[Johnny Awesome]

What I'm seeing from the Xbox 360 launch is a lot of 8.5/10 titles (Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Oblivion, Condemed, Dead or Alive 4), a couple of 9/10s (Project Gotham Racing 3, Kameo), but not really any 9.5/10 killer launch titles.

Overall I think this is probably more important than having one killer launch title like Halo last time around. That was pretty unique as far as launches go, and the above lineup completely destroys the PS2 launch lineup SSX, RR5, TTT).

[Powderkeg]

Wouldn't you have to,,,, i don't know,,,, PLAY some of the games to get an idea of how they would score?

And FYI, not one single xbox game has averaged a 95% (9.5) overall score at Gamerankings.

[robofunk]

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/472132.asp

also

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/562116.asp
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/556553.asp

[Powderkeg]

I said overall score, not their rounded off main score.

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrank...pleratings.asp

Under Platform, select the xbox and click Go. Then look at the overall score.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by Powderkeg

Wouldn't you have to,,,, i don't know,,,, PLAY some of the games to get an idea of how they would score?

RGR that!

I said overall score, not their rounded off main score.

The only score at Gamerankings.com that has any meaning is the one from reputable review sites. i.e. ones done by professional reviewers who see a lot of games on the same, and other, platforms to give a relative score compared to other games in the genre and available in general. Who cares what the "Dead Alfs" of the world say in view of relevant game rankings? Or even more what an Xbox or PS magazine has to say? Not that their opinion is invalid, but game scores should be based on review sites who have some consistant criteria.

e.g. Halo 1. Gaming Headlines UK gave Halo a 50%. YES, 50%. Plain Games gave it a 70%. While each mag has a right to an opinion, what type of core audiance are they representing? One key aspect of reviewing a game, within a LARGE game site, is basing your opinion first within the genre available on the platform, then in general of the genre and the console, and then how it relates to other top games. Sites with a specific bent (e.g. RTS sites, Sim sites, FPS sites, non-violent sites) should have a voice, but SURELY a non-violent site's score should not reflect a general review of the game. It has appeal to a very limited demographic. So viable and relevant to some, but it should not be a baseline of comparison for the genre, platform, or to other top games.

While even the big sites waiver on criteria AND have bias, their composit score is more important than that of the average run of the mill fan site with no real accountability. There are good ones out there but more junk than substance.

[Powderkeg]

Originally Posted by Acert93

RGR that!

The only score at Gamerankings.com that has any meaning is the one from reputable review sites. i.e. ones done by professional reviewers who see a lot of games on the same, and other, platforms to give a relative score compared to other games in the genre and available in general. Who cares what the "Dead Alfs" of the world say in view of relevant game rankings? Or even more what an Xbox or PS magazine has to say? Not that their opinion is invalid, but game scores should be based on review sites who have some consistant criteria.

That's the theory anyways.

But I wouldn't exactly call www.lawrence.com a reliable gaming review site like Gamerankings does.

[Johnny Awesome]

The mains are the only important indicator.