Some Games Deserved More Ratings Rather Than The Ones They Got

To my surprise there were some games which definitely derserved more ratings rather than the ones they got. To me it seems they were not judged properly IMHO. They might not be as best as GTA Vice City, Dragon Age Origins, Far Cry 1, The Witcher 2 and so many but not even far from them. Here is my list of games which I think deserves more than the ratings they got (All based on Gamespot Score and User Score of Gamespot):

Fahrenheit / Indigo Prophecy: I should say this Oct 2, 2005 released game is the game of many games yet but despite it's unique and greatness it not received proper scores to it's standard. This game without a doubt was opened the doors for other developers to think further and produce something new for the gamers. At least thanks to the gamers who at least gave it a very decent score.

Gamespot score: 8.4 & User Score 8.9. To me the deserving score supposed to be 9.0 + for 100% sure.

Syberia 2: Syberia 2 released on Mar 30, 2004 and I am still looking for the answers why it never been rated as like as the first one which got 9.1 score. really very very shocking. If Syberia 1 really pleased us for a different sort of adventure game then definitely part 2 just fulfilled it. But not justiced properly. Again thanks to the gamers who at least gave it a very decent score.

Gamespot score: 7.8 (very disapointing) & User Score 8.6. To me the deserving score supposed to be 9.0 +.

Nocturne: This great game released on Oct 31, 1999 and I can bet on that an unique game like that was huge attempt specially for that time. But to my surprised this game was never been discussed many times and never been rated to it's standard. Even firingsquad.com said about it: "Nocturne is almost a game that came out before its time" (http://www.firingsquad.com/games/nocturne/verdict.asp).

Gamespot score: 7.0 & User Score 7.7 very disapointing. To me the deserving score supposed to be 8.5 +.

Cold fear:The game released on May 17, 2005 and rated not to it's standard. Those who are great fans of Resident Evil early serieses supposed to be a great fan of it's too. Even in some aspects it was better than those but not justiced properly.

Gamespot score: N/A (Very shocked they didn't rate this game at all) & User Score 7.8 very disapointing. To me the deserving score supposed to be 8.5 +.

Arcania: Gothic 4: The game released on Oct 19, 2010 and didn't get at all why it was poorly rated!!!! The graphics was good, the game play was not that bad at all but still poorly rated! really amazing.

Gamespot score: N/A (Very shocked they didn't rate this game at all) & User Score 6.1 very disapointing. To me the deserving score supposed to be 8.0 +.

The Suffering: The game released on June 8, 2004 and not rated up to it's standard specially by GS as the users at least gave it a decent score.

Gamespot score: 7.6 (very disapointing) & User Score 8.2. To me the deserving score supposed to be 8.5 +.

Two Worlds II:This great game released on Feb 8, 2011 and supposed to be one of the best game for the year 2011 but again rated poorly to it's standard and almost ignored. I just wanna know why this game treated and rated this way and wanna know the lackings of it as I didn't get to many of it.

Gamespot score: 7.5 & User Score 7.5 (very disapointing). To me the deserving score supposed to be 9.0 +.

I can recall the above mentioned games so far despite there are so many yet. You can also add them with your opinions.

Thanks.

I find it difficult to base an argument against the user scores, because they are the aggregate opinion of the masses.

Too Human is in my top 10 games of all time.

The only reason I give a crap about the scores that it received is because they appear to have killed off the 2 games that were supposed to follow it.

I find it difficult to base an argument against the user scores, because they are the aggregate opinion of the masses.

True_Sounds

I don't understand topics like this. I mean, review scores are all opinion. What does it matter if a review score is different to the score you would give a game?Just-Breathe

I don't understand topics like this. I mean, review scores are all opinion. What does it matter if a review score is different to the score you would give a game?Just-Breathe

Don't fret too much about it. It's just a number, useless. Play the games and make up your own mind about the quality of the experience , don't let some number tell you otherwise.

Don't fret too much about it. It's just a number, useless. Play the games and make up your own mind about the quality of the experience , don't let some number tell you otherwise.

GeneralShowzer

Don't fret too much about it. It's just a number, useless. Play the games and make up your own mind about the quality of the experience , don't let some number tell you otherwise.

GeneralShowzer

Don't fret too much about it. It's just a number, useless. Play the games and make up your own mind about the quality of the experience , don't let some number tell you otherwise.

GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

Don't fret too much about it. It's just a number, useless. Play the games and make up your own mind about the quality of the experience , don't let some number tell you otherwise.

krazyorange

Critical reception can positively affect sales, yes. This doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote though.

People are capable of judging games for themselves, making up their own minds of how enjoyable a game is, at least I would hope so.

It's just a number on a highly flawed scale, in the end.

I agree with you that alot of poorer rated games deserve higher scores or that I enjoeyd em alot mroe then highly rated AAA games.

But.. I dissagree with you posting Gothic4, that game is one of the worst games ive played this gen. Not just because its fails hard as a Gothic game but on its own as an rpg its trash. Should have got 5/10 imo.

The other games you mentinoed I do agree for the most part though.

To me Alpha Protocol, Too Human, Gothic3, Deus Ex1, Shenmue, Suikoden1, Fallout1 and Brink are all pretty underrated as far as scores go for my personal taste. Also ARMA2 only has a 77% average and I just love that game, scores can be very misleading. For me MW2 and GTA IV were crazy overrated by reviewers, while those others I listed underrated, in the end everyone is different.

Its good to just make up your own mind about a game instead of taking review scores for them, as some reviews might like graphics or polish the most, while you enjoy story,gameplay or ambition the most.

And both Deus Ex 1 and Deus Ex HR. Both 9.5 games in my eyes.Elann2008

Agreed 100%, toss Fallout1 in there to :P

Too Human is in my top 10 games of all time.

The only reason I give a crap about the scores that it received is because they appear to have killed off the 2 games that were supposed to follow it.

AR-15

Another person who enjoyed Too Human! Good stuff :P

[QUOTE="krazyorange"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

Don't fret too much about it. It's just a number, useless. Play the games and make up your own mind about the quality of the experience , don't let some number tell you otherwise.

GeneralShowzer

Critical reception can positively affect sales, yes. This doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote though.

People are capable of judging games for themselves, making up their own minds of how enjoyable a game is, at least I would hope so.

It's just a number on a highly flawed scale, in the end.

I can't agree with you more on that point. So many times I've played games with high scores and despised them and vice versa. The only issue with "official" scores is that they can murder a game before it's even out of the gate. But in terms of actual game enjoyment, user scores are the most accurate arbitrary number available if you're the type of person who looks to such things for purchasing advice.

So yeah, what you said.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

[QUOTE="krazyorange"] This isn't entirely accurate. In fact it's not accurate in the least. Poor review scores generally mean less sales, and less sales equates directly into the abandonment of the IP. The opposite is true, where boring and done-again games get good reviews (for a variety of reasons I won't address) and therefore sell more games, thereby generating more sequels. Review scores for games are the same as review scores for movies, and if you're even semi-literate in the film industry, you know poor review scores can tank a movie faster than anything else possible. Ever wonder why some movies end on a cliffhanger and never get a sequel? More often than not, it's because the film got poor scores. In fact, many game publishers set bottom lines for their developers, say 70% aggregate. If their game scores lower than that, not only will they lose funding, in cases like EA's subsidiaries, the studio will probably be closed down completely.krazyorange

Critical reception can positively affect sales, yes. This doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote though.

People are capable of judging games for themselves, making up their own minds of how enjoyable a game is, at least I would hope so.

It's just a number on a highly flawed scale, in the end.

I can't agree with you more on that point. So many times I've played games with high scores and despised them and vice versa. The only issue with "official" scores is that they can murder a game before it's even out of the gate. But in terms of actual game enjoyment, user scores are the most accurate arbitrary number available if you're the type of person who looks to such things for purchasing advice.

So yeah, what you said.

I understand both your points fully. The only gripe I have with these underrated scores for great games is that it can really hurt a GREAT game in sales, Where as a highly rated game that wasn't as deserving sells millions because it got the editor's choice gold..

And then there are games that deserve its high accolade but doesn't do that well in sales.

I agree with Two Worlds 2. It's the most well optimized and graphically appealing game I've ever played. The graphics are second to none.

I agree with you that alot of poorer rated games deserve higher scores or that I enjoeyd em alot mroe then highly rated AAA games.

But.. I dissagree with you posting Gothic4, that game is one of the worst games ive played this gen. Not just because its fails hard as a Gothic game but on its own as an rpg its trash. Should have got 5/10 imo.

The other games you mentinoed I do agree for the most part though.

To me Alpha Protocol, Too Human, Gothic3, Deus Ex1, Shenmue, Suikoden1, Fallout1 and Brink are all pretty underrated as far as scores go for my personal taste. Also ARMA2 only has a 77% average and I just love that game, scores can be very misleading. For me MW2 and GTA IV were crazy overrated by reviewers, while those others I listed underrated, in the end everyone is different.

Its good to just make up your own mind about a game instead of taking review scores for them, as some reviews might like graphics or polish the most, while you enjoy story,gameplay or ambition the most.

kozzy1234

I agree with Two Worlds 2. It's the most well optimized and graphically appealing game I've ever played. The graphics are second to none.

Koraboros