Washington Post has a good,
albeit basic, article up
about gamerscore points. They mention the popularity of King Kong in relation to its easy to earn 1000 gamerscore
points. In my review of
Kong I mention that it has "accrued a reputation for being especially loose with its gamerscore points."
Juxtapose that with the Wahington Post writer's experience with another title: "Having finished up playing the
slick World War II game Call of Duty 2 on 'normal' difficulty, for example, I unlocked 150 points for my Xbox
360 gamerscore." 150 points!The real question is, who oversees the allocation of points? Developers could sell a title they know is crappy just by filling it full of easy points. What if 25 to Life came out on 360 chocked full of easy points? There is a real danger of gamerscore inflation where, depending on which games you play, the time and skill spent might not be commensurate with the points rewarded. Hopefully the disparity evens out as more titles are released.
(Image is from Xbox 360 Achievements.)
