Does any game deserve 10/10 or 100%?

[Anton P. Nym]

I think he was actually onto something there, I mean when judging a game you're not really looking for perfection, you're looking to tick off a bunch of requirements based on the type of game it is. Similar to taking a test.

Maybe but I ignore silly people trying to us analogies (spell check) to prove a point not needed. Ok say a game gets top marks, right? What if another game comes along after it and you realise it is better than the first? If you had put 9/10 for the first you could argue that the second is closer too 10/10 than the first but not there. Where as if you put the first as equaling perfection you can't say the second is better. =)

So it's a relative scale you're looking for? If so, you'll need a heckuva lot more points than a mere 10 (or 20 if you allow half-points, or 100 if you allow decimals) to rank everything... even if you ignore the subjectivity of these scores and rankings. (My #1 title almost certainly won't be yours, for instance.)

Putting an exact number on a review score tricks people into thinking in terms of perfection, and encourages folks to think scores are precision measures instead of a different flavour of "I liked it thiiiiis much"... maybe using starred reviews[sup]*[/sup] would break that habit.

-- Steve

[sup]*[/sup]For instance, this scheme:

• [li]5-star = an excellent game, one of interest even outside its genre.[/li]
  [li]4-star = a solid game that fans of the genre should pick up.[/li]
  [li]3-star = a typical game, worth buying if you're interested in its genre.[/li]
  [li]2-star = a game with little to distinguish itself, buy at your own risk.[/li]
  [li]1-star = a frankly broken game, don't play this game even if it's free.[/li]

 

[Pyrrian]

Of course a game can be 10/10, 100%, 5/5, 42/42, or whatever. It's not a note of perfection, it's just a statement of quality. A score from the judges, if you will. Take gymnastics, diving, rhythmic gymnastics, etc. People have gotten plenty of 10s in the past (or 100%). This is not because they were perfect, it's because they delivered an excellent performance based on their competition level and the relative development of the sport.

Video games are the same. Getting 10/10 or 100% is just saying the game is excellent compared to the other games out there on the platform at that time.

 

[Ginja Ninja]

I think he was actually onto something there, I mean when judging a game you're not really looking for perfection, you're looking to tick off a bunch of requirements based on the type of game it is. Similar to taking a test.

Maybe but I ignore silly people trying to us analogies (spell check) to prove a point not needed. Ok say a game gets top marks, right? What if another game comes along after it and you realise it is better than the first? If you had put 9/10 for the first you could argue that the second is closer too 10/10 than the first but not there. Where as if you put the first as equaling perfection you can't say the second is better. =)

So it's a relative scale you're looking for? If so, you'll need a heckuva lot more points than a mere 10 (or 20 if you allow half-points, or 100 if you allow decimals) to rank everything... even if you ignore the subjectivity of these scores and rankings. (My #1 title almost certainly won't be yours, for instance.)

Putting an exact number on a review score tricks people into thinking in terms of perfection, and encourages folks to think scores are precision measures instead of a different flavour of "I liked it thiiiiis much"... maybe using starred reviews[sup]*[/sup] would break that habit.

-- Steve

[sup]*[/sup]For instance, this scheme:

• [li]5-star = an excellent game, one of interest even outside its genre.[/li]
  [li]4-star = a solid game that fans of the genre should pick up.[/li]
  [li]3-star = a typical game, worth buying if you're interested in its genre.[/li]
  [li]2-star = a game with little to distinguish itself, buy at your own risk.[/li]
  [li]1-star = a frankly broken game, don't play this game even if it's free.[/li]

I like that scheme best yes.

 

[Ginja Ninja]

Of course a game can be 10/10, 100%, 5/5, 42/42, or whatever. It's not a note of perfection, it's just a statement of quality. A score from the judges, if you will. Take gymnastics, diving, rhythmic gymnastics, etc. People have gotten plenty of 10s in the past (or 100%). This is not because they were perfect, it's because they delivered an excellent performance based on their competition level and the relative development of the sport.

Video games are the same. Getting 10/10 or 100% is just saying the game is excellent compared to the other games out there on the platform at that time.

No they get perfect points. Score is a misplaced term. It's the same as tests, games just don't work that way.

 

[Ginja Ninja]

Sigh. I hate when people complain about scores. Here's a quote from another of these threads:

1. It's a score, not a symbol of perfection.
2. It's possible for a flawed game to have a perfect score.
3. If you think 9/10 should be the highest score possible then that is in fact a perfect score.

1. Score it self suggests perfection symbolised.
2. It is but we suggest it shouldn't be.
3. Wrong it is the best score not a perfect score.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

• [li]5-star = an excellent game, one of interest even outside its genre.[/li]
  [li]4-star = a solid game that fans of the genre should pick up.[/li]
  [li]3-star = a typical game, worth buying if you're interested in its genre.[/li]
  [li]2-star = a game with little to distinguish itself, buy at your own risk.[/li]
  [li]1-star = a frankly broken game, don't play this game even if it's free.[/li]

I like that scheme best yes.

And yet, dammit, I just thought of a hole in it: Too Human's controls were novel and interesting, and I had a heckuva lotta fun using them to hack my way through hordes of goblins, elfkin, and trolls, but the camera system was fiddly at best and busted at some points. So do I give it one star for the busted camera, or four stars for the novel controls and interesting gameplay? (Or do I split the difference and give it a 2-star rating?)

Gah, even the simple choices aren't easy anymore...

-- Steve

 

[Ginja Ninja]

• [li]5-star = an excellent game, one of interest even outside its genre.[/li]
  [li]4-star = a solid game that fans of the genre should pick up.[/li]
  [li]3-star = a typical game, worth buying if you're interested in its genre.[/li]
  [li]2-star = a game with little to distinguish itself, buy at your own risk.[/li]
  [li]1-star = a frankly broken game, don't play this game even if it's free.[/li]

I like that scheme best yes.

And yet, dammit, I just thought of a hole in it: Too Human's controls were novel and interesting, and I had a heckuva lotta fun using them to hack my way through hordes of goblins, elfkin, and trolls, but the camera system was fiddly at best and busted at some points. So do I give it one star for the busted camera, or four stars for the novel controls and interesting gameplay? (Or do I split the difference and give it a 2-star rating?)

Gah, even the simple choices aren't easy anymore...

-- Steve

You just put it in your review and place the star symbol to which it deserves is up to opinion. Still not perfect (nothing is) but pretty damn close. =P

 

[Bob_F_It]

I said this before: if a game gets 10/10, then it has to be impossible to improve upon because Jesus made it.

 

[JediMB]

I said this before: if a game gets 10/10, then it has to be impossible to improve upon because Jesus made it.

And the reason why things aren't that way is because then the 10 would be pointless, as even the best of games would get no more than a 9.

A max score isn't reserved for a perfect game because there's no such thing as perfection outside of our minds.

 

[Fanboy]

Sigh. I hate when people complain about scores. Here's a quote from another of these threads:

1. It's a score, not a symbol of perfection.
2. It's possible for a flawed game to have a perfect score.
3. If you think 9/10 should be the highest score possible then that is in fact a perfect score.

1. Score it self suggests perfection symbolised.
2. It is but we suggest it shouldn't be.
3. Wrong it is the best score not a perfect score.

1. It suggests? No, you suggest. It's the best possible score a game can receive, not an award for the best game ever made.
2. And I am suggesting that your suggestion doesn't make sense.
3. Best score, perfect score, what's the difference? If you are grading something only up to 9 instead of 10, it's not really out of 10, is it? So then wouldn't 9/9 be considered perfect?

 

[DirkGently]

Hell no. I really don't think games should be rated by a number. Maybe a rating system that says 'you will be interested in this game if', with middle rating saying that if you like games of the similar genre you'll enjoy it, higher scores being that it applies to a wider range of gamers, lower being more fanboys of the genre/series/franchise, and the lowest for masochists.

 

[curlycrouton]

The only game that I think deserves 100% is Rayman 3.

And that, is that.

 

[Ginja Ninja]

Sigh. I hate when people complain about scores. Here's a quote from another of these threads:

1. It's a score, not a symbol of perfection.
2. It's possible for a flawed game to have a perfect score.
3. If you think 9/10 should be the highest score possible then that is in fact a perfect score.

1. Score it self suggests perfection symbolised.
2. It is but we suggest it shouldn't be.
3. Wrong it is the best score not a perfect score.

1. It suggests? No, you suggest. It's the best possible score a game can receive, not an award for the best game ever made.
2. And I am suggesting that your suggestion doesn't make sense.
3. Best score, perfect score, what's the difference? If you are grading something only up to 9 instead of 10, it's not really out of 10, is it? So then wouldn't 9/9 be considered perfect?

1. Yes but it must be reprentative to other games out otherwise it would be pointless so it suggests perfection.
2. Did you? When? Our suggestion does make sense anyway, it is your fault if you cannot see the sense possibly due to your lack of sense.
3. Best score is the highest score it can achieve within reason. Perfect score is the highest score it can achieve ultimatly. 9/9 would be perfection but 9/10 wouldn't because it is not 10/10.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Not this again.

To the people arguing that "no game is perfect", you're forgetting that a review is not a test. A "perfect" score does not equal a flawless performance, it merely asserts a reviewer's opinion that the game is very enjoyable and whatever flaws it has do not overshadow the enjoyment. This is ignoring the practical arguments (i.e. There's no reason to have a score if you're never going to use it). Also, no one has to agree with a review for it to be valid, given that game reviews are inherently subjective endeavors.

And we have ourselves a winner. Everyone has their own list of "100%" games that may or may not be considered 100% by mainstream standard. Nonetheless that is the only true measure of a game amassing a "flawless" review. It is in the eyes of the beholder so to speak. I can cite you the flaws in Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, yet I still claim it as one of the best character development games to date.

Reviews should only be viewed as a document meant to enlighten the reader of the game's content, thus allowing them to make a conscious decision as to whether or not they would find it entertaining. Scores are meaningless; how many here actually believe Halo 3 deserved 9.4 or GTA4 10? All opinions and only opinions.

 

[Fanboy]

1. Yes but it must be reprentative to other games out otherwise it would be pointless so it suggests perfection.
2. Did you? When? Our suggestion does make sense anyway, it is your fault if you cannot see the sense possibly due to your lack of sense.
3. Best score is the highest score it can achieve within reason. Perfect score is the highest score it can achieve ultimatly. 9/9 would be perfection but 9/10 wouldn't because it is not 10/10.

You are suggesting that no game can achieve a 10/10 because no game is perfect. That makes the 'best score' a game can receive the exact same thing as the 'ultimate score' it can receive. If something is not achievable it can't be included in the grading system.

Scores aren't a symbol of the game's quality, they are not the end all factor of it's overall greatness; They are numerical representation of what the reviewer thought of the game. If it did everything the way the reviewer wanted it to and then some, I don't see why it shouldn't be given a 10.

 

[Tartarga]

a game can definetly get a 10/10 but not a 100% because that would be like saying the game is perfect and no game is perfect

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I believe that some games do deserve that score, as imperfection is a universal given, and immensely miniscule imperfection deserves to be regarded as perfection in a universe where true perfection is absolutely impossible.

 

[Ginja Ninja]

1. Yes but it must be reprentative to other games out otherwise it would be pointless so it suggests perfection.
2. Did you? When? Our suggestion does make sense anyway, it is your fault if you cannot see the sense possibly due to your lack of sense.
3. Best score is the highest score it can achieve within reason. Perfect score is the highest score it can achieve ultimatly. 9/9 would be perfection but 9/10 wouldn't because it is not 10/10.

You are suggesting that no game can achieve a 10/10 because no game is perfect. That makes the 'best score' a game can receive the exact same thing as the 'ultimate score' it can receive. If something is not achievable it can't be included in the grading system.

Scores aren't a symbol of the game's quality, they are not the end all factor of it's overall greatness; They are numerical representation of what the reviewer thought of the game. If it did everything the way the reviewer wanted it to and then some, I don't see why it shouldn't be given a 10.

Who said it is not achievable? It is basic fact that nothing is perfect, but theoretically perfection is achievable.

Yes they are, to both. The reviewer cannot see it as perfect unless he is a very small minded individual.

a game can definetly get a 10/10 but not a 100% because that would be like saying the game is perfect and no game is perfect

10/10 has the same numeric value as 100%, 1.

 

[Ginja Ninja]

I believe that some games do deserve that score, as imperfection is a universal given, and immensely miniscule imperfection deserves to be regarded as perfection in a universe where true perfection is absolutely impossible.

Execpt maths is the one thing that is declared perfect, so using that would be blasphemy (spell check)