How does a better version of a game that scored a 9.5 get a lower score than the original? I guess controversy drives more traffic than integrity.

Wed Feb 14 18 10:48pm
(Updated 1 time)

I'd guess it's both "score creep" and they are keeping some leeway to score the 3rd, as they probably feel like the probabilities of it being better than this is very high while it deserving a 10 is still far from a guarantee. If it's really better than this one, they'll have to get very close to a 10, and if they rate it 9,9 or 9,8, lot of people will complain they should just have graded it as 10. With a full point, they can rate it 9,5 and it'll look good relatively to the recently reviewed port.

So yeah, I'm calling it, if the 3rd game is better, they'll give it 9,5. Small chance they grade it 9, if it's just "more of the same", and a bit smaller chance to see a 10.
I have enough faith in Platinum to bet there's no way the new one get a worse score than that.

"How does a better version of a game that scored a 9.5 get a lower score than the original?"

Port Tax.


It was a 9.5 in 2014 on Wii U hardware. Given that the Switch is a significant step up in power, it's honestly a little disappointing that the only improvement they made is a slightly better framerate. No 1080p in docked mode on a nearly four-year-old game?

That shouldn't be held against the game at all. This isn't a remaster. This is just a port. The game on Wii U was perfect aside from the loading times imo. The only complaints people seem to have about the game are performance issues. If the Switch version fixes those performance issues, it should score higher.

I'll take a game that looks and runs great at 720p over one that sacrifices performance for graphics and drains my Switch battery in an hour.

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!