Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Game Informer, the most popular and certainly one of the best gaming mags out there, has given out exactly eleven perfect 10 scores in their ~12 years of publication. Five of those eleven games* have had their reviews in the past four issues. GI's always been somewhat opinionated, and granted they have some of the most well-written (if not the most) reviews around, but are they lowering their standards? Are we really hitting a golden age in the history of video games? Has GI's changes in staff (they only have five of the same reviewers from two years ago) reduced their standards? Are they just reducing their standards in general? Who knows.

*Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Resident Evil 4, and God of War; Halo 2 and San Andreas were in the same issue (Dec 04)

Edit

Oh, I forgot to copy this, GI's response to a letter to the editor that basically asked them why they are lowering their standards: "...The fact that five of our eleven top scorers have been in the past several months is not a sign that we have lowered our standards. It is a sign that these developers independently redefined their respective genres, and it doesn't make sense to penalize that accomplishment because of the proximity of their titles' release date....."

This post has been edited by laszlow on 21st March 2005 00:32

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

I personally just think that we had a really good year for games. Maybe if the trend continues for another year, it'd indicate that they're lowering their standards.

You also have to look at tv shows about games, and other magazines. Are they acting like this as well? I know on X-Play, they praised many of those mentioned games.


--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

Having a HUGE popularity (in my area anyway) must've helped GTA: San Andreas and Halo 2. Although I know that a lot of my friends find GTA:SA to be somewhat of a pain and not all that great a game. You can never trust reviews.

Wouldn't surprise my if it was a marketing gimic used to sell the games. Probably payed off Game Informer to get those reviews. People were well aware of the standards of Game Informer and knew having a perfect review would probably help sales don't you think. But, considering that at EB Games where I live was sold out of Halo 2 copies in the first 10 minutes after the stores opened... it probably didn't need any great review to sell well...

Also, does anyone know the names of the other games that got perfect reviews? Just curious.

--------------------

This is my world: (Got my second chapter up, 3rd Chapter about 80% complete)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/daniel876/homepage.html

Quote

*Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Resident Evil 4, and God of War; Halo 2 and San Andreas were in the same issue (Dec 04)

Maybe one of the reasons they all got great scores is because they are all great games! GTASA is the greatest PS2 game to come out, Resident Evil4 is supposed be the best game of the year, GoW is supposed to be it competition, and Halo2 is known as one of the greatest and most popular games ever (it's also Xbox's best.)
This doesn't mean they're lowering standards, just that the quality of certain games is rising.

--------------------

I fear my heart and fear my soul
Life goes on, it surely will,
Without me and I wonder:
Will I ever see light again?

Life goes on...

I like how Gamespot always leaves some room for improvement with their ratings. I think the highest game they ever rated was a 9.6 or something like that. If Game Informer gives games perfect 10s, what happens when a game comes out that's even better than those other ones? Do they get an 11?

As for the big bunch of recent highly rated games, it simply means that modern games have the ability to generate more hype because the market is much bigger than before. Halo 2 is only a fantastic game because it was one of the most anticipated titles of all time. Many flaws have been pointed out about that game, so how can it be a perfect 10 anyway?

GI's rating system must be seriously flawed.

Quote (Elena99)

You also have to look at tv shows about games, and other magazines. Are they acting like this as well?

Mostly just with Halo 2 and GTA:SA. Now that they've been out for a few months, most magazines seem to be looking ahead at what's next. I've never heard of Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal being a perfect game.

--------------------

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

First of all, Gamespot has given out exactly four perfect ten scores, Tony Hawk PS 2, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Chrono Cross, and Soul Calibur. They have certainly given scores above 9.6 before.

I don't know game informer's other perfects, mostly because their reviews archive searching mechanism blows. I do know that they gave 10s to Metroid Fusion, Zelda: The Wind Waker, and Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

From all of this, we can understand that reviews do not necessarily always indicate the lasting "goodness" or popularity of a game. Chrono Cross really doesn't rank among my favorite RPGs, I thought Metroid Fusion was not nearly as strong as Super Metroid or even Prime (which was given a 9.0 in the same issue as Fusion), and I don't like virtually all extreme sports games. However, Soul Calibur is one of my favorite fighting games and certainly set a new standard for 3D fighters and Ocarina of Time is my favorite N64 game. You never can tell.

All of that being said, I have played four of those five recent tens (not God of War, of course), and all of them were good/excellent games. However, the only one that I would consider a redefinition of a genre/standard to hold others up to would be Resident Evil 4, which is one of the best games I've ever played in this generation of consoles. Halo 2 is certainly no reinvention of the genre, because it really is not much different from the original. San Andreas was very frustrating, yes, but it's plot and characters were excellent, and the sheer amount of things you can do in that game makes it very impressive at the very least. Ratchet and Clank 3 is an excellent shoot 'em up platformer, but not a revolutionary game by any standards. I am just amazed that GI is seemingly giving less credibility to their elusive perfect 10 by awarding so many in such a short time.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

People keep saying that Halo 2's storyline and campaign was great when really it sucked. It had very few playability other than its difficulty levels and the skull things. Chrono Cross was way better than a lot of games that Square has released. The reason that people weren't into it was because it didn't feel like a sequel to Chrono Trigger.

Edit

Actually, I think GameSpot is being more strict about gaming because those games are pretty old. They gave a lot of bad ratings last year...

This post has been edited by Blizzard_Wizard8 on 27th March 2005 15:40

--------------------

Yunalesca: "Hope is...comforting. It allows us to accept fate, however tragic it might be. "

Yunalesca: "Poor creature. You would throw away hope. Well... I will free you before you can drown in your sorrow. It is better for you to die in hope than to live in despair. Let me be your liberator. "

Odd that this topic shows up after Game Informer showed a letter and reply regarding the same issue. They said games just ended up being better and developers learned from past mistakes.

Here's my theory: With each year, the number of gamers increases. More gamers = more market, more market demands more attention to demographics, more attention to demographics = more tailored product, more tailored product = larger customer satisfaction, which means more market growth potentional. I suspect there's little room for innovation, but I strongly agree there's perfection going on. We're seeing sequels that are better than their predecessors.

Quote (SaintWeapon @ 27th March 2005 11:35)

...Here's my theory: With each year, the number of gamers increases. More gamers = more market, more market demands more attention to demographics, more attention to demographics = more tailored product, more tailored product = larger customer satisfaction, which means more market growth potentional. I suspect there's little room for innovation, but I strongly agree there's perfection going on. We're seeing sequels that are better than their predecessors.

This is true, but are those five games mentioned earlier really re-inventions of their respective genres? Will all action shooter games try to mimic Ratchet and Clank 3 and will all free-roaming urban-themed games mimic San Andreas? Three of those five games (those two plus Halo 2) did virtually nothing other than improve upon tried-and-true gameplay while just adding more features and abilities. There are higher production values and more effort in to each game, yes, agree with every word that SaintWeapon is saying other than "strongly agree[ing] there's perfectiong going on." Because there is so little room for innovation, these games' sequels will just keep adding on to past conventions instead of truly innovating. If all of what SaintWeapon says is true (and the GI staff agrees completely), then there will be several more perfect scores in the near future, and I think that it cheapens the perfect rating.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

I'm just glad that they gave Dawn of Souls a good review it deserves unlike GameSpot which gave it only a 7.2, I think.

--------------------

Yunalesca: "Hope is...comforting. It allows us to accept fate, however tragic it might be. "

Yunalesca: "Poor creature. You would throw away hope. Well... I will free you before you can drown in your sorrow. It is better for you to die in hope than to live in despair. Let me be your liberator. "