[citation][nom]malphas[/nom]Game scores like that are nonsense and always have been though, if you're doing a scale from 0-100 then 50 should be an average mediocre game, with varying levels of badness/goodness either side of that, instead it works like 90+ for good games, 80+ for OK games and 70+ for bad games, with the rest of the scale being redundant.[/citation]
people only really want to play good games, so people only really make good games.
when a game is bad, its REALLY BAD. and there are a few.
i personally think that a 1-10 rating system, that is weighted, and a final precent would be the best way to go.
like a fps gets a 30-40% of its rating from graphics alone (not realism, but how well it all flows, because its one of the few games thats selling point IS graphics) but a survival horror game would get weighted 30-40% on sound, and racing would get 50-70% on game play (good or bad graphics, good or bad sound, racing games live and die on game play alone, where others can get compensated from other aspects)
duke i believe (not haveing played it) is about
7/10 graphics
8/10 game play (personal taste)
10/10 music (if they dont fuck up the sound track, which i dont think they did)
and a 5/10 over all presentation (from what i hear of later levels.
coming in somewhere around a 7-7.5/10