@MatiasMGS: So of they made a phenomenal game that treated all the Mexicans as idiotic laborers and mindless criminals that would be okay? I'd knock that down at least a point. Can't wait for someone to make a game that unfairly bashes our military or something and watch all the white people become snowflakes.
@xcrimsonxsynx: The game industry is the only place where sequels are USUALLY better than the originals. I can name a dozen franchises where this is true. Uncharted, Assassins Creed, Crash Bandicoot, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect, Pokemon, Destiny, Hitman, Tony Hawk Pro Skater, Skate, Onimusha, Age of Empires, Portal, God of War, Resident Evil, etc. Video games are an iterative medium where the quality of the gameplay and tech running it is often more important than the originality of the story. It's easier to improve gameplay and tech when the groundwork has already been laid from the original game.
@vlasov18: To be fair, any SNES/Genesis games or anything released prior to 1995 wasn't reviewed because gamespot didn't exist yet. I'm sure Metroid would have gotten a 10/10 from gamespot in 1994.
@vlasov18: Grim Fandango was great but it fell victim to many adventure games of the time: COMPLETE NONSENSE PUZZLES. There was very little logic behind most of the "puzzles" of that game. Even after getting stuck and looking up the solutions, I still was like "how was anyone supposed to figure this obtuse shit out???" Interesting story for sure and great writing, but the puzzles were awful.
@YummyMango: 1) GTAIV was the first GTA that WORKED. Very infrequent framerate dips, vastly improved draw distance, an amazing physics engine, actual modern 3rd person shooter controls, the technical improvements were all what made the game amazing. The story left something to be desired and they removed a lot of side activities, but they did add a great multiplayer suite in its place.
2) Everything about MGSV was perfect except the story, which I know is a big deal for a Metal Gear game. But take away the story or call it something different and you still have a phenomenally designed game. No 2 missions played out the same due to random weather effects, some of the smartest AI I've encountered, and the vast array of weapons , gear, and buddies at your disposal. Again, a technical masterpiece with a start that STARTS good, but falls off a cliff after Act 1. I still thought the true ending was a complete mindfuck, as I did NOT see that coming at all. I thought about that twist for months.
3) Not even gonna touch this one cuz it's obvious you aren't the type of person who would appreciate an art house game like this. If you didn't tear up at the end of that game, it definitely wasn't made for you.
@jr_hal: It's gunplay was still extremely sloppy and the graphics were.... ehh they were just ok. The world was huge but damn those character models were terrible and the framerate was awful on PS2 and slowed to a crawl if you drove too fast. So buggy and tons of bad pop-in. The rest of the game was phenomenal, but it had way to many glaring issues to be a "perfect" game or even a "masterpiece". I just remember being very disappointed when MGS3 came out and then SA was right after and the graphics were a HUUUGE downgrade!
@allercon: It was always a 9.9. I've been on this site since 2001 and I always remembered that and Perfect Dark got 9.9 and I was like "JUST GIVE IT THE PERFECT SCORE ALREADY!!!"
@BunicuL: I still can't believe they gave HL2 a 9.2. I mea that's not a bad score but it still remains the best FPS campaign of all time and the game that introduced me to ragdoll physics proper. (Other games had them, but none were nearly as well-tuned and believable as HL2)
@solid_snake1461: I'd say Halo 1 (even in retrospect) deserved a 10. If Goldeneye invented FPS split screen multiplayer, then Halo perfected it. Glorious, lengthy campaign and infinite replay value through the first (good) online console FPS.
KahnArtizt's comments