Does any game deserve 10/10 or 100%?
- Thread starter karn3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yep. I'd say that both Half-Life and its sequel were so ground-breaking and well-executed in their time periods that both of them deserve perfect scores. Any big game from the "golden ages" of Nintendo (Super or 64) probably deserves a perfect score, too, and the newer Nintendo games come very close as well.
I think a 10/10 is possible because it just means that the flaws aren't big enough to merit a point decrease. A 100% should be impossible though because no game is going to be so perfect that it doesn't deserve a single percent drop.
Perfection in the form of a video game is not achievable in the real world. If you are saving that 10 for a hypothetical game that will never exist then it does not count in the grading system.Ginja Ninja said:
They do not see the game as perfect, they see it as completely fulfilling their criteria, hence earning a perfect score. Of course it's not a perfect game, it just did everything they wanted it to.
I think it depends. Keep in mind that all reviews are subjective, so for example, I think Fallout 3 is the perfect game, flaws and all, so I might give it a 10/10 even if the person next to me completely disagrees.karn3 said:
No, because tests have a pre-set maximum. When you get 10/10 or 30/30 on a test, it's because you got all the answers correct. There's no "all answers correct" option on games. What impresses one judge may not impress another. Again, scoring a game is much more like scoring an event. You have judges, and those judges give or take away points based on characteristics of the routine. There's just not as much standardization for reviewing a game as there is for judging a dive or gymnastics routine.Ginja Ninja said:
Assuming that 10/10 or 100% is an indicator of a perfect game is rather absurd, because there's no such thing as a perfect game. There can't be. Some people like fast travel, others hate having it in a game. Some people like guns in a game, other people like swords in a game. Some people like cute, colorful visuals, other people like dark, gritty visuals.
Even for technical details (framerate, loading times, etc.) that are easily quantifiable, you're judging that based on the capability of technology, not necessarily the game itself.
People don't score games against perfection, because theoretical potential is infinite, which would make all scores insignificant. Plus it's uninformative. Reviewers create an artificial set of numbers (1-10, 0-100%, 1-5, etc) and use them to rank a game's relative quality as they've experienced it at that time. All you really need to do is take a look at different game reviewers or sites to see this, because something like the Official Xbox Magazine is using a different scale than something like Gamespot, even though the actual set of numbers used (1-10) is the same.
I dont think the 10/10 games are the problem. its the 9/10's that bug me. Nines are handed out like candy nowadays, especially any game with even the smallest bit of hype.
Ive bought a few of these 'nine' games recently such as fallout 3, far cry 2 and valkyria chronicles and the latter is the only one thats really grabbed me. fallout 3 is well deserving of a 9 but its just too damn samey if you've played oblivion to death like i have. far cry 2 bored me to tears so fast i had to get rid of it.
9/10 just doesnt seem to be any measure of quality anymore.
Ive bought a few of these 'nine' games recently such as fallout 3, far cry 2 and valkyria chronicles and the latter is the only one thats really grabbed me. fallout 3 is well deserving of a 9 but its just too damn samey if you've played oblivion to death like i have. far cry 2 bored me to tears so fast i had to get rid of it.
9/10 just doesnt seem to be any measure of quality anymore.
I'll agree with you on Valkyria Chornicles but I've never touched any of the Elder Scrolls but heard tons about them so I felt that it was possibly very much like the Elder Scroll: series but this was my 1st time into a game like it so it was very entertaining from my standpoint sorry your timing made it seem like the same tune but different song.pirate_wezza said:
Okay, fine (interesting how I specifically avoided the cutscene length argument, but you brought it up, anyway), but I've always been a fan of games that use minimal dialogue to say a great deal, even before Yahtzee's whole, "the best writing" speech. My idea of a great video game story is something like Shadow of the Colossus or Silent Hill 2. In my opinion, if a game writer can't make their point in two games worth of dialogue, it isn't worth making.Gedo said:
MGS3 is great because the story is completely self-contained, with only some nods and references to characters from the rest of the series. The ending, for example, is one of the most emotional endings I've ever witnessed in the history of my gaming, and it didn't need the crutch of the rest of the series to achieve this.
The only possible exception to this that I can think of is Xenogears. The story is so good, it really SHOULD have been broken up into several games to make the plot easier to manage. If every part of the series was as good as the first disc, it would have been a flawless masterpiece.
Oh, and octo-camo is NOT a positive thing. It makes the game way too easy. A better idea would be to use the camo from MGS3, but add a quick-access menu (like the weapon select menu from MGS3) for switching camo on the fly.
Actually, this is sort of relevant to reviews. See, I would argue that MGS4 does NOT succeed at what it is trying to do. For example, looking at women's... selves increases your psyche meter. WHAT?!? Isn't this extremely childish, even for MGS? Also, why are there so many women with perfect bodies who don't do up their shirts? See, I would call these flaws, because they work against whatever grand, sweeping message the game is going for.
There is only one game I would rank 99% or higher, and that is Nethack.
Simplicity taken to extreme. Some might say that the difficulty is too hard, but the point of the game is to learn by dying. Some might complain about the graphics, but I see nothing wrong with using ASCII as a valid form of expression. There is never a question of frame rate. It's like saying that role playing games (the pen and paper -kind) are bad because you can't see what is happening.
Simplicity taken to extreme. Some might say that the difficulty is too hard, but the point of the game is to learn by dying. Some might complain about the graphics, but I see nothing wrong with using ASCII as a valid form of expression. There is never a question of frame rate. It's like saying that role playing games (the pen and paper -kind) are bad because you can't see what is happening.
I think reveiws should be as unbiased as possible, so people can get a very realistic idea of what to expect from the game. Then when people play the game they can put their own personal bias on their view of the game. If the review is biased from the start what the reviewer sees in the game may be totally different from what the person buying the game may see. Do you see where I'm trying to go with this? because i think i'm rambling a bit. We need an honest evaluation of a game to help us form our own opinions.Sirisaxman said: