No Game ever deserves 10/10... Do you agree?

[Splitter]

To me the words of the review are more important, if I read a review in which it gained a decent score say 7-8/10 but in it the reviewer mentioned several bad features that were bothering him but I know would bother me, I would see this as far more value than a number.
To me the number rating is a lazy way of writing a paragraph at the end to summarize whether this game is worth getting.
Thats why I prefer ZP reviews, although I don't base what I buy on what Yahtzee says I feel I can rely more on someones opinion when they analyse the game, point out all the bad points but then say at the end of the day it was still great fun. Because at the end of the day thats the most important bit.
I've noticed more and more that people seem to be picking on things that are irrelevant such as "no way did this deserve a 10/10 the graphics weren't as good as _____." Thats like saying you didn't enjoy a book as much because it could have been printed in a better font. True better graphics can make you enjoy a game a bit more as its nicer to look at, but really you didn't buy that game to gawp at the scenery.

Anyway I could go on about such things but its largely irrelevant, my point is this; I have no real "beef" with number scores but to me they are only secondary to the main text, as the numbers do not tell you whether you will like the game, reading about what sort of game it is and its features will.

 

[GeeDave]

you should read the review and decide if the game is right for you instead of basing your decision on a number.

While I agree with your point, in that numbers are indeed somewhat useless. I sit on the other side of the fence on the point about reading reviews and then deciding. This is just a "me" thing though, I only view the Yahtzee reviews for the humour... what can I say, I like entertainment. I have never, ever read a film/game/book review with the intent of finding out more about it so that I may buy it. I hate it when my friends talk about a product and say "it got an amazing review" too, drives me right up the wall.

I couldn't give two shits about a review, good or bad. We are capable of independant thought, though I admit that such a thing seems rare on the internet. And I know what you're thinking "How will you know if you're going to like it or not!?", well... there are synopsis', gameplay trailers, screenshots, cover art, poster art, concept art etc. If I saw a game in a magazine and it had a few images that I liked and some text in regards to the game info that also appealed to me, possibly some concept sketches as well... I'd buy it. I would certainly not rush to the internet to see what people thought of it. And would never rely on reviews to dictate what I should and should not buy.

In a sense, I am "against" reviews... and cannot fathom why people think so highly of them. I have friends that rush onto imdb.com to read reviews on films they're thinking of watching. Why!? Why does a strangers thought mean so much to some people?

 

[fierydemise]

I'm ok with a game getting 10/10 because while obviously every game has faults there are some games that are so incredible they deserve 10/10. The far larger problem (which is at the root of peoples problems with 10/10 reviews) is score inflation, out of the last 40 PC game reviews on Gamespy, there are only 6 games with 50% or lower (2.5 stars) with 8 games with 4.5 or 5 stars and an average score of 3.475. On Gamespot only 12 of their 50 most recent PC game reviews are below 50% with an average score of 6.48. On IGN 10 of the 40 most recent PC reviews are under 50% with an average score of 6.6325. If a 10/10 score felt like something special because low scores existed I don't think nearly as many people would have a problem with a 10/10 score from time to time for a really standout game.

 

[Peace Frog]

10/10 is perfectly reasonable if you aren't allowed fractions, because it might be closer to 10 than 9. If you are allowed fractions some games still manage to be perfect in at least one person's opinion.
Such as Portal :]

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

I was looking at the reviews of GTA 4 and MGS 4 and some (not all) reviews game them 5 stars or 10/10. Why?

For a game to get 10/10 it should have to be absolutely perfect with no faults. I love GTA 4 and MGS 4 (Great Games) but they are NOT perfect. GTA has flaws in its combat and cover, MGS game play is be no means perfect... Why give 10?

Think of The original Perfect Dark for N64. An awesome game which received 9.9 and 9.8 in most reviews... That?s an appropriate score. It was a great game but was still not perfect...

nonononononononononono.

10/10 means it's very good, a "must buy" if you will, but does not indicate the game is "perfect" by any means.

A "100%" score means it's perfect, HOWEVER, with a 10/10 score, there is still somw wiggle room.

I'd give several games a 10/10 rating, as a "must buy" game, are they perfect? No, but everyone deserves to own this game, and it is reflected in said score.

Although I do think scores are becoming more and more passée, what with an average game getting an "average" 7/10 as opposed to an average of 5/10.
My opinion... What do you think?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Really, no one complains that "this game DIDN't/DID deserve a 5/5!" people only complain about the damn 10/10 rating.

OF COURSE a 10/10 rating isn't perfect, to me if a game gets a 10/10 then another game would have to be better then the previous game. So since MGS4 got a 10/10 from IGN, then MG:Ocelot or MG:Liquid would have to collectively be better than MGS4 so it can get a 10/10 which would mean that the games would be compared to MGS4 and if it gets a 10/10 then the reviewer would say "This game surpasses its predecessors, even more than MGS4".

Stop complaining about games that get 10/10, they are just opinions. Albiet, very wrong opinions, but opinions nontheless (IMHO GTA4 did NOT diserve a 10/10 for obvious reasons, MGS4 did diserve a 10/10 because most of you are just judging MGS4 by it's single player when you have to take into account MGO which i love)

This is why i love the 5/5 rating system, it has a definitive average (3/5) and a definitive rent (2/5) and a definitive great game (4/5) and a definitive amazing game (5/5)

100% works much better. Its like the 1-10 system where 10/10 MEANS EXCELLENT, Or INCREDIABLE NOT PERFECT. for the most part. seriously check out a few review sites it doesn't have perfect for 10/10.

Also I think any reviewer that gave halo 3 their highest score should die but i guess thats me.

 

[steveo99]

no game deserves a 10\10. there is no such thing as perfection

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

you should read the review and decide if the game is right for you instead of basing your decision on a number.

While I agree with your point, in that numbers are indeed somewhat useless. I sit on the other side of the fence on the point about reading reviews and then deciding. This is just a "me" thing though, I only view the Yahtzee reviews for the humour... what can I say, I like entertainment. I have never, ever read a film/game/book review with the intent of finding out more about it so that I may buy it. I hate it when my friends talk about a product and say "it got an amazing review" too, drives me right up the wall.

I couldn't give two shits about a review, good or bad. We are capable of independant thought, though I admit that such a thing seems rare on the internet. And I know what you're thinking "How will you know if you're going to like it or not!?", well... there are synopsis', gameplay trailers, screenshots, cover art, poster art, concept art etc. If I saw a game in a magazine and it had a few images that I liked and some text in regards to the game info that also appealed to me, possibly some concept sketches as well... I'd buy it. I would certainly not rush to the internet to see what people thought of it. And would never rely on reviews to dictate what I should and should not buy.

In a sense, I am "against" reviews... and cannot fathom why people think so highly of them. I have friends that rush onto imdb.com to read reviews on films they're thinking of watching. Why!? Why does a strangers thought mean so much to some people?

I like reviews. Well the meat not that fluffy thing at the end. It tells me a little of what goes on, anything annoying or something I might not like, Things I will like, If theres zombie hookers. It just goes on and on.

 

[Belair 1955]

I believe that numbers, percentages, decimals or whatever you want to use to score games are almost completely irrelevant. The score is based on the reviewer's interpretation and impressions on the game, and what he thinks of it and how much he recommends it. The text itself will tell you about the game, not the score at the end. Take the time to read, but keep in mind, this is also opinion, and is merely what the reviewer decided to include. He may have enjoyed or hated some aspects of the game that others thought the opposite of. Though this shouldn't matter either, (Thank you Gee Dave for pointing this out) as you should formulate your own opinion of a game, not let some stranger put words in your head and poison your thoughts. Be independant, and buy the game based on what you think. I personally buy games based on what I think of the content, from trailers, demos and such, not what a reviewer tells me, though I do like to read reviews of games I've played for fun to see what others though of it.

Necroswanson, I agree with you about Pong, and actually thought of the same thing reading this, but you beat me to it posting it. It was the first game produced and as such is perfect as it had nothing to be compared to, and accomplished all it was meant to with no faults.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

I think PC Gamer stays pretty true to the not handing out perfect scores thing.

As far as I know, Half-Life 2 and Alpha Centauri are tied at 98% as highest.
Alpha Centauri was great but I don't think it deserved a 98, (its system of picking unit weapons and armor is pretty innovative but somehow its not as fun as the civilization series from which it spawned) and neither did Half-Life 2, which was fun and entertaining but somehow did not measure up to the original in terms of gameplay.

I think they also have a few games in the 96% percentile which is pretty reasonable.

Unless a game can turn water into funk it shouldnt get 10/10 or 100%.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

*ahem*

Fantasy world Dizzy.

 

[Copter400]

Scores are silly contraptions. They're completely unnecesary; if you add a score to a review, you should have already clearly stated your opinions on the game and not require a score. 'Sides, you can't tell people that they're not allowed to consider an object perfect.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Um, a game will always have faults. A game without faults is Pong.

pong didnt deserve ten because it could have been improved by having planes in it

...ahem. I apologize for that. I don't know what came over me.

Anyway. Much of the issue here- in fact, much of the bruhaha over reviews in general- stems from the fact that too many people hold their opinion to be sacrosanct. "This game deserves a 10 because I like it! If you don't give it a 10 it's because you're stupid, because I like it and I'm right!" And the idea that no game should ever acquire a 10 is abjectly silly- sort of like saying only the smartest human being ever should get an A+ in 3rd grade. 9.5 or whatever would become the new 10, and where would we be then?

Then again, I'm throwing my hat in with the camp that says numerical scores should be abolished. Then again, the game companies would scream bloody murder- what else would they paste on the covers of their "Game Of The Year" editions? "Some flaws, but overall a good game- Gamespot"?

Of course, this is somewhat hypocritical of me, because my own reviews end with numerical scores. But I use that only as a quick summary- sort of a "tally" if you would- instead of the entire meat of the review. Anyone who just points at a number without understanding how that number was reached should be flayed alive. Or employed by the IRS.

 

[Arbre]

Games should be noted from 0 to 10^4875. A perfect score would be harder to stick up.

 

[Gishface]

I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I really like giving letter grades instead of points, a la EGM. I've written English essays which had a few faults in them, but still got an A+; I think that an A+ is a measure of quality while a 10/10 is just an ideal. Plenty of games deserve an A+ that are by no means perfect.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I really like giving letter grades instead of points, a la EGM. I've written English essays which had a few faults in them, but still got an A+; I think that an A+ is a measure of quality while a 10/10 is just an ideal. Plenty of games deserve an A+ that are by no means perfect.

Ah, I always preferred letter scores (like some certain movie review sites I look at) but I never realized why until you said that lol. Numbers, are surprisingly vague.

 

[asiepshtain]

Hi all,
I think this is actually quite a problematic subject, mainly because people seem to be coming at it from different assumptions, and let me tell you, that never works.
There are the people who see the review as some kind of objective assessment of the games value and its content, and combined with the "Nothing is Perfect!" assumption, reach the unavoidable conclusion that no game should be given a 100%, 10/10, A++, *****, what ever.
Personally I have two problems with this view. One, I don't think the review are meant as some objective measurement of the game. How do you measure peggle on the same scale as neverwinter nights 2 for example? And what exactly does "Graphics 98.65%" mean? Does it mean that only 98.65% of the texture maps were ok? Or that the reviewer is pulling this shit out of thin air?
My second problem with the objective scoring view is its frequent relation to this "Nothing is perfect!" assumption. That's just bull. If I take a math test, in which I correctly answer every question, I get a 100, a perfect answer. So this "Nothing is Perfect!" is clearly wrong. But games aren't math tests, they can't be checked for right and wrong, they are interactive experiences, dependent on both content and viewer. It's true that no game can be called perfect, as no work of art can be called so. This just shows that the whole 1-100 scoring as a review of game content is wrong.
The other assumption is of review as a personal recommendation for purchase, this view seems much more in tune with both the nature of video games and of reviews, and in this regard there is no problem in giving a game the highest score. In this assumption it is simply a display of the highest regard and recommendation of the reviewer. Basically saying "You either buy this game or you sell your hardware, cut off your hands, and call yourself Jack Thompson".
P.S. English is not my first language so please forgive any misspellings, flawed sentence structure or insults to your mom, much appreciated. And say hi to your mom from me.