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

[Alphavillain]

Like many of the people above, I don't think any game is worthy of a 10/10. Indeed, any site/magazine that uses a rating system of 20 or more increments and STILL deigns to give a game a perfect score I will immediately discount from being taken seriously.

 

[Alphavillain]

Well, considering that reviews are all subjective, I say that reviewers should be able to give a game whatever score they like. Regardless of any flaws, games should be scored by the reviewer based on how much the reviewer actually liked and would recommend the game.

Take Portal. It's witty, innovative, immersive and makes my friend nerdgasm over the physics involved. On the other hand, it's criminally short, the final boss fight is piss, and the puzzles are all pretty easy. You can find faults in ANY game if you look hard enough. Portal's short, Brawl has epic loading times, Wind Waker is a macguffin-fest in which you spend more time sailing than anything else. I'd still give all three of those games a 10/10.

A score of 10/10 shouldn't be taken to mean that a game is perfect. Show me a perfect game and I'll find a flaw in it, no matter how trivial. A 10/10 score should be taken to mean that the reviewer has played it, enjoyed it immensely, and would be hard-pressed to identify a game they recommend more.

The problem with "allowing" reviewers to give a game perfect scores is often they "just happen" to work for magazines or websites that are heavily sponsored by said game publisher. Sites that have less advertising on them tend to give games lower scores. Is this conincidence? I don't think so.

 

[Mstrswrd]

No there shouldn't be a game that is given a 10/10. A score of 10 says that everyone who plays this game will enjoy it and I don't think that everyone can enjoy a single game.

A review is subjective. I would give fallout 1 a ten out of ten, because there is nothing in that game I'd change for anything else. The same goes for Portal. Sure, it would be fun if they were longer, sure, graphics could maybe be improved, and possible bugs removed. That doesn't change the fact that I think those two games are as good as they will ever be. I had enough fun playing those games that I consider them deserving of full scores.

That's very true (and what I was going to write. Grrr. You beat me to the punch!). A game that uses what it gots, and hell, I'll even make it harder, evolves gaming in some way. Take a game that everyone still seems to love (myself included) "The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time."

At the time, that game was it. It was the gold standard. It had perfect controls, a perfect camera, fast-fluid combat, great weapons and items, and created the Lock-On System, 3D Horse control, fixed camera for locked on combat, and a few others that my lack of sleep addled brain can't remember. Now, yeah, it might not be perfect anymore, with the creation of games with better camera's, combat, controls, etc, but at the time, if you wanted to make a good game (in the vein of Zelda, AKA: Action Adventure), you looked to Zelda to figure out how to do it.

EDIT: Sorry for ignoring so many posts, but when I was writing, a large amount of people posted.

 

[wdwyer]

I've been on the fence with this one. I have always felt that a game should never be given a perfect score, without it being perfect. And no I don't mean by "adding planes". If a game is perfect with it's original intent, from gameplay to graphics to sound. NTM, can bring something new and refreshing to it's own genre without causing new problems. In other words, just slapping new graphics to an older game wouldn't fly. Then yes, it would deserve a perfect score. Now while these scores are subjective, to the reviewer, it's also their job to be subjective with every game. They are paid to give their honest opinion. This is the world we live in. If you disagree with them, get off your butt and get a job to review games. If that is too hard for you, then why do you care?

 

[Graustein]

The problem with "allowing" reviewers to give a game perfect scores is often they "just happen" to work for magazines or websites that are heavily sponsored by said game publisher. Sites that have less advertising on them tend to give games lower scores. Is this conincidence? I don't think so.

That's why you read as many reviews as you can get your hands on, sponsored and unsponsored, positive and negative, and you actually READ the reviews instead of looking at a number and basing your decision on that. Take the negative reviews as seriously as the positive ones, and retain as much skepticism for the positive ones as for the ones that are thinly-veiled excuses to bash the game. Anyone who doesn't consider both the "get or die" reviews and the "get and die" reviews is either a total moron or has already made their decision and is just looking at reviews so they can flood the reviewers' inboxes with hate-mail.

 

[Arbre]

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...

My opinion... What do you think?

This is shit. What you read is opinions in the end. Informed or not, if the reader was in love with the game, even if it had some flaws, assuming the review was honest, a perfect score could happen, even if personnaly I find it ridiculous because, no matter the love, the point of a reviewer is to also weigh a game based on its polish and content, not just on the sole biased experience.

 

[Alphavillain]

The problem with "allowing" reviewers to give a game perfect scores is often they "just happen" to work for magazines or websites that are heavily sponsored by said game publisher. Sites that have less advertising on them tend to give games lower scores. Is this conincidence? I don't think so.

That's why you read as many reviews as you can get your hands on, sponsored and unsponsored, positive and negative, and you actually READ the reviews instead of looking at a number and basing your decision on that. Take the negative reviews as seriously as the positive ones, and retain as much skepticism for the positive ones as for the ones that are thinly-veiled excuses to bash the game. Anyone who doesn't consider both the "get or die" reviews and the "get and die" reviews is either a total moron or has already made their decision and is just looking at reviews so they can flood the reviewers' inboxes with hate-mail.

Or how about...just don't give games a rating at the end? A moratorium on ratings. That'll force people to read the review rather than -as you correctly say- scanning to the bottom of the page to scope out the score.

 

[Aries_Split]

This is just my opinion ,but you seem to be missing the point of a review. I personally am against numerical rating's and avoid them like the plague, but even so, I find it shocking the amount of people that converge on a bad review for a game they like, even I did this, with my angerness at Yahtzee's review of MGS4, but I guess at least then I was contesting his actual words. I don't know about anyone else, but even as a rabid fanboy of MGS4, I was disgusted at all the people that reacted with a rage at GameTrailer's 9.3 score for the game. First of all, I read review's and judge based on their words, not their numbers. But what I'm trying to get at, is that if there is a bad review for a game you like, then screw the reviewer, he/she is just doing their job, giving a (hopefully) informated opinion on a game. And if you see a high score for a game you detest, (E.G any halo game.) then just realize that if your getting pissed at someone for their opinion, you really need to calm the frack down. And I realize I am getting slightly off topic, but my take on a 10/10 score is that the game is head and shoulder's above it's competition. I don't think that it's meant to imply a game is perfect, but moreso that this is the highest praise they can give. I stated it earlier, Numerical scores suck, but I digress.

EDIT:I had it that gametrailer's was a 9.7 review, that is wrong, it was a 9.3.

 

[Takatchi]

Personally, I think the problem with the famed "10/10" score is the fact that every game released by Bungie, Rockstar, etc. have been praised and showered with roses. It's hard to believe that every gaming magazine across the world is heralding each new release to hit the shelves as the messiah of its genre. While a review is an opinion, and I can't stop someone from having the opinion that X game was perfect in every way, I highly, highly disagree that HALO 3 would have scored a 10/10 in every gaming magazine in America.

I could also argue that most review systems take the easy route normally reserved for lame ducks in assigning a numeric rating to a game, but people have to have a number to latch on to. If review publishers were paying people to write a page or two on the game and how they felt about it, it might be different, but reading the blurbs in gaming mags today is like flipping over the game case and seeing "This game is the shiznit 10/10."

 

[Th3 Se7enth]

But if we didn't have 10/10 we would have 9/9 than 8/8. There always has to be a top score. If a game gets 10/10 or not their always has to be a top score.

 

[Th3 Se7enth]

EDIT:sorry for the double post.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

If no game should ever get a 10 review, then none of you fetching brats should get an A on your homework... because nothing's perfect. All that a "ten" means in a review is that the reviewer liked it enough to give it the top grade... think of a ten not as a "perfect", but as a "top rank".

I'm starting to think that's why game magazines are switching to letter grades instead of stars or numerical scores... though I still think that a number or letter or star or thumb is only vaguely useful and not worth the sturm und drang it often encounters in the Web of Whine.

-- Steve

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

What does anyone care, anyway? Have any of you been traumatized when you glanced at a game's numerical score, gone out and bought it, and been disappointed? If so, then it's your own fault. There's a reason numerical scores are accompanied by, you know, text.

 

[Royzy]

I think people take it too seriously. I never buy a game based on one review, I view all reviews as a collective. So what if a load of people give a game 10/10. It is their way of saying it's really really good and they feel it is pretty much the best it can get. If Pong came out now, next to MGS4, I don't think Pong would score too highly. But when Pong came out, it was revolutionary. It is all relative.

A game may not be perfect, but it can be good as it can get under the circumstances.

 

[Jamash]

10/10 implies it perfect (although the very best game will go up to 11).

I remember when computer games were marked out of 100% (Amiga Power), & even then the best games only got around 98%. If you are going to quantify an opinion then that's probably the best way.
Now it seems like it's dumb downed by giving mark out of 10.
Star are even worse, you give stars to children if they've managed to spell their name correctly & coloured in without going over the lines.

How does a letter grade system work exactly, is it A-Z, or A-F with F being a fail + U being ungraded or un-reviewed? Do pluses, minuses & stars count in the letter grading system? If it's A-E with plus & minuses how is that really any different from marks out of 10? (albeit it could be marks out of 5, 10 or 15 depending on plus & minuses).

Which is better, marks out of 100, marks out of 26 (A-Z), marks out of 15(A-E+/-) marks out of 10, marks out of 5 (A-E)?

Surely if a game is reviewed properly & objectively then it doesn't need a grading system since the merits & failings of the game should be obvious & people could make their minds up by reading it.

 

[curlycrouton]

a game that deserves 10/10 without a doubt:
System Shock 2

 

[GuerrillaClock]

There's no reason a reviewer can't give a game 10/10 if they deem it lived up to its' intended purpose. That doesn't mean its' necessarily right, however if a game does get that score, then you can imagine it will be fairly good. Niggling over .01/10 or whatever is ridiculous - all good games give you something different to take away, and reducing it to a mere number cheapens the great games somewhat.
An example of this is MGS 4. It got pretty positive reviews, a few 10/10s, and while it has some painfully obvious flaws in the gameplay, its purpose was to tie up all the loose ends and present a cinematic fan-service game. Each game should be judged by its' own standards (or rather, its' own series' standards). As just another game, it's a bit clunky at best and mediocre at worst. As a climactic finish to one of the most beloved series of all time, however, its' top of the class.

 

[Jumplion]

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)

 

[ProphetOfCod]

I don't think anyone should get 100% on an English writing assignment, an Art project, or any form of creative endeavor. Clearly, by giving out 100% you are signifying that this work of art is absolutely, completely without flaw, beyond the scope of even great artists like Leonardo Da Vinci, or the best writers out there.

So I'm afraid I'm going to have to take back that 100% you got on your last assignment and give you a much more honest 80%. Good effort, but I'm afraid it still has a lot of ground to cover before achieving perfection.