Every single gaming editorial publication is asked this at least once in their lifetime. Why did you give a perfect score to to a game with flaws? I was recently asked this question in my latest review for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D. It's a fair question and, in order to answer it, I need to get a little bit technical and philosophical at the same time.

A perfect game is not a flawless game. Negative World, like some other sites, has a review scale that goes from 0-10. If there is a game that is so terrible with absolutely no redeeming qualities (not even one), then I think it should deserve a big fat zero. However, if there is a game out there that does absolutely everything right, with maybe one or two meaningless wrinkles that are wholly overshadowed by the rest of the positives, then I don't see why I should deny the rarely given and elusive "Perfect Score." Like Anthony Burch once wrote (yes THAT Anthony Burch), "Perfection is an ideal, never to be practically reached by any art form at any time. That's just the way it works. With that in mind, why would you waste an entire point on the 1-10 grading scale by devoting it to something that can, by definition, never truly exist? Instead of calling 10/10 "perfect," why not just call it "will cure cancer"? They're both equally likely to happen within our lifetimes. To hold the 10/10 score back as an ideal for the perfect game, just in case it ever exists, is to degrade the entire 1-10 system into a 1-9.9 scale."

I feel that a "Perfect" game comes out maybe 1-2 times per system (sometimes 3 if we are lucky) , if that system has a lifetime of 4+ years. Let me list how many "perfect" scores there are per system, in my opinion.

NES: 1
Game Boy: 0
Game Boy Color: 0 For now. There are 4 games I want to play before making my final judgment.
Game Boy Advance: 1
SNES: 5 I find that the SNES constitutes the Golden Era of gaming.
N64: 2 And you already know one of them.
Game Cube: 1 and it's not Wind Waker or Super Mario Sunshine
DS: 2 and they are both remakes.
Wii: 1 I have to finish another game to see if it is worthy of a 10, but I'm not playing it soon.
3DS: 1 for now.

Game Gear: 0
Genesis: 0

PS1: 2
PS2: 0
PS3: 3
PSP: 0

XBOX: 0
XBOX 360: 2

If you look at other sites, you will see that, even though they have perfect scores in their review scales, they all agree that there is no such thing as a perfect game. I leave you with some examples:

Gamespot:
10.0: PrimeThis exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.

Nintendo World Report:
10 - We don't believe any game can actually be "perfect." But some can get pretty close. We give our highest grade to games which are the best of the best. Games that aren't necessarily "generation-defining" can still be given top marks for this reason; if a game is all it can be and stands out among those like it, it can get high marks, too.

Game Informer:
Outstanding: A truly elite title that is nearly perfect in every way. The score is given out rarely and and indicates a game that cannot be missed.

And my favorite definition of a "Perfect Game" goes to IGN:

IGN:
10.0 - Masterpiece
The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected.

Example: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

I would like to conclude the same way I began, just to hammer the point. A perfect game is not a flawless game.

URL to share (right click and copy)

@Zero

First, if you want to refine the review system or add titles to the scores, ect. Go for it. I don't think it is needed. Just like IGN has a title for every point in thier rating scale, which I never paid attention to. I read the review and that was what I was really interested in. Sure, I would look at the overall score, but I actually enjoyed the summary at the end of the written review and I also enjoyed reading how the individual parts of the game breaks down.

Refine it all you want. Its still not going to stop someone from saying, (in a whiny voice) "why did you give Ocarina of Time a 10(or insert any other game with whatever score)? no way it deserves a 10"

And that was the only reason sirmastersephiroth made this thread, cause someone thought they should tell him his score of the game was wrong.

This whole topic on how to review a game is just way overdone. If someone isnt happy with the 1-10 scale, then that person, when he/she reviews a game should use whatever metric they feel best desribes thier written review of the game. Whether its 1-10, 1-5, 1-100, A,B,C,D,E or maybe since Nintendo uses the S in many of thier games, like Mario Kart, there could be a S, A,B,C, D or E...or how about a score of Platinum, Gold,Silver,Bronze or Rust.

This is off topic for this thread, but I just wanted to post this pic of Snooki(from Jersey Shore) and her agent!

Posted by

gamewizard65

on: 07/23/11, 05:30

Edited:

07/23/11, 05:39

gamewizard65 said:

@Zero

First, if you want to refine the review system or add titles to the scores, ect. Go for it. I don't think it is needed. Just like IGN has a title for every point in thier rating scale, which I never paid attention to. I read the review and that was what I was really interested in. Sure, I would look at the overall score, but I actually enjoyed the summary at the end of the written review and I also enjoyed reading how the individual parts of the game breaks down.

Refine it all you want. Its still not going to stop someone from saying, (in a whiny voice) "why did you give Ocarina of Time a 10(or insert any other game with whatever score)? no way it deserves a 10"

And that was the only reason sirmastersephiroth made this thread, cause someone thought they should tell him his score of the game was wrong.

This whole topic on how to review a game is just way overdone. If someone isnt happy with the 1-10 scale, then that person, when he/she reviews a game should use whatever metric they feel best desribes thier written review of the game. Whether its 1-10, 1-5, 1-100, A,B,C,D,E or maybe since Nintendo uses the S in many of thier games, like Mario Kart, there could be a S, A,B,C, D or E...or how about a score of Platinum, Gold,Silver,Bronze or Rust.

Except the problem is the accessibility to us of other reviews, not simply doing it for our own entertainment. I'd like to be able to browse through game scores at a glance and feel I can trust that anything above a certain threshold is going to be highly recommended, generally original quality gaming, not just a game with 'really sick graphics' or 'high production values.' Or a game scored low simply because it's a little "janky" or "not quite polished enough."

As important as review text is, I value a score quite highly because I'm never going to read every single review for every single game. Having a quality metric to go by means that instead of just looking at reviews for games I already know I'm going to get or that I'm interested in, I can use the scoring mechanism to find games that I wouldn't ever notice. Apparently Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes for the DS and XBLA is a really awesome game, but I'd never know that because it's a generic ass name with a generic ass look to it, and the screenshots that may or may not be on the sidebar of a giant list of games totally don't interest me. It scored fairly decently everywhere, but because I don't really trust the general aggregate of reviews from 99% of sites, I totally blocked it out because I figured it was just a game that was "good for what it is." I only learned about how great a game it is by stumbling upon it on one of Giant Bomb's Quick Looks. If I had a rating system I could actually trust not to give handicap points for "being good for what it is" or removing points "for not being what I think it should be" and simply telling me how much you as a gamer want me as a gamer to play this game... then I'd feel totally comfortable looking at scores at a glance.

Because, again, I'm not going to read a review for every single game that comes out, and, believe it or not, neither will you. This means that we're currently missing out on awesome games but at the same time we're saving countless hours reading review after review that we may not feel we need to. A scoring system should serve as a barrier of entry for worthy titles but also a gateway for consumers to read reviews after a good score catches their eye.

As it stands, even 8.5+ games and, hell, 9.5+ games I'll just completely ignore if they don't catch my eye because more than half the time I'm reading a review written like a Press Release because it's based around hype or the technical prowess of the game. I see nearly indifferent reviews giving out insanely high scores. And then glowing reviews tempered by lukewarm scores. It happens all the time, it's confusing, unacceptable, unprofessional and a complete waste of everyone's time.

Posted by

Xbob42

on: 07/23/11, 05:47

@NoName

I'd like to be on that podcast with you. I deal almost exclusively in nostalgia.

@Zero

I don't really care about graphics.

@NoName

Haha, yes, Animal Crossing City Folk should NOT get a 0. As a standalone game, with no history taken into account, it actually has more to offer than their first run. Of course, as you mentioned, there was a lot of backlash because it was so similar. Tough to balance them sometimes.

@gamewizard65

Thats how she answers the phone!

@Xbob42

..but even if you have that threshold, someone's OPINION is going to skew it nonstop. If you give City Folk to me, and City Folk to NoName, one of us is scoring it a ridiculous, piece of trash 0, and the other one of us is scoring it in the 9's. Big difference.

And XBOB, those reviews you so harshly harpooned; anyone here?? I thought we had pretty good reviews..

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

It sounds like a lot of people want to know if we should pursue a game or not, regardless of score. If reviewers -- from now on -- simply do their thing as usual, do their score, and then for the review throw in a quick section RIGHT before the score where it says "Buy It, Rent It, or Skip It" (or possibly even in the title of the review? "Castlevania II: Simon's Quest - Rent It!"). That puts that information explicitly there, the scoring system stays the same, and people who don't trust a number can simply/quickly click on it and check it out. "Oh, rent it? Zammo!"

Of course, this would mean that every game in the database would have to be reviewed..

Posted by

Mr_Mustache

on: 07/23/11, 10:33

Right, but the aggregate, if everyone had trustworthy, honest reviews and I knew the tastes of each reviewer, would level out just fine. I don't know if this site has trustworthy reviews because I haven't had the need to look anything up, yet. I have every game that I'd reasonably be interested in, so it's hard to say. My problem is industry-wide, to some extent.

Posted by

Xbob42

on: 07/23/11, 12:20

@Mr_Mustache
City Folk does NOT have more to offer: NES Games. C'mon, as a fellow slave to nostalgia, you should understand!

@Xbob42
Couldn't you have just tried the demo for Clash of Heroes? Which leads us into my podcast topic: Are reviews even necessary for today's gamer?? Are 'professional gamers'?

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you said. Cutting the scores out and expecting every reader to analyze and parse your text is the height of egocentrism. (Mozilla says that's not a word, but fuck you, Mozilla. I'm MAKING it a word.)

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/23/11, 16:26

Edited:

07/23/11, 16:27

@Xbob42

Again, I agree. I think we're (as a whole) just missing on a few points, but matching up flush on so many others. Everyone wants to trust scores, everyone wants to know what scores mean, but those different tastes taint the whole bucket. And theres nothing we can do about that. You're never going to make me love an FPS (that I wouldn't already be interested in), and you guys aren't going to suddenly whip out NASCAR Thunder 2003 (which is AWESOME).

@Anand

I forgot about the NES games! I only had a few in-game though, and those I also had on actual NES so I didnt' gain much. I did, however, purchase Clu Clu Land cartridge AFTER getting it in AC! Rejoice!

I meant the "City," the online play, WITH other people, the more holidayish stuff, the more everything (fish, bugs, furniture, etc.), and even the ability to pick a house that wasn't centralized to the middle of the town was nice. Oh, and I guess some people liked the motion controls?

Posted by

Mr_Mustache

on: 07/23/11, 19:06

Omigod, NES games were the best unlockables ever. I don't think the copy of LoZ and SMB on the disc were ever unlocked, though.


And I totally cheated to get Wario's Woods. Stupid island.

Anyway, you like City Folk because you don't have a DS!

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/23/11, 23:29

@kriswright

By giving OOT 3D a 10 you're basically saying that a 13 year old game is absolutely a masterpiece on a brand new system by only having improved polygons and hud. That tells a lot about the system (and that's why I still don't own one). As for the review score being the "maximum recommendation" I think that is BS. How can you "rate" a recommendation? There are games that I'd rate 6 to 7 on their execution and still give them a maximum (10) recommendation.

Posted by

gencid

on: 07/24/11, 03:31

gencid said:

@kriswright

By giving OOT 3D a 10 you're basically saying that a 13 year old game is absolutely a masterpiece on a brand new system by only having improved polygons and hud. That tells a lot about the system (and that's why I still don't own one). As for the review score being the "maximum recommendation" I think that is BS. How can you "rate" a recommendation? There are games that I'd rate 6 to 7 on their execution and still give them a maximum (10) recommendation.

Maybe he's saying that a 13-year old game is still a 10 because it's still a 10?

To me, I'd say that you giving a 6 to 7 one way and a 10 as a recommendation... that's a 10 to me. I don't care about the execution, I expect flaws and failures. What matters is whether or not the entire experience is worth playing. An arbitrary score literally serves me no purpose as a reader of a review. I want to know how much you want me to have this game, and the review text, contrary to what people tend to say, is secondary. It should be informative and tell me why I should or should not play this game, but I like to go into games as blind as possible, and people can't seem to resist a plot synopsis with every review.

The entire system of scoring games based on execution seems like an excuse for grandstanding and narcissism to me.

I don't know, reviews as a whole right now seem like they're in an infantile stage, which is sad, because they're basically the same as they were 20 years ago.

Posted by

Xbob42

on: 07/24/11, 03:40

gencid said:

@kriswright

By giving OOT 3D a 10 you're basically saying that a 13 year old game is absolutely a masterpiece on a brand new system by only having improved polygons and hud.

Yeah. I'm absolutely saying that. You act like there's some obvious, fundamental flaw there. What in the devil is the problem with that line of reasoning?

Did people say, "Oh, the Mona Lisa was a masterpiece in its time, but now that people have better paints and different ideas about what painting can be, it's not a masterpiece anymore"? No, of course they didn't. That'd be a pretty strange attitude to take, wouldn't it? It sounds to me like you're factoring in some kind of secondary agenda about the reputation of the new console and letting that influence a particular game's score. Why even bring up the system at all, as you did? All I'm doing is looking at the game and saying if it holds up, it holds up.

Now, to be clear, I'm not even that big of a fan of OoT and I haven't played the 3D version yet. So I'm not saying it deserves a 10. I'm just saying, a 10 for the remake of that game is perfectly possible. If they updated Super Metroid with new graphics and some new bells and whistles that only benefited the game, I'd definitely give that a 10. Why in the heck should the age of the original design have anything to do with it? I just don't see the logic.

Now, if Nintendo thought they could get away with just releasing remakes of their greatest games, I'd give that policy a 4, because that's a shitty policy. I want new games as much as the next person. But all those great games would still get a high score. Why? Because they're still great (at least the ones that are still great.) It'd be silly to pretend otherwise.

I mean, the Beatles just released their entire catalog, remastered. Should we have 7.9'd all those classic records because, come on, they're old?

Posted by

kriswright

on: 07/24/11, 04:16

Edited:

07/24/11, 04:17

Xbob42 said:

The entire system of scoring games based on execution seems like an excuse for grandstanding and narcissism to me.

While that may be, how else are we going to push developers to improve upon gameplay mechanics or make better games? How can we give universal acclaim to the standout games that deserve it? A subjective recommendation doesn't really push the industry forward and we'd be left with better looking ports of decade old designs....See what I did here?

The bigger question is: how can we make sure that game reviews are objective if we try to ignore mechanical flaws just because we subjectively like the game for a reason or another? The reviewer must list all issues that the game has, bigger or small, and also compare it with the system's capabilities or like games on the same platform before giving it a score. Some of my most favorite games didn't score a 10 because they had some minor flaws, while I gave a 10 to some other games that I didn't really like that much but which were mechanically tight, had superior production values and re-playability, and took full advantage of the platform they were in. Out of all platforms I've ever owned since NES, I have only given a 10 to 8 games total. And a big bulk of them were on SNES.

Posted by

gencid

on: 07/24/11, 04:24

Edited:

07/24/11, 04:43

In the end, the only things developers really listen to is sales. They don't typically care what reviewers have to say, and in some cases listening to reviewers, who don't understand every impact that a suggestion carries because they're not game designers, can make a game worse.

That is not to say a game shouldn't have its flaws examined, but that's why I'd personally support a multi-score system. Hell, IGN and other sites have individual scores for every aspect of the game. Nix that crap and stick with two scores, leaving the review for a detailed discussions of successes, flaws, etc.

Posted by

Xbob42

on: 07/24/11, 04:34

Video games are subjective, so there's really no way to objectively review them. A game that is mechanically perfect might not be fun, so would you give it a 10 for crossing off all the bullet points of a current generation game? Yet you can't stomach to play it for 20 seconds without feeling ill? What if it's the opposite, flawed as all hell game but you enjoy it? Is that a 10? What the fuck is a 9.9 game?

The reviews themselves are generally terrible. IGN, for example, focuses the majority of their reviews on telling you what the game is not. I don't care what the game isn't, I want to know what the game IS. "Duke Nuken Forever is NOT Halo or Call of Duty" well that fixes that right up. Then they start saying shit like "Oscar worthy story", glancing over the terrible cell-phone friend mechanic, then you've got the "11 out of 10 if it didn't include the single player". It's all forum type writing. It's not helpful, the 9.7 attached at the end means little, and the way each of them reviews their games is odd. Some will spend an ungodly amount of time bashing a game for its mechanic flaws, while others will spend an unholy amount of time talking about a single feature.

Posted by

missypissy

on: 07/24/11, 04:51

@gencid Reviews aren't objective though, they can't be. They can (and should) have elements of objectivity involved, but in the end there is this vague and impossible to score objectively thing that could be called "fun factor" (as well as others like "heart", yada yada.) I think most people would agree that what makes a game amazing isn't following some objective list of bullet points, but something that is tougher to concretely nail down.

Anyway, when people "try" to be objective instead of trusting their own instincts, they probably end up the least objective that they ever are.

/EDIT Oops missypissy basically already said all of this.

Posted by

Zero

on: 07/24/11, 04:55

Edited:

07/24/11, 04:56

(Booo! Typed a bunch of stuff, lost it, and now it sounds awful! Darn these retry words!!)


@Anand

Wario's Woods is awesome! I think thats another one that I had in AC before I had it for reeeal. What a sweet game! I played that the most out of any of my AC NES games.

@Xbob42

But isn't Plot Analysis an integral part of an effective review? Like, required? What if the story honks?

@kriswright

I think I kinda understand what gencid is saying here.. I mean, whats the difference between what he is saying and a game like Call of Duty and its army of sequels? We've already established that thats a stinky practice, and that those games SHOULDN'T probably be scored that high; I mean, look at our whole Animal Crossing fiasco, too. So, playing Devil's Advocate (as if this thread needs it..), what is the difference between a sub-par sequel (Call of Duty, Animal Crossing, etc.) and a port of a game from an older system? I mean, the "port" from the "older system" sounds like it HAS to be a worse selection..

Posted by

Mr_Mustache

on: 07/24/11, 09:04

Edited:

07/24/11, 09:10

Anand said:

Omigod, NES games were the best unlockables ever. I don't think the copy of LoZ and SMB on the disc were ever unlocked, though.


And I totally cheated to get Wario's Woods. Stupid island.

Yeah, I loved the NES games in Animal Crossing. I used to boot up the game just to play 'em. Wario's Woods was amazing, and I redownloaded it on the VC. I loved the hell out of Balloon Fight, Clu Clu Land, Soccer, and Excitebike too.

Posted by

anon_mastermind

on: 07/24/11, 09:23

@anon_mastermind

You mean, THIS!? Add away, mon frere!

Posted by

Mr_Mustache

on: 07/24/11, 09:27

[ref=id=6153&pagenumber=7#167014]gencid said:[/ref][quote][ref=id=6153&pagenumber=1#166258]@kriswright[/ref]

By giving OOT 3D a 10 you're basically saying that a 13 year old game is absolutely a masterpiece on a brand new system by only having improved polygons and hud. That tells a lot about the system (and that's why I still don't own one). As for the review score being the "maximum recommendation" I think that is BS. How can you "rate" a recommendation? There are games that I'd rate 6 to 7 on their execution and still give them a maximum (10) recommendation.[/quote]
Like [ref=id=6153&pagenumber=7#167017]@Xbob42[/ref] said a 13 year old game is still a 10 because it's still a 10, even with some minor flaws. Like I said in page 4: " For example, while @gencid doesn't agree with my score, I appreciate that he backed up his opinion. I have a different opinion on everything he said, for example I think the motion and touch controls add a lot to the game, the graphics are beautiful interpretations of the original concept designs without straying too far from the source material, and the Boss Challenges, Gauntlet, and Mirrored Master Quest are more than extra value added to rebuy this game. The one thing we kind of agree on is the music. The music is dated but unlike @gencid I actually prefer for it to be dated. The original soundtrack just fits THIS game better than having an orchestrated soundtrack. There are other remakes where changing the soundtrack would be a plus, such as in Resident Evil Remake. In fact, I'm sure we will have this debate again when Star Fox 64 comes out and people start complaining that some of the voices don't sound as cool as the original."

[ref=id=6153&pagenumber=7#167020]gencid said:[/ref][quote][quote=Xbob42]The entire system of scoring games based on execution seems like an excuse for grandstanding and narcissism to me.[/quote]
While that may be, how else are we going to push developers to improve upon gameplay mechanics or make better games? How can we give universal acclaim to the standout games that deserve it? A subjective recommendation doesn't really push the industry forward and we'd be left with better looking ports of decade old designs....See what I did here?

The bigger question is: how can we make sure that game reviews are objective if we try to ignore mechanical flaws just because we subjectively like the game for a reason or another? The reviewer must list all issues that the game has, bigger or small, and also compare it with the system's capabilities or like games on the same platform before giving it a score. Some of my most favorite games didn't score a 10 because they had some minor flaws, while I gave a 10 to some other games that I didn't really like that much but which were mechanically tight, had superior production values and re-playability, and took full advantage of the platform they were in. Out of all platforms I've ever owned since NES, I have only given a 10 to 8 games total. And a big bulk of them were on SNES.[/quote]
While I agree that developers should always strive to innovate, sometimes it is important that they look back at what was done perfectly before. For example, lets compare Super Mario Bros. 3 to New Super Mario Bros. DS. While they are both great games, NSMBDS, in my opinion, is not as good as SMB3. The level design is not as good, the music is not as good, the powerups feel uninspired, etc. The only thing that was done better was the graphics.

There is something I don't understand in your post. Why do you give 10s to games that you did not enjoy very much. After all we are talking about games here. If you didn't enjoy the game as much as other "lesser" games then that is the biggest flaw of all. Why do production values matter so much if at the end of the day you didn't get as much enjoyment out of the game as one with lesser production values. Why does a game have to take full advantage of the system they are on? Pac-Man CE/DX doesn't take nearly as much advantage of the XBOX 360 as Gears of Wars does, and yet I enjoy that game a hell of a lot more than Gears. Final Fantasy XIII fulfills all your requirements and yet...most people feel it isn't even half as good as old-school Final Fantasy games. I think it's more important for the developers to achieve their vision than to check off bullet points. I do agree that the game has to be mechanically tight, however, and I find OOT3D to be very mechanically tight. More so than the original version. The only thing that is missing is the ability to roll from a high fall. However, in my 51.24 hours of playtime I didn't need to use it once and did not miss it at all. That's how minor a flaw that is to me.

Once again, I find your requirements for perfection interesting. You seem to be more interested in the effort, time, and resources put into something than the final quality of the product. In other words, you are more interested in the parts than the whole. If I were to apply this to different forms of media, or even everyday life, then:

1. The Star Wars Prequels are far superior than the Original Trilogy.
2. You should divorce your current wife every few years and marry a younger one each time because they have "better graphics".
3. Basketball players of today are better than basketball players of old in their prime.
4. Someone who studies 50 hours for a test and fails using every study aid inexistence, should automatically get a better grade than someone who studies for 25 and gets a perfect score just because the one who studied 50 hours put more effort into it.
5. The Academy Award for Best Picture should always be given to the film with the biggest budget and the newest technology.
6. Duke Nukem Forver was in development since at least 1997. Therefore, more time and effort was put into it than pretty much any game in the past decade if not ever. It therefore has to be THE BEST GAME EVER. By the same token, Too Human has to be the second BEST GAME EVER.

What is important to me is what I get from the game not the effort everyone else has put into it. Reviews are meant to be objective but, at the end of the day, they are still the subjective opinion of the reviewer. It is a non-mathematical summation of the experiences the reviewer had with the game and how much he enjoyed it. And it is a very personal opinion that SHOULD NEVER take into account the tastes of other people. The moment the reviewer starts to take into consideration what other people expect from the game/movie/book, etc. as opposed to what he expects from the game/movie/book, etc., that's the moment his personal integrity is compromised and he should step away from the desk and never review anything again. That is why I stopped reading reviews from Gamespot when they fired Jeff Gerstmann for, allegedly, his review of Kane & Lynch (he gave it a 6.0). Eidos, allegedly, took issue with the review and threatened to pull its ad campaing from Gamespot’s site. That is also awhy I have always admired Fran Mirabella for sticking to his guns and giving Mario Kart Double Dash a 7.9. When he did that, everyone was up in arms (including me). And then I played the game and found out for myself that his opinion of the game mirrored my own. And even if a reviewer's opinion doesn't mirror my own, I always remember that every person is an individual with different views and experiences that dictate his personal preferences. What is good to me is not necessarily good to him and vice versa. That is the only explanation I can find for someone [url=http://www.negativeworld.org/viewmember.php?userid=604]who is bold enough to give Castlevania II: Simon’s Quest a perfect score, after all[/url]!

Posted by

sirmastersephiroth

on: 07/24/11, 12:25

Edited:

07/24/11, 12:26

Haha, checkmate! I love Simon's Quest, though.

@anon_mastermind
Haha, I just found Soccer NES when I was cleaning up and organizing yesterday. I was trying to remember if it was fun. I enjoyed it, but it was probably my third NES game.

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/24/11, 16:06

@sirmastersephiroth

Posted by

CB200

on: 07/24/11, 16:23