Does any game deserve 10/10 or 100%?
- Thread starter karn3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To get a 10/10 it doesn't have to be the best game ever just to do everything it said it would do well. E.g Cod 4 Still a fairly simple shooter but it has such a good story and online that no one cares that it is the same style of shooter as the original call of duty
Oh yeah?TylerC said:
(Mutters under his breath and starts to plan the most(Edit) perfect game ever...)
Sadly that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all dayGinja Ninja said:
On Topic though: I genuinely feel that percentage points etc go too far, I use scores as a rough summation and 100 degrees is not rough, it's quite exact. Personal opinion of course.
Can anybody here actually name a 100% score on any review currently out. I mean seriously, on a percentage system (that is not using decimels) somebody name me a 100% review.
This entire argument is pointless.
This entire argument is pointless.
games oughta be scored on how much entertainment one can derive from it. glitches can get in the way of that. bad acting, bad storyline, bad gameplay, etc. but if the game entertains you well, & ebtter yet, affects you, or even introduces a new thing not done in games before, then it can easily earn 100% imo.
Portal FTW. I easily give it 100%. if i have any complaints about it, it's that it was too short, but sometimes that can be a good thing, as needlessly lengthening it could've proven disastrous.
Portal FTW. I easily give it 100%. if i have any complaints about it, it's that it was too short, but sometimes that can be a good thing, as needlessly lengthening it could've proven disastrous.
lol I know someone who likes Gears like that... but he gets bullied for it. portal is not 100% in reality, it could be improved theoretically so it is 99% at best (but also at least)PsykoDragon said:
Samurai Goomba said:
Well, I liked Metal Gear Solid 3 a lot as well, but everything have been improved in MGS4. Better gunplay, way, way, way better CQC, Octo-camo, Metal Gear Mk II, gunshop and upgradeable guns, etc etc. The thing is, you can play the game as a shooter, or as a stealth game. It both feels nice to either sniper three guys in the head and toss a grenade at some PMC's, or playing dead, silently sneak to an enemy, grab him by human shield, shoot two of his comrades, slit his throat or silently choke him to unconsciousness.
Some might say that the story and cinematics are either boring or confusing - I disagree. Yes, the story might be confusing if you haven't played the previous games, but if you haven't, you shouldn't buy the game. You don't walk in to your local bookstore and buy "John's adventures XVII", if you haven't read the previous sixteen books, right?
My English is just fine, pal. No, as in responding to the topic's question, no there isn't a game that deserves a perfect score. Next time I'll remember that everything revolves around you and adapt my statement accordingly.Ginja Ninja said:
I don't see a problem giving out perfect scores. If we never give out 10's or 100's, then there's no point in having them; might as well rank games as x/9 or x/99... but that would be even more stupid since most people can't do fractions.
Good btw what makes you say pal, in what way do you use it? Sarcasm? Anyway thought you were the guy I was quoting nvm I notice now that the apple and walrus look slightly different now.L.B. Jeffries said:
Repeat thread is repeat... and no smarter than it's older brothers, either.
No, no game is perfect, but yes, some games do deserve top marks. If no game can achieve top marks, then what's the point of having a graded system?
Besides, what are these silly numbers measuring? Bit count? Game duration? Texture resolution? Probably not, but at least those would be something concrete; most yammerheads give scores based on their personal reactions, and that's entirely subjective and don't necessarily reflect anything on the game itself. (Some like Picasso, some hate him; some like Norman Rockwell, and others hate him too. Rate these artists on a 10-point scale and you'll see a big spread, even though they're both highly influential and distinct 20th century painters.)
So anybody whining that "Game X" doesn't deserve a 10/10 because no game is perfect is wrong on several fronts; firstly, if it's impossible to get a 10 then it's pointless to have a scale in the first place, secondly, a ten-point scale is coarse enough that a game that's only 97.5% perfect will round up to a "10", and thirdly the judgement is subjective and for the reviewer in question maybe the game does really appear to be within 3 percentage points of perfection in their judgement.
As I said in earlier incarnations of this stupid thread, anyone bitching about a game getting a perfect score has probably never aced a test in school and is bitter... or if they did, they need to have it marked down for penmanship or a minor spelling error or an improper crease in the paper because nothing's perfect. No A-grade (or 4.0GPA) for you, end of line!
-- Steve
PS: All of the above is why I don't like numerical scores in reviews. They don't measure anything concrete; they're fantasy numbers that give a false impression of objectivity, and no two reviewers will ever use those measures the same way anyway. It's Enron accounting for games.
No, no game is perfect, but yes, some games do deserve top marks. If no game can achieve top marks, then what's the point of having a graded system?
Besides, what are these silly numbers measuring? Bit count? Game duration? Texture resolution? Probably not, but at least those would be something concrete; most yammerheads give scores based on their personal reactions, and that's entirely subjective and don't necessarily reflect anything on the game itself. (Some like Picasso, some hate him; some like Norman Rockwell, and others hate him too. Rate these artists on a 10-point scale and you'll see a big spread, even though they're both highly influential and distinct 20th century painters.)
So anybody whining that "Game X" doesn't deserve a 10/10 because no game is perfect is wrong on several fronts; firstly, if it's impossible to get a 10 then it's pointless to have a scale in the first place, secondly, a ten-point scale is coarse enough that a game that's only 97.5% perfect will round up to a "10", and thirdly the judgement is subjective and for the reviewer in question maybe the game does really appear to be within 3 percentage points of perfection in their judgement.
As I said in earlier incarnations of this stupid thread, anyone bitching about a game getting a perfect score has probably never aced a test in school and is bitter... or if they did, they need to have it marked down for penmanship or a minor spelling error or an improper crease in the paper because nothing's perfect. No A-grade (or 4.0GPA) for you, end of line!
-- Steve
PS: All of the above is why I don't like numerical scores in reviews. They don't measure anything concrete; they're fantasy numbers that give a false impression of objectivity, and no two reviewers will ever use those measures the same way anyway. It's Enron accounting for games.
In my opinion, 100% percent is too specific a number for it to be given, if it's on the full 100 point scale.
Getting a ten or anything close to it is not implying that a game is PERFECT. It simply means that, for all pretense and purpose, the game is good enough to get a universal recommendation. Flaws are present, but are so small, or the good things just overwhelm the flaws that the game is "perfect" in the sense that no one should turn it away if they are looking for an exemplary experience.
Getting a ten or anything close to it is not implying that a game is PERFECT. It simply means that, for all pretense and purpose, the game is good enough to get a universal recommendation. Flaws are present, but are so small, or the good things just overwhelm the flaws that the game is "perfect" in the sense that no one should turn it away if they are looking for an exemplary experience.
I'm rarely able to slap a perfect score on a game until I see how it ages with me.
Looking back, at the time I would've given Psychonauts a nearly perfect score but in retrospect I think I'd slap a perfect score on it.
I didn't realize at the time how much I really loved the game, it sticks with me as a prime example of writing/humor/acting in gaming, creative level design/gameplay/graphics, spot on soundtrack, and everything else in the book.
Certainly it was "imperfect" but there's enough about it that the game stands a mile ahead of the competition.
That, in my opion, is what deserves a perfect score. No game is perfect, nothing is, I can nitpick anything to shreds. What deserves top marks is a game with lasting appeal, that can still be looked back on as doing things much better than games being released now.
Looking back, at the time I would've given Psychonauts a nearly perfect score but in retrospect I think I'd slap a perfect score on it.
I didn't realize at the time how much I really loved the game, it sticks with me as a prime example of writing/humor/acting in gaming, creative level design/gameplay/graphics, spot on soundtrack, and everything else in the book.
Certainly it was "imperfect" but there's enough about it that the game stands a mile ahead of the competition.
That, in my opion, is what deserves a perfect score. No game is perfect, nothing is, I can nitpick anything to shreds. What deserves top marks is a game with lasting appeal, that can still be looked back on as doing things much better than games being released now.