Poll: Perfection DOES NOT exist!!!

[basm321]

I am tired of seeing reviewers give 10/10 or 100/100. Nothing can be done to absolute perfection, there will always be a glitch, messed up texture, bug in the AI, plot hole, or maybe a teeny tiny voice acting issue or a nonsensical response from an NPC or your character.

Now before someone goes off about reading the review vs looking at numbers, let me just say.....

The numerical score should be a representation of the written review and giving something 100% implies there is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in the game that could possibly be better or fixed.

So, I am wondering if 10/10 scores bug you?


EDIT: So, let me clarify one thing. I am not hung up on what could have been or should have been, I am hung up on how many games have TECHNICAL issues.

 

[Sethzard]

The thing is that these days a AAA game can't really get less than 8/10 therefore the 10/10 has become something not so much representing perfections but something truly excelent. I do lose respect for someone when they give 10/10 to call of duty of GTA IV

 

[BlindedHunter]

Perhaps the implication of a 10/10 should be taken as: this game is exactly what was expected of it, and that is fun.
Certainly no game is perfect, but in some cases that is only because the universe didn't end right at that moment.

 

[Bobic]

Review scores have been inflated to the point of absurdity. 70 is probably about average and pretty much every AAA game gets at least an 80. Now, let's say you reviewed Batman Arkham Asylum a couple of years ago, loved it, and gave it a 95/100. Now Arkham city has rolled out and you think, wow, this is amazing, they improved quite a bit here. What score can you really give? It has to escalate to 100.

The only real solution is to either a) convince every critic out there to suddenly lower their average so they have more wiggle room, or b) get rid of the upper bound of the rating and just let game scores escalate to insane levels.

 

[saucecode]

I think that games shouldn't be rated numerically. I think its best to read a review, and see the writers opinion on something in the game, then read why he has that opinion. For example:

Review of Modern Warfare 3:
I disliked the graphics in this game because they are very boring and brown color pallette.

As you can see, the reviewer said why. Some people might also dislike boring brown graphics, and would agree with the writer. Others may like the color pallette and see that the writers opinion differs. The writer can give his opinion, and factually state why!

 

[Shockolate]

10/10 or 100/100 means is an amazing game and an absolute must buy.

Doesn't mean it's perfect. It maeans they loved the shit out of it.

Don't take it so literal.

All just an opinion, of course.

 

[Ghonesis]

A 10/10 score can only be given if there's nothing that surpasses it or WILL surpass it. And this doesn't really exist, in my opinion.
It's all personal opinion on what's perfect anyway. I could say Guitar Hero III was perfect 'cause I liked it, but there's always somebody that will argue with you.
So there is not objective perfection.

But that's not really your point.
I could give a game a 10/10 if it had a few glitches, I wouldn't mind, if that was the problem. But there's always something you can dislike about a game, so a 10/10 score DOES bother me.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If there is no such thing as perfection then why would a review score exist to classify something as being "perfect?" Perhaps a 10/10 is not meant to represent perfection, but rather to show that the game is as close to perfect as humanly possible? Ever thought of that?

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Nah. 10/10 scores exist, so why can't reviewers use them? A 10/10 game HAS to exist. Of course one man's treasure is another man's trash. Tons of reviewing outlets out there with differences in opinion. It may be 10/10 on one site and 7/10 on there (I wonder which one YOU would agree with)

Doesn't really bother me. There's no single ultimate source of reviews anyway, and there never has existed a single game that gets a 10/10 or 100/100 score in every single reviewing outlet in the world ever.

So nah, it doesn't bother me.

 

[ccggenius12]

I would like to contradict the thread title by saying that Hasbro probably takes offense at your implication that their board game with the egg timer and plastic puzzle pieces that freak out if you don't flip a switch fast enough doesn't exist.

That being said, I'm of the belief that the 10/10 doesn't mean what you think it means. Nowadays 10/10 just means an extremely well executed game, or a game wherein the developers threw boatloads of money at the ratings guy.
Plus, that means that a perfect game would kick the rating up to 11, because 11 is one better than 10.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Perfection is a concept, not a physical thing. Nothing can ever be perfect, because there will always be detractors and problems. Portal is too short, and that is a flaw, so by defonition it is not perfect. Instead of giving an instant 10/10 or %100 to AAA titles without playing them *coughCallofDutycough* we should instead compare it to something similar that is held in high regard. If a game (or indeed, any media) is released with no flaws that cant be found without a dedicated search team, then maybe can we strech the defenition.

 

[ResonanceGames]

10/10 means the reviewer found it to be exemplary. If you're mad about that, you probably have worse issues to deal with than game reviews.

It DOESN'T imply that there's nothing wrong with the game. Games aren't math tests. There's no set of objective criteria with which to judge their quality, so a high numerical score literally cannot be an indicator that the game is perfect. You're trying to quantify and measure something that only exists in people's imaginations.

A texture is bad? Who says? A voice actor is bad? In who's opinions? A bug is bad? What, exactly constitutes a "bug" and why is it objectively a bad thing?

This isn't that tough, guys.

 

[The Lugz]

100% implies there is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in the game that could possibly be better or fixed.

if that is your interpretation of perfect then, yes that makes sense

in context of the game industry perfect would mean no bugs and an game experience that blows you away with a ui that makes total sense and just makes you want more.

and that it totally possible
i don't think true intrinsic perfection is required to make the perfect game

also, perfect things exist.
vis-ave diamonds, or any pure material

it just depends on your interpretation of perfect
i see perfect as 'the best it could be' or optimal for it's application and allot of things do tick that box, even some games

a game could be the best it could be on a given engine, in a given time-frame, on a given budget, and no amount of extra staff or expertise could improve it
i think that's more than fair in the game industry

if you take away the 10, what's the point? that just makes 9.9 a perfect game instead
also, who even said 10 is intrinsically perfect? 10 is just an arbitrary number devised to rate a game
basically you're just thinking way too much into it if someone reviews a game and gives it 10/10 then they really REALLY liked it
they didn't outright say 'this game is PERFECTION we can go no further with the art'
i'd loose respect for anyone that said that for sure...

 

[Slvrwolfen]

Perfection does not exist, I agree with you there very much, OP. Since the rough definition of 'perfection' for a game means "no one has a single bad word to say about it, and can enjoy the game over and over for an infinite amount of time".

And yes, when I see a score of 10/10 / 100/100 / 100%, I always get skeptical. Same with movies, a movie gets 5 stars, and I start wondering if it really is good or not. Okay, some are awesome, but some... The reviewers are just licking a**es.

A wrong reason to give a game 10/10, for an example Halo 3, is that it's riding on a previous title and does everything the same, but does not do anything new. CoD after MW and BF after BC have been suffering from it, and now I think Bethesda's fallen for the same thing. Fallout 3, New Vegas, and now 'Fallout' Skyrim

 

[mrblakemiller]

I see it this way. It's possible for me to get a 100 on an essay test. Does that mean I gave all possible information and never made any of the slightest mistakes? No, but it means I did all that was asked of me. We too often start at 100 and then take points off for every fault. This is a negative perspective and it encourages a pessimistic approach to whatever we criticize. We should instead start at 0 and build our way up. Not only will this help us see what went right over what went wrong, it will force us to define what it is we're actually looking for. That's something I'd really like to see in tests, and I think reviews would benefit from it as well.

 

[Dantness]

This is an interesting thought, and I feel as if you could come from it from different angles.

If one reviews a game based on their personal opinion, then yes, a 10/10 is possible. For instance, if someone made a game specifically for you and did everything you said exactly, would you not think it was perfect? So, if you feel like a game has every thing you could possible want in a game, I would think a 10/10 would do it justice.

However, that is not how a reviewer judges a game. They have an unbiased view and base it off of what the general public would want. In this case, I would find it unusual if a reviewer did give a game a 10. No matter what you score something, people will disagree; it's how society is. But you couldn't review a game as 'perfect' and be unbiased, I believe. There is always room for improvement. I don't believe humans can achieve any form of perfection because everyone has different opinions on what that means. Video games can't please everyone.

Another way you could view it, is as a curved system. You could have one game that sets the standard, and then, therefore, it would be rated a 10/10. All of the other games would then be based on this scale, and compared to said game. Although this system would not work, it is a way a game could achieve a 10/10.

So in concept, a game could earn it's right to be considered 'perfect'. But this is not how reviewers work so I suppose, yes, video games should not be given a perfect score. I voted no, though, because it really wouldn't bother me. Basically if a game get higher than a 6/10, I will think it's a good game. Any lower and it won't be high on my 'to play' list.

 

[ElPatron]

The numerical score should be a representation of the written review and giving something 100% implies there is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in the game that could possibly be better or fixed.

No. It implies that the game succeeded in every aspect with it's quality and entertainment value, without any problems that can be a deal breaker.


I don't like to see 10/10 all the time. Heck, I don't think a lot of games that scored a perfect 100 deserve it because they had "deal breakers".


One thing is a buggy game or a engine that lacks optimization, other is having a glitch at every 10-15 hours of gameplay.




Perfection exists, as an abstract standard for your reviews.

 

[Jegsimmons]

of course perfect exist, but on the other hand, people have preferences.

 

[EvilPicnic]

Perhaps the implication of a 10/10 should be taken as: this game is exactly what was expected of it, and that is fun.

In my opinion a game that is exactly what was expected of it and was fun should get a 5/10.
A game should go beyond what was expected to get a higher score.

This just shows how arbitrary numerical reviews are: we can't agree on what they mean because they attempt to quantify the unquantifiable. Fuck 'em.