PC games getting 9/9.5 rating means its 10 according to gamespot ?

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by indzman (19965 posts) -

Never seen any PC games getting 10 on gamespot but there are tons of awesome PC games with 9 to 9.5 score (much superior to 10 winning MGS 4,GTA 4). Does it mean PC games getting 9/9.5 is actually 10 according to gamespot ?

#2 Posted by 15strong (2806 posts) -

No.It means it got a 9 or 9.5.

#3 Posted by Clock-w0rk (3378 posts) -

Never seen any PC games getting 10 on gamespot but there are tons of awesome PC games with 9 to 9.5 score (much superior to 10 winning MGS 4,GTA 4). Does it mean PC games getting 9/9.5 means its 10 according to gamespot?

indzman

No.

#4 Posted by PinnacleGamingP (5120 posts) -
no, pc gaming died years ago why are people still trying with this
#5 Posted by Chris_Williams (14882 posts) -

if it helps you sleep better at night, sure

#6 Posted by Badosh (12741 posts) -
Uh, what?
#7 Posted by freedomfreak (43482 posts) -
That's not how it works.
#8 Posted by indzman (19965 posts) -

That's not how it works.freedomfreak

?

#9 Posted by PinnacleGamingP (5120 posts) -
That's not how it works.freedomfreak
ok then turn around
#10 Posted by freedomfreak (43482 posts) -

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"]That's not how it works.indzman

?

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.
#11 Posted by indzman (19965 posts) -

[QUOTE="indzman"]

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"]That's not how it works.freedomfreak

?

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

#12 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

No.It means it got a 9 or 9.5.

15strong

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5.

A game that gets a 10, is a 10.freedomfreak

This...

Why does this thread even exists, can't the answer be anymore obvious? :?

#13 Posted by clyde46 (47568 posts) -

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="indzman"]

?

indzman

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

Its just one website dude.
#15 Posted by 15strong (2806 posts) -

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="indzman"]

?

indzman

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

I'll tell you a secret. Those mediocre consoles are secretly awesome.

#16 Posted by indzman (19965 posts) -

[QUOTE="indzman"]

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"] A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.clyde46

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

Its just one website dude.

still many PC games deserved 10 then.

#17 Posted by freedomfreak (43482 posts) -

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="indzman"]

?

indzman

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

It's one website. Opinions.
#18 Posted by Sweetbackhair (1926 posts) -
[QUOTE="indzman"]

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"] A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.clyde46

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

Its just one website dude.

It's also their opinions as well
#19 Posted by clyde46 (47568 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="indzman"]

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

indzman

Its just one website dude.

still many PC games deserved 10 then.

Wow.
#20 Posted by Spellingiscool (1450 posts) -
Gamespot scores are a priority in life? Who knew?
#21 Posted by madsnakehhh (14988 posts) -

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="indzman"]

?

indzman

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

Because the reviewer didn't thought it deserved the 10, as easy as that.

#22 Posted by locopatho (20986 posts) -
If it gets a 9 it's a 9. Jesus, thought PC were supposed to be "the master race", are numbers not a part of that?
#23 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -
It's amazing how much people will bend and twist logic in order to show how their system of choice is the superior one. Assuming they're not just pulling all our legs.
#24 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

No.It means it got a 9 or 9.5.

15strong

This. At the end of the day it's an opinion, not favouritism.

#25 Posted by MK-Professor (3935 posts) -

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="indzman"]

?

indzman

A game that gets a 9.5, is a 9.5. A game that gets a 10, is a 10.

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

the reviewer wanted to give a 10, how hard is that to understand :?

scores(in every category games, movies, etc) are based more on opionos.

#26 Posted by LordQuorthon (5388 posts) -

A 9.5 on the PC is a 13 on the HD consoles, a 19 on the Wii, a 23 on the PSP and a 29 on the DS. That's how the whole different standards thing works.

#27 Posted by slimjimbadboy (1731 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="indzman"]

my question is why awesome PC games never got 10 then, when mediocre console games as GTA IV got 10 ?

indzman

Its just one website dude.

still many PC games deserved 10 then.

A 10 compared to what?

#28 Posted by -Unreal- (24557 posts) -

Here's the thing.

Games are reviewed for the system and genre they're in. Scores for one game aren't necessarily meant to be directly compared to scores of another, especially for games of different systems and genres. It does however give a general idea of whether a game is good, average, bad or excellent.

I would have thought people knew this as it's really common sense but with common sense where would we be? Not in System Wars that's for sure.

#29 Posted by kraken2109 (13229 posts) -

Gamespot themselves confirmed higher standards on pc ages ago.

#30 Posted by Jankarcop (10775 posts) -

GS stated PC has higher standards several times.

#31 Posted by Link3301 (1829 posts) -

Gamespot holds PC games to a higher standard than console games. I though this was a known fact by now.

#32 Posted by 15strong (2806 posts) -

The three above me, that was stated years ago, by one reviewer, for a multiplat game. That has nothing to do with any other reviewers or the site itself.

The argument itself is a pretty bad one, considering PC exclusives can only be judged among other PC exclusives. Meaning the same standards.

#33 Posted by sSubZerOo (44154 posts) -
............. Who honestly cares? Can people tell the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.5 game especially one in different genres? Nope its a number pulled out of ones ass to make it seem like they broke the game down and spent a long time agonizing over what to give the game.. The sooner we get to a 5 star system the better..
#34 Posted by fr3ddiemercury (494 posts) -

No.It means it got a 9 or 9.5.

15strong
#35 Posted by PsychoLemons (2384 posts) -

No.It means it got a 9 or 9.5.

15strong

#36 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74433 posts) -
9.0 and 9.5 are what they are, they aren't 10's. IF they thought they were a 1o wouldn't they have given it to them? I mean really
#37 Posted by TheShadowLord07 (22191 posts) -

well that what kevin vanord believes,yes

#38 Posted by v13_KiiLtz (2779 posts) -
OP is a consolite posing as a hermit 0/10 the only thing thats more sad is ppl actually bought into it
#39 Posted by lightleggy (16087 posts) -

Never seen any PC games getting 10 on gamespot but there are tons of awesome PC games with 9 to 9.5 score (much superior to 10 winning MGS 4,GTA 4). Does it mean PC games getting 9/9.5 is actually 10 according to gamespot ?

indzman
Not exactly, it means that they got 9.5 on PC, which translates to 20.5 on consoles.
#40 Posted by lightleggy (16087 posts) -
9.0 and 9.5 are what they are, they aren't 10's. IF they thought they were a 1o wouldn't they have given it to them? I mean reallyThe_Last_Ride
He didnt phrased his question properly. He was talking about adjusting the scores to console's criteria. Consoles have lower standards, therefore a PC game that scores a 9.5 means it's better than a game that scored 10 on consoles.
#41 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

1.0=1.0

1.5=1.5

2.0=2.0

2.5=2.5

3.0=3.0

3.5=3.5

4.0=4.0

4.5=4.5

5.0=5.0

5.5=5.5

6.0=6.0

6.5=6.5

7.0=7.0

7.5=7.5

8.0=8.0

8.5=8.5

9.0=9.0

9.5=9.5

10=10

Not that hard, dude.

#42 Posted by Teuf_ (30805 posts) -

If they thought a game was a 10, they would have given it a 10.

#44 Posted by the_bi99man (11059 posts) -

Come on dude. If you're gonna try to make this asinine argument, at least reference when Kevin VanOrd (I think it was him) said something about PC games having higher standards. That wouldn't make your logic valid, but at least it'd be something.

Better than, "there aren't any 10s, so that means 9s are 10s, right?"

#45 Posted by nitekids2004 (2980 posts) -

WoW was the last PC Exclusive GotY.

The "PC has higher standards" is just a myth made up by hermits.

#46 Posted by GioVela2010 (4298 posts) -
Gamespot: " a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards. "
#47 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]9.0 and 9.5 are what they are, they aren't 10's. IF they thought they were a 1o wouldn't they have given it to them? I mean reallylightleggy
He didnt phrased his question properly. He was talking about adjusting the scores to console's criteria. Consoles have lower standards, therefore a PC game that scores a 9.5 means it's better than a game that scored 10 on consoles.

A slight graphics or performance difference shouldn't have a significant change to a game's score.

#48 Posted by MK-Professor (3935 posts) -

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]9.0 and 9.5 are what they are, they aren't 10's. IF they thought they were a 1o wouldn't they have given it to them? I mean reallyVenom_Raptor

He didnt phrased his question properly. He was talking about adjusting the scores to console's criteria. Consoles have lower standards, therefore a PC game that scores a 9.5 means it's better than a game that scored 10 on consoles.

A slight graphics or performance difference shouldn't have a significant change to a game's score.

from "1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings" to "2560x1440, 60fps, max settings" is not slightdifference in graphics and performance, the right word here is chaoticdifference.

#49 Posted by razgriz_101 (16871 posts) -

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] He didnt phrased his question properly. He was talking about adjusting the scores to console's criteria. Consoles have lower standards, therefore a PC game that scores a 9.5 means it's better than a game that scored 10 on consoles.MK-Professor

A slight graphics or performance difference shouldn't have a significant change to a game's score.

from "1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings" to "2560x1440, 60fps, max settings" is not slightdifference in graphics and performance, the right word here is chaoticdifference.

which opnly applies to high end rigs at the end of the day, average joe isnt going to get those yeilds with his rig.

#50 Posted by the_bi99man (11059 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

A slight graphics or performance difference shouldn't have a significant change to a game's score.

razgriz_101

from "1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings" to "2560x1440, 60fps, max settings" is not slightdifference in graphics and performance, the right word here is chaoticdifference.

which opnly applies to high end rigs at the end of the day, average joe isnt going to get those yeilds with his rig.

Depends on the game. I game on an almost 4 year old laptop, and it plays most multiplats at graphics levels that look better than the console versions, and maintains higher framerates. I'm not playing most games maxed out, but you don't need to max them out to make them look better than the consoles. They're just too damn old. Sony and Microsoft have been lazy as hell and let this generation of consoles drag on longer than any previous one. Combine that with the fact that on the other end of the spectrum, PC hardware has been advancing faster than ever before during this time, and it's just made the gap in raw power huge. People with "top of the line" PCs right now are barely using their power. If they are, it's because they're pushing super HD resolutions, like 1440p or 1600p, or going beyond 60 fps with 120hz monitors, or applying extremely high end post process anti-aliasing and stuff like that. A smartly built mid-range computer will run just about any game available right now at max settings, if your okay with 1080p, <8xAA and 40-60 fps. And I'm pretty sure all but the most dedicated enthusiast is fine with that.