Why wouldnt they go for 100?
Why stop at 90?

What if it gets a 80 rating? Will the world end then?

I mean, rating, do we really need ratings? Sure ratings may be important for someone but in the end, you know if you like a game nor not.

Every time I see ratings from a new game today they are usually used by consumer to brag about their console. I am by no means saying a high ratings are BS or anything, but I feel they aren't here anymore to actually tell you that this game is good.

IMO, we would be better off without ratings. Not sure what the consequences would be tho.

I think they should be more concerned about making GREAT versions on all consoles, vs a crappy port for one of the consoles.

wtf dude, there is something fishy going on

Even though I could care less for the game, I'm still going to play it just to see what all the hype is all about.

Right now the graphics are awesome, but considering the environment looks blah and empty, the graphics should be expected since there is not a hell of a lot going on. Who knows it might turn out to be fun game, but at this moment the gameplay look meh.

Yeah cause Metacritic is what really matters right? Seriously though, besides the graphics, crysis 2 doesn't even look that much fun. I seen the multiplayer vids for crysis 2 yesterday, standard TDM FTL!

The multiplayer is going to be boring and suck.

It probably will be.

Most games do hit there targeted ratings, usually set by the publisher. Not all games target the upper end, either. I think Enslaved - Journey to the west is targeting a 75-85 for example.

It's come to a point that developers have to compromise there idea, to fit into what's considered acceptable by the mainstream, if they don't they get lower review scores. Leaving the typically generic at the top, and those that try to do something new, down the bottom, which is why most developers don't try to take the chance anymore.

Lost Planet 2 for example, as far as I saw, the primary problem reviewers had with the game was it's control scheme. It plays perfectly fine within it's control scheme, developers gripped on how the grapple hook wouldn't let you swing like bionic commando, and you weren't able to run very fast. This is how Capcom wanted the game to play, and it is fun once you embrace that.

That's such a strange thing for a publisher to say. We live in a time when we're constantly speculating that publishers pay off review sites for high scores. For EA to say this just makes me more suspicious. So far from what I've seen Crysis 2 does 'look' impressive. But visuals don't mean much to me.

When I'm searching for new games to flow, first I check out a few mags that suit my tastes. Previews give me a good base of some new games to follow. I usually track a few games at once and if I'm not totally convinced on a game by launch day I will check the scores. Generally speaking the scores tend to lead to a good purchase. Not everytime, but I also don't just buy every thing that gets a good score. I will almost always buy a game that receives the top score (10's, 5 stars , 62 hippo's, etc.) It is actually a decent tool in helping you find a game that YOU want to play. I've seen fancy cover art before, and been tempted to buy a game but after checking the score see that its only slightly better than ET 2600 I've saves my hard earned $60. Sometimes I will rent a game that got a low score and sure enough its crap. (legendary). But then again sometimes the review can lead you astray. I'm sure some people thought lair was just awful cuz of the control scheme getting shit on in every single review...however I had a good time with it and didn't really mind the slightly unresponsive six-axis controls, because it was new and cool. Is never done anything like it before. All in all the scores are there to help you the consumer. That's their primary function.I seriously doubt ppl r getting paid to hand out 10's......