Of course it is. I can't remember a time - specifically the last 3-4 months - when there have been so many genuinely must-play games released. Bioshock, Halo 3 (though I rarely bother these days), Mario Galaxy (saving till nearer Christmas), Call of Duty 4, Assassin's Creed (simply the most gorgeous gaming world ever coded), Mass Effect (still hooked), The Orange Box, Phantom Hourglass, Ratchet & Clank etc etc. The astonishingly gorgeous Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, out on PS3 next Friday, completes a stellar gaming line-up. Case closed then? Maybe not. Next Gen have been stat crunching review aggregates and discovered that 2007 has had the second worst review scores since 2001 - only 2006 has fared worse.
Thankfully they realise that review scores are only one barometer of success with harder stats like sales - up 50% over 2006 - ultimately more important. But could the recent glut of high profile games be having an impact on review scores? If Assassin's Creed had come out in say, March, would it have fared better when reviewers didn't have a pile of other games to work through? Not that it reviewed badly of course, but games like Creed and Mass Effect are slow burners, best appreciated over time rather than Halo et al which can be fully dissected in a day or two. And with a new must-have literally arriving every week are reviewers - and gamers - overly critical, knowing that the next big hitter is just round the corner? Putting it simply - are we getting spoilt by the embarrassment of gaming riches currently available?
