I wouldn't usually play a game if it tends to get scores of less than 85%.

"Teh game got 89!!1! im not playin that POS"

I couldn't careless about ratings. I enjoyed X-Squad on PS2. That got like 70%. Gears of War got like 94%, IMO that game is a POS. Majority of my favorite games are 85 and below. Not saying they're better, I just like them more. People take opinions too serious.

AAA games are considered to be those within the 90-100% category. Strangely, AA games are often condsidered to be those that fall in the 80-90% category. 80% games aren't that good, people! In the last couple of years, scores became harsher and less lenient, so I became fine with playing games in the 82-85% range. However, I found almost everything below 82% from the last 2 years, and almost everything below 85% from the years before, to be pure, unadulterated ****. So the worse half of these so-called AA games are, IMO, mostly terrible.

You may think I have little appreciate for video games -- on the other hand, I love them tremendously. That better half of AA is well worth it.

And I'm not one of those brainless ones who likes being told what to think - most initial releases get the scores they deserve. Reviewers are a better and surer source of "quality feedback". I played much fewer ****ty games after discovering GameRankings.

the_hitman_guy

I strongly disagree. There are a number of really good games out there that score in the 7's either because they are considered too niche or having limited appeal. There are a number of tactics style RPGs that are amazing and offer many hours of gameplay and customization option that get 7's. I will take one of these over a high scoring game that can be beaten in a rental and forgetten about ANY day.

The problem with society today is too many people are unable to appreciate ANYTHING for what it is. They feel the need to label everything either "awesome" or "sucks". There is no middle ground anymore. Are we becoming this simple minded? Are we now taking the opinions of one or two gaming mags or sites over out own desire for fun and entertainment? Can we make up our own mind?

Sorry, but it seems to me that you are one of these people who judges games more on what others think. Do you only eat at high-end restaurants? Do you only sleep in 5 star hotels? Do you only watch critically acclaimed movies? Do you only wear designer clothes specially tailoredfor you?DO you drive the most expensive car? Live in a mansion? Or do you judge all those other things in your life ontheir own merits or what they do or do not offer.

There are many lower rated games that are great and comparable to many of the AAA titles that people have already long forgetten about. Maybe judge games on their own qualities and what they offer instead of some arbitrary score.

Maybe judge games on their own qualities and what they offer instead of some arbitrary score.ZIMdoom

But these "arbitary scores" DO judge games on their own qualities and what they offer.

The best first person shooter ever made actually got a 7.4 on Gamespot.

link

Gamespot also gave a low score to one of the very first RPG/FPS hybrids. It was an incredible game that just appeared on the Doom engine, when only the Build engine was considered acceptable at that point.:roll:

Lilac_Benjie

HOLY COW, Redneck Rampage, I forgot all about this game. It freaking ruled. It was way too much fun. Halarious and Awesome at the same time. Its like Duke Nukem on meth. Anyways TC is missing out on some great games.

instead of looking at the numbers, try reading the whole reviews next time.johncraven

I almost always read more than one review, and 80% games (lower AA) get much more negativity than positivity in the reviews. So don't tell me that if the score is bad, the review can actually let on that the game is a really great game.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]Maybe judge games on their own qualities and what they offer instead of some arbitrary score.the_hitman_guy

But these "arbitary scores" DO judge games on their own qualities and what they offer.

First of all, that is only AFTER the reviewer has determined how much the games pros and cons affected his gameplay experience. Not everybody has the same tolerance level for certain flaws and not every gamer has the same level of excitement for certain "pros". For example, I have zero tolerance for games with poor camera control. I have absolutely hated many games that score AAA because my tolerance for this problem is much lower than probably most critics who didn't mind constantly babysitting the camera. On the other hand, as I said already, one of my favorite genres of gaming is the tactics style RPG like FF-tactics and Disgaea. Man of these games score in the 7s but are actually quite good. They just score low because they are not for everybody, including many reviewers.

This is why it is important to read the reviews and make up your own mind if the pros and cons will affect you. This is also why the score of a game has less to do with the quality of the game itself, and more to do with the opinion of the reviewer. Frankly, if you think otherwise, you are flat-out wrong.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your opinion that you are only interested in the high-scoring games. However, the issue I have, as well as others, is the perceived prejudiced towards lower scoring games without considering the actual review or the opinions that factor into it. You act like the number is absolute fact which is wrong.

[QUOTE="the_hitman_guy"]

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]Maybe judge games on their own qualities and what they offer instead of some arbitrary score.ZIMdoom

But these "arbitary scores" DO judge games on their own qualities and what they offer.

On the other hand, as I said already, one of my favorite genres of gaming is the tactics style RPG like FF-tactics and Disgaea. Many of these games score in the 7s but are actually quite good. They just score low because they are not for everybody, including many reviewers.

This is why it is important to read the reviews and make up your own mind if the pros and cons will affect you. This is also why the score of a game has less to do with the quality of the game itself, and more to do with the opinion of the reviewer. Frankly, if you think otherwise, you are flat-out wrong.

So, different people have different standards towards certain genres. I would tolerate playing, for example, tactical RPG's from 70% up, strategy games from 75% up, stealth games from 80% up, RPG's and racings games and simulators from 85% up, and rung 'n' gun action games from 90% up.

But, ZIPdoom, wouldn't you rather play a tactical RPG that consistently scores around 90% on different sites, or one that consistently scores about 70% on different sites?