Poll: Perfection DOES NOT exist!!!
- Thread starter basm321
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A 10/10 score, to me, has always meant "as close to perfect as is humanly possible". It won't be PERFECT, but that score is meant to indicate the best of the best of the best. I see no point in having a 1 to 10 scale with an unattainable number at the end, like expecting this "perfect game" to come along at some point and finally a 10 will be awarded...
...no. As you rightly say, no game will ever truly be perfect. So why would we rate games on a recommendation scale with a number at the top that will never exist? "10" has never meant "perfect," anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. It's like the opposite of This is Spinal Tap. If we cut 10 off the scale, that means 9 becomes the new 100% anyway.
...no. As you rightly say, no game will ever truly be perfect. So why would we rate games on a recommendation scale with a number at the top that will never exist? "10" has never meant "perfect," anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. It's like the opposite of This is Spinal Tap. If we cut 10 off the scale, that means 9 becomes the new 100% anyway.
A perfect score for a game doesn't mean the game itself is perfect, it just means the game excels in every area that is important and any flaws that can found in the game are trivial to the point that they don't detract from an otherwise amazing game.
For example Half Life got many perfect scores upon its original release because it was such a mind blowingly awesome game that showed the future of FPS on PC's. Daring to be much more expansive and have full 3D graphics as opposed to the Doom series and even Duke Nukem. The gameplay was solid and amazingly fun with lots of enemy/level/weapon variation and clocked in at a nice amount of hours to boot. It was deserving of the best score at the time even if the jumping did sometimes fail you and make you fall to your death.
For example Half Life got many perfect scores upon its original release because it was such a mind blowingly awesome game that showed the future of FPS on PC's. Daring to be much more expansive and have full 3D graphics as opposed to the Doom series and even Duke Nukem. The gameplay was solid and amazingly fun with lots of enemy/level/weapon variation and clocked in at a nice amount of hours to boot. It was deserving of the best score at the time even if the jumping did sometimes fail you and make you fall to your death.
this.Shockolate said:
it's all subjective, plus, if there is a 10/10 numerically, but OP you are stating that it is not possible, so why not make the score 9/9 or 99/99?
but wait, by that logic, PERFECTION DOESN'T EXIST BWARRRRRRR
honestly it's more of a subjective opinion based on that reviewers enjoyment of the game.
Since when does a 10/10 or 100/100 mean that a game is perfect? As you yourself say, perfection doesn't exist. What a 10/10 or 100/100 means is that a game is damn good and is highly recommended. A game can have some glitches or bugs or even one or two things that bother you, but what matters is the overall experience. If you can still love the hell out of a game when it has these flaws, then yes a game deserves 10/10. If the problems take away from the game, that's when the score starts dropping.
I do however think that reviewers are giving games higher scores than they necessarily deserve. Sure, some games are amazing and are worth the scores they get, but not every game from the last few years that got 7/10 or higher deserve to be that high. I think nowadays reviewers are starting to place potential backlash they'll receive from gamers, devs, and/or publishers over giving an accurate score and summary of the game. I think if people would learn to take reviews with a grain of salt and/or realize that just because you love something to death doesn't mean that the reviewer will as well, then reviewers won't feel pressured to inflate scores like they have been doing.
I do however think that reviewers are giving games higher scores than they necessarily deserve. Sure, some games are amazing and are worth the scores they get, but not every game from the last few years that got 7/10 or higher deserve to be that high. I think nowadays reviewers are starting to place potential backlash they'll receive from gamers, devs, and/or publishers over giving an accurate score and summary of the game. I think if people would learn to take reviews with a grain of salt and/or realize that just because you love something to death doesn't mean that the reviewer will as well, then reviewers won't feel pressured to inflate scores like they have been doing.
I see 10/10 as that there's no reason not to buy it. So while it might not mean the perfect game, it means the perfect buy.
Yes. This is why the only critic I watch/read anymore is Yahtzee.basm321 said:
I'm a teacher. I have never, in my life, given any student work a perfect score. It is always possible to make improvements.
The same goes for games. Game reviews are a massive, pathetic joke anymore.
Think I'm being unreasonable? Here's our very own Jim Sterling to tell you why I'm right:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten
For me a 10/10 score doesn't mean the game is faultless rather it means that the quality of the game was enough to make the faults seem insignificant. The faults are still there but the game was well designed enough to make them seem small and insignificant that the reviewer decided they shouldn't detract from the score. Perfection is impossible as flaws will always be there and with time we will discover more flaws exposing pockmarks on what we once thought was great. A 10/10 means that for now we can look past the flaws its simply to good/fun/well-made to pass up. This is of course assuming an ideal world where reviewers are entirely neutral and have no incentive to inflate scores.
I'm going to be "that guy" but how long has this been bothering you and why didn't you make a thread about it before the Jimquisition Episode?basm321 said:
This is just going to be one of many bandwagon threads going on for the new target of the internet hate machine.
Anyway, on topic.
Scores should be removed from gaming reviews quite frankly, it's a pretty stupid system to use considering most people view it wrongly anyway.
The "out of ten" system is based on reviewer enjoyment and not how close to perfection the game actually is.
People no longer use reviews as a baseline for their own judgements anymore, they prefer to look at a score and think that if it isn't a ten it's not worth buying.
Which is a shame because many games probably don't get the credit they deserve simply because their figure wasn't perfect or at least good enough to get a look in.
Gaming reviews should be treated like someone is telling you about a particularly good meal they had. The meatballs were juicy, the tomato sauce was full of herbs and rich flavour but the spaghetti was a little under cooked for their tastes.
You now have to make the decision if you want to go try that out too, no silly score on the end because even if they gave it a 10/10 you're still very aware you have your own tastes.
Well until it comes to the gaming community that is, where if someone doesn't give it the review you want we resort to throwing their faeces at them until they sort it out.
Apparently we lose all our senses of judgement and taste when it's not our own.
Perfect scores don't bother me because I realize that it does not mean a game is actually perfect. It illustrates that the game has completely succeeded in what it set out to do for its target market.
If I were personally a reviewer, I'd use the 100 scale and there would be no perfect game that I've experienced as of yet. But to see other reviewers give a game a perfect score doesn't bother me.
If I were personally a reviewer, I'd use the 100 scale and there would be no perfect game that I've experienced as of yet. But to see other reviewers give a game a perfect score doesn't bother me.
Here's how I see it:
Giving a 100/100 in and of itself doesn't make me lose respect.
If that game that got a 100/100 has any bugs or future patches that could be considered "major," that's when I lose respect. Anything that needs significant post-release patching cannot be given a perfect score, period.
Giving a 100/100 in and of itself doesn't make me lose respect.
If that game that got a 100/100 has any bugs or future patches that could be considered "major," that's when I lose respect. Anything that needs significant post-release patching cannot be given a perfect score, period.
Eh not really. It's kind of like coursework for GCSEs or A levels. The 100% doesn't mean it was perfect it just means that it was really really really really (you get the picture) good. That said however I think we are a little too lenient with giving the 10/10 scores on some games when they could be much much better.
A 10 out of 10 score does not suggest that the game is perfect - any game journalist worth their salt can tell you that. Rather, a perfect score suggests a game that is of the highest recommendation, that nearly everyone will enjoy.
Yeah, because when a movie gets 5/5 or five stars or whatever arbitrary scoring scale exists, it's the only movie you EVER need to watch since it's perfect.
Seriously, there's one and only way to solve this whole scoring shebang:
STOP GIVING A SHIT!
I know that it's annoying to actually have to READ reviews instead of scrolling down and look at a completely useless number at the very end.
I don't know how this is possible. Everyone agrees that review scores are dumb and useless and still people keep crying about them (in one way or another) instead of ignoring them and forgetting them eventually
Seriously, there's one and only way to solve this whole scoring shebang:
STOP GIVING A SHIT!
I know that it's annoying to actually have to READ reviews instead of scrolling down and look at a completely useless number at the very end.
I don't know how this is possible. Everyone agrees that review scores are dumb and useless and still people keep crying about them (in one way or another) instead of ignoring them and forgetting them eventually
Perfection isnt human.
Also there never will be a game made that amazes from start to finish, especially considering how samey the games getting near perfect scores are these days...
Also there never will be a game made that amazes from start to finish, especially considering how samey the games getting near perfect scores are these days...
Nope. If you wanted to give a game a 9.5 on a scale with no tenths in the scoring, then it'd make sense to round up to 10. If the review was giving with no cons, then I would just disregard the author.basm321 said:
When a reviewer uses a 100 point rating system - like PC Gamer does, I would lose respect for the reviewer, as well as the magazine, if they gave a 100 score to a game. I recall PC Gamer giving a 98 or two, but AFAIK, that's the highest score they've given.
And, I might add, our very own Escapist Crew devoting a significant chunk (about a half-hour) of their podcast to this very subject a mere two days ago.Bara_no_Hime said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/4970-021-Skyrim-Zelda-Reviews