Does any game deserve 10/10 or 100%?

[karn3]

Personally, i would say no. For it to get a score like that it would have to be absolutely flawless. I mean absolutely 100% flawless. Not a single graphical glitch, not a single AI glitch, not a single...well you get the idea. There is just no such thing. Also for it to be perfect, everybody would have to agree that it is perfect, and lets face it, that would never happen. It just really bugs me when i read a review and something has 100% or 10/10. Me saying it bugs me is just being polite, I would like to use much stronger words. Thoughts?

 

[WrongSprite]

This thread already exists.

And as an answer?
10/10 is possible;
100% is not.


(Edit)
also, about your everybody agreeing quote, the score is from the point of view of the reviewer, not the population of the world.

 

[Sporadic]

Nah, I agree... But if there ever was a game that came closest, I would have to say that Diablo 2:Lord Of Destruction did.

 

[karn3]

Where? i couldn't find it. Admittedly i didn't look very hard.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

A 10/10 doesn't necessarily mean perfect, just that the reviewer thinks it can't really justify any faults they have with a one point deduction. The review is more important than the numerical score anyway, an example of this would be Orange Box - it's impossible to criticise 5 games for the price of one, especially 5 games of this quality, so any criticisms the individual games warrant are overshadowed by the benefit of all the others.

 

[TheSear]

I don't think any game is perfect or worthy of 100% or 10/10. If there was a game that was perfect surely everyone who played games would play it. A perfect game along with having no bugs and being amazing etc would also have to be infinitely replayable

 

[Altorin]

5/5 yes
10/10 probably
100% no

THATS BULLOCKS! you might be saying.

It's not. If you are marking a game out of 100%, and you have 100 degrees that you can peg the game at, there is almost no way for a game to hit that benchmark. It's probably been done for some people, but other people will argue. All in all though, that doesn't matter. If Assassin's Creed did EVERYTHING I wanted it to, and I loved it more then god, and I decided to give it 100%, you saying 'No way' wouldn't make my opinion any less valid.

10/10 maybe.. well, again this is judging if you allow only whole numbers. If you allow for decimals, like 7.5/10, then that isn't actually 10 degrees, depending on how much freedom you have past the decimal, it could be a 100 degree system (allowing a single decimal place with 0-9 after it) to something even crazier (more decimal places). If you use only whole numbers, a 10/10 game doesn't need to be NEARLY as flawless and perfect as it does to warrant a 100% score. 10/10 and 100% in the world of reviews are two entirely different fish.

Now we get to the 5/5 rating system, which is actually the one I trust the most when it comes to rating systems. Again, if you allow a decimal place, you can increase the degrees from 5 to some arbitrarily high number, but most only allow for halves, similar to star ratings (like a 4 and a half star restaurant). If you allow for halves, then a 5/5 is basically a 10 degree system, soa 5/5 should occur about as frequently as a whole number 10/10, which is to say, not very often, but not "never". If you allow only whole numbers in a 5/5 scale, then that's only 5 degrees. A lot more games can afford a 5/5 rating, even games that have several large flaws in them. If they're fun and they're playable, they can have a 5/5.

 

[SirSchmoopy]

I think rating a game to begin with is rather pointless. The rating system shouldn't be a number on a review it should be "BUY/RENT/SKIP" Anything else is just stupid.

8.4 out of 10 doesn't tell me jack shit unless I start comparing it to other games so really I'm not sure why they have a number system for reviewing games.

 

[WrongSprite]

5/5 yes
10/10 probably
100% no

AGREE

 

[Altorin]

I think rating a game to begin with is rather pointless. The rating system shouldn't be a number on a review it should be "BUY/RENT/SKIP" Anything else is just stupid.

8.4 out of 10 doesn't tell me jack shit unless I start comparing it to other games so really I'm not sure why they have a number system for reviewing games.

I find they set the tone for the review. They aren't arbitrary numbers usually, they're tied to a review..

So if I see a game has a 1/5 score.. i know I can expect a laugh by reading/listening to/watching it.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'm loathe to consider any game "perfect," but I would give some games a 10/10 or 5/5 score.

Actually, I came into this topic thinking you were asking WHICH games we thought were flawless. I think ZOE2, God Hand, Chrono Trigger, FFT and Shadow of the Colossus are some good candidates. To me, a game that gets a perfect score should only need to be perfect at being what it sets out to be. As long as the flaws (every game has some) are small and don't affect the key strengths of the game, I don't tend to mind them.

Example: Shadow of the Colossus has some disorienting camera angles. But you know what? It's not TRYING to have an outstanding combat system, it's attempting to evoke a sense of wonder and awe (and a feeling of insignificance), and the sense of vertigo the player tends to get while climbing a Colossi works toward that quite well. Same for the shaky framerate, especially when you're under the feet of a giant as big as the Arc de Triomphe.

So yeah, I'd consider it "perfect" more because it succeeds at what it sets out to do. That benchmark might seem a little low, but I would argue that very few games truly do succeed fully at hitting whatever imaginary target they're aiming for. Especially WW2 FPS games.

 

[karn3]

In case your all thinking I'm shallow and i only rely on numbers I never rely totaly on the the number i always read the review, and never just one reveiw. I like to get a wide variety of veiws from several different sites and magazines. I quite like reviews that don't give a number.

 

[Nazulu]

It's a well known fact that nothing can be perfect!

However I have played games I would say were 10/10 but not 100%, maybe 95%. Starcraft was an amazing experience for me and it is probably the only game with 3 different sides that are equal. People will say it is mainly for hardcore gamers and it doesn't deserve because it isn't visually appealing, but hey thats my opinion.

Also I loved Smash Brothers Melee, it is more fun for people like me who could not grasp Street Fighter and KOF. Many characters to choose from aswell as many items and levels, I also liked the space and atmosphere more than most fighting games. Plus I like most of the classic Nintendo cast, I ended up playing this 3 years straight so I definitely got my moneys worth!

And there are some more but you get the picture.

 

[Altorin]

Is there anything wrong with Bioshock?

I'm trying to think of something wrong with it.

The hacking system is kind of stupid

The clown's voice is annoying.

Finding all those audio diaries is a pain in the ass.

The Vita chambers make the game seem too easy.

yeah, 10/10

 

[Altorin]

There is a difference between 10/10 and 100%. I think that 10/10 is perhaps a touch unlikely, but certainly not unreasonable, but 100% allows for so many more opportunities to lower the score. 100% ought to be unattainable, but 10/10 isn't out of the question.

what I said but less in depth.

I rate your explanation a 80%

 

[DYin01]

5/5 yes
10/10 probably
100% no

AGREE

Seconded.
No game is perfect. Every game has flaws. Fallout 3 gets immensely high scores, but it has plenty of flaws, particularly in the engine. There are some pathfinding bugs, and strange little quirks in the animations sometimes. It's possible to get stuck in the world (as in, you move somewhere but you can't get out of there because there's a rock in the way or something, so you have to load a previous savegame to get out of there) here and there, but it's still a great game. In that case, 10/10 is possible because 10/10 could also mean 9.5/10 but if the website doesn't use decimals, it's the same thing.

Eh.. anyway, like so many others have said before. 100% isn't possible, but 10/10 is.

 

[SirSchmoopy]

I find they set the tone for the review. They aren't arbitrary numbers usually, they're tied to a review..

So if I see a game has a 1/5 score.. i know I can expect a laugh by reading/listening to/watching it.

This WOULD be true if they had games with 1/5 scores. But when you look at these review sites like IGN and such the games are 8.3, 8.7, 9.4, 7.6 they tell you jack fucking shit.

If you have a number system why even have decimals? Why not just make it outta a fucking 100 then. THIS GAME is a 72/100. Why a fucking 7.2? Oh because people can round up/round down games? Well fuck do that anyway.


Also the whole 10/10 100% debate you guys are going at has got to be the silliest thing I have ever seen. 10/10 is 100%. If you say something is 10 out of 10, you are saying there is nothing wrong with it which is what 100% means. If there was something wrong with it you would give it a 9/10. This number system is just balls. Fuck numbers, I'm gonna make a review site that doesn't use that shit and just has a picture of a Farm Animal for the games score.

ALRIGHT TODAY I AM REVIEWING FABLE TWO. BEING A DECENT GAME WITH A SHITTY ENDDING FABLE TWO DESERVES GENEROUS SCORE OF DUCK!

WE HERE AT BULLSHITGAMEREVIEWERS.com THOUGHT ABOUT GOING FOR THE PIGGLET BUT DECIDED ON THE DUCK FOR THE LACK OF ENDING AND THE FACT I CAN'T SHOOT CHILDREN.


I'm going to bash my head into a wall now. Carry on.

 

[Altorin]

It's funny that you get it, you clearly get it, but then suddenly you don't get it.

yes, if you use decimals to rate a game, it IS exactly like using %s, 7.2 IS 72%. And if you do use decimals, it will be nigh impossible for a game to reach 10/10, which basically means 100%.

threshold for highest score:

100% = 100%
50/50 = 99%
20/20 = 97%
10/10 = 95%
5/5 = 90%

Basically, the percentage on the side is the lowest score on the "percent" or 10.0 scoring system that will result in the final score being the number on the left.

So for instance, if your rating system is out of 50, and you don't use decimals, and getting a 50/50 is the same as getting 99% on the 100% score.. Basically, if a game would have scored 99% or 100% on the percent score, it gets 50/50.

Move down the list, and you get down to 5/5, which means any score that scores in the top 10% gets a 5/5.

And these are just objective scores.

If you add in the mind of the reviewer and other factors like Kane and Lynch, the numbers can move around a bit.

Another side effect is that in a 5 point score system, truly bad games get fluffed to the 1/5 bin.

I'm just trying to explain how 5/5 in the world of review scoring is not the same as 100%

and you probably still won't believe me.

 

[Altorin]

Oh, and if you're consistent enough, I could turn your farm animals into numbers

and then bash your face with your "I DONT WANT TO USE NUMBERS" schtick