Numerical reviews are bad ideas because not everyone is judging off of the same rubric. Descriptive reviews, such as those suggested by Frozen, are far superior, and actually provide usable information. I don't know anything by hearing that a NES has an 88% rating, but I do hear a lot from learning that it's a fast-paced fresh start with fantasy elements, or something like that.
DominionNES2: 85/100 <- low score due to ability to do nearly anything. Note the massive plague one player created that kills all but those who worship his person. The mod allowed it so I quit.
I'm not about winning either.1 - I might be that player. All of my nation is deterioriating unto itself.
2 - It's a world of magic. What realism do you want?
3 - NESing is, to some, more about roleplaying than about winning. Think about it.
TerraNES: 99/100 <- Bronze Ages Bloodbath
and a dash of wild barbaric hordes!With a touch of European genocide!
And a dash of horrible massacres!
TerraNES: 99/100 <- Bronze Ages Bloodbath.
SKNES: 99/100 <- Dark Ages Bloodbath.
Capto Iugulum: 95/100 <- Lots of politics.
DominionNES2: 85/100 <- low score due to ability to do nearly anything. Note the massive plague one player created that kills all but those who worship his person. The mod allowed it so I quit.
I'm perfectly happy with those two.I don't mind him voicing his opinion; I just disagree with it. I think handing 99/100 to more than one NES is excessive? Near-perfection shouldn't be that easy to hand out. Hell, I wouldn't hand out a single A to the NES forum right now...