Why giving a game a score is pointless. The title rhymes so it must be true.

If you say one piece is better than the other you are lying. Why? Because you want a piece of each.

So you've been playing computer games for a while right? Well so Have I. Since 1994 to be exact, I think it was actually then end of 1993 that i first got my 486dx66 which to you kiddies was like having a computer with 2 core i7s in it. It had 16 mb of ram which might as well have been 16gig back then. It had a 250mb hardrive and that was HUGE for the time. So needless to say I've played just about everything that has come out since then. I've played every AAA game that was made for PC since then, from the days of 2d, when everything was still pretty through to the eye-stabbingly bad virtua fighter, the first 3d game I'd ever seen. Then alone in the dark, wolfenstein (which was so amazingly different I did not even understand how to play it), and everything from then on up to Crysis with a small skip in the Emperor Battle for Dune era of badly done 3d. Saying I know gaming is like saying that Stephen Hawking knows wheelchairs. In all my time playing I have never been able to tell you which game I've played is best. I've got a list but it's number free.

I don't score my games because I can't score them on multiple axes. For instance if I were to compare Quake 3 and Total Annihilation I'd be comparing a game that requires flawless performance to run to one that needs lots of time. Its award winning physicists to supermodels, you can compare them, but they don't fit on the same scale. Yes, she's got a nice bum, but how good is she at realizing that unified field theory is a waste of time, okay, okay, maybe hawking is a bit dim witted, but I put that down to someone having messed with his voltages and he's losing packets from his brain to his mouth, which as far as I know is by creAtive. Google 'my creative x-fi card does not work even though I paid lots of money for it' and you will catch my meaning.

If I were to develop a scoring system it would look like an age of empires research tree and with every additional game the scores of all the other games would change.

I'm actually going to give this a shot. Something like the top gear cool wall maybe. Until then, don't expect any scores from me, because while some reviewers are happy putting Mario next to something that is not the same shit for the 1000th time like cave story or braid, I am not okay with saying yeah caviar is all well and good, but if you really want something, try out this loaf of sliced bread. I like bread, I really bloody do, but its not fucking caviar and it never will be. Compare argentine beef to kobe and beluga caviar to salmon roe, but don't compare things to an arbitrary scale and think it holds any meaning other than EA paid me so they get to have a 96% while Activision paid me a little less so they get a 95%.

The hardest part of implementing scoring is that there are games like quake and starcraft that only survive based on how balanced their multiplayer is, while games that in my opinion are far far better will get swept by the wayside because they are singleplayer only. Quake and Starcraft are great arenas for showing off your wicked skillz. But saying that I got to the mega health before you managed to zerg rush me makes as much sense as comparing pac man to tetris. The human computer interface in quake and starcraft is wonderful, the game itself is not something you can compare to the likes of classics like Raptor: Call of the Shadows.

Its like saying that bread is better than caviar because caviar will make you sick if you eat it as a staple.

Quake, staple, cod (not the fish), staple, total annihilation? 10kg of black truffle bread that you cannot have enough of no matter what and tastes like giant tortiose, which is by all accounts earth's most delicious animal. Just ask the modding crowd how good total annihilation was to them.

I'm going to work on my ranking table, its going to multicolumnar, undirectional, unweighted and mutlifaceted. You can give it a rank and then add it to other sites to get a score from me. It will be able to compare supreme commander to total annihilation, and only then via that compare it to starcraft. Its relative and if your scores are not relative based on the aspects the game has in itself then its of no use to anyone but those in marketing and it is thus a lie.

If it's not done scientifically its a waste of your time. If they give a game a 90 for it to be playable and a 70% is unplayable what the hell is the point of the scoring system? What are 1-69 even there fore anymore? Every single website that gives a SCORE is talking out of its ass, its not statistically relevant so its not worth your time paying attention to.

Hexus.net is a rare exception, if it get a 50 on hexus its worth buying.

Tl;dr scores are like the cake, because Gabe Newell ate it all. Hexus is one of the few scorers you can trust and even then they sometimes get it wrong. I'm not scoring in real life so why should I score on my website?