular critic, not to be used as a mathematical number to draw comparisons. (i.e. the number 10 is always greater than the number 9, but a certain game that got a 9 may be better than a game that got a 10 once personal preferences are entered into the formula... and i feel silly for even bothering to mention that).
3. (part1) If games that year got 10, why aren't games released this year at least given a 10?
Again, you return to your original flawed assumptions of score quotas and time/score relationship.
3. (part2) Like 10 for graphics? MGA 4 didn't really have the best graphics. :|
GS doesn't use a numerical system to calculate game characteristics and attributes.
Even if they happen to have acknowledged that the graphics weren't the best, they left themselves room to use other game characteristics reduce the impact of flawed visuals on their overall review.
WasacreOL
Log in to comment