Dear Future Gamer

In reply to a recent letter (Reviews Reviewed, FG63): "Your reviews, although worth reading, aren't actually that trustworthy. Although on the whole they're perfectly good, there are just enough exceptions to make me wary of trusting them. For instance: Unreal Tournament on PC: 98 per cent; Championship Manager 3 on PC: 96 per cent; Soul Calibur on Dreamcast: 97 per cent; Age of Empires 2 on PC: 96 per cent; Quake III Arena on PC: 98 per cent."

Shouldn't games be rated on how good they are at the time, rather than thinking, "Well, in 10 years' time there are bound to be better games"? Quake 3 and UT are the 'perfect' first-person shooters at the moment - you couldn't want for any better, and that's reflected in the reviews and scores. That's not to say they'll never be bettered. I don't really understand what he's getting at. Is he saying he doesn't trust us because we think Quake 3 was good? My theory is, if it doesn't have any flaws it should receive a very high mark.

Just my two cents. I'm not annoyed because he referred to two of my reviews or anything!

Ben Morris

FG: I agree with you, Ben. Games should be rated on how good they are now, not how good they'll be in a few years.