[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="mo0ksi"]System Shock 2 gets an 8.5, yet is widly regarded as the best FPS of all time.
Fallout 1+2 get AA scores, yet they're considered to be the best RPGs of all time.
Scores don't make the game.
aliblabla2007
Exactly.If anything that is pure evidence of how much of a barstard PC standards are, and how PC reviewers are utter barstards to their own platform.
It is good to keep the standards high, but jeesh those two are easily AAA++ games.
Hell System Shock 2 should have gotten the score that Half-Life did. I'm still pretty bewildered at exactly why the game is 8.5 on GS. Then you have games like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Gears of War scoring 9.6 with reviewing standards a from a good 7 years later.
And CoH deserved 9.6 - 9.8 as well - come on, that game's almost perfect! If they did minor things like lengthening the campaign, adding more races and such it would come even closer to a 10.
I think standards have actually gone down for games with significant hype and marketing. Come on, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare scored the same (using the 1/20 GS scale) as Sins of a Solar Empire - a game which deserves a 9.5! Is it really a question of which of those two is by far the better game?
But I think a significant reason why PC games will sometimes score lower than their console counterparts, despite being better, citing case Gears of War vs Company of Heroes, is because of how buggy they can be. Which is really a problem with how PC Gaming actually operates - as many people know, optimization and bug-killing becomes significantly harder when there are hundreds of systems to play the game on.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a buggy game, and that is precisely the reason why it scored 8.5 and not the 9.0+ that it deserves. Why? Because of the truckload of framerate issues and such that comes with it as an unpatched game. Not that console games are immune to such things, citing case Mass Effect, but considering that consoles are much easier on the developers for polishing the game, it means that console games are less likely to have bugs and such crap.
Also, it seems that current reviewers are actually ignoring such flaws, and giving them supa-high scores depending on how hyped they are. I haven't played Grand Theft Auto IV, but as you can see, player reaction from a good bit of people on this forum isn't exactly 10/10.
I seriously cannot take reviewers seriously anymore - not when Call of Duty 2 scored higher than Deus Ex. Not when Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars scores the same as Homeworld. Because in those two cases, there is no doubt to whichever game is by far superior.
And Halo: Combat Evolved at 9.7? :| I've only played the PC version which is said to play worse, but unless Halo Xbox happens to be better than the PC version with much more than just it's Co-Op mode and controls, I'm going to laugh like a mad maniac at that.
And in any case: Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast > Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare PC. Guess what? They scored the exact. Same.
This might sound like an anti-reviewer rant to promote my own disagreements with Gamespot's reviewers, but in the end, it is exactly like pretty much most people's ramblings: opinion.
Standards have definitely fallen, even for PC games, and I think it's due in large part to the fact that it shares many games with the 360. Look at the games you've singled out as having had their scores inflated, and most of them were originally console games. GameSpot probably just gave the PC versions the same scores as the 360 versions because they didn't want to rewrite their reviews. PC-exclusive games, however, are given more scrutiny.
Log in to comment