Poll: Perfection DOES NOT exist!!!

[krazykidd]

Portal was perfect , your opinion is invalid

OT: 10/10 does not mean perfect . Why do you think this? It just means it is an exceptional game . Also perfection does exist . Perfection is subjective but it does exist . On reviewer could think something is perfect , another can think it's not . It depends on your definition of perfect . Using your logic anything that is subjective cannot exist . That makes a whole lot of things non-existant

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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?

Yes. This is why the only critic I watch/read anymore is Yahtzee.

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

Blargh. Speaking as an education major and as a student, I'd like to let you know that any teacher who has that horribly, horribly wrong idea in their head is one that I drop without a second thought during the add/drop period. The only exception was this one professor who graded that way, but also made it so an A+ was an 85 or better on his grading scale -- and still made the students work their butts off to get that 85. If you're grading on the standard "an A+ is a 95 or better, and anything lower than that counts for less than full marks on your GPA" scale, while also refusing to give perfect scores, you are a bad teacher. A perfect score does not mean the paper is perfect; it means that the student hit every mark on the rubric. If your rubric is so demanding that a perfect score requires absolute perfection, you suck at designing rubrics, and apparently didn't deserve a perfect score in your classroom assessment course -- either that, or you went through an alternative certification method, and never even took the course. What's more, there is such a thing as a perfect test; "no such thing as perfection" only applies on subjective assignments. If you give your students an objective test (so math, multiple choice tests, and so on) and a student turns in a test with every answer correct, you had better give them full marks; anything else counts as academic dishonesty on /your/ part.

Now, getting back on topic: A 10/10 for a game should be achievable, but the standard should be high enough that a game shouldn't get it just for being flashy. If we really want to look at this, up to about the fifth generation, the industry was still small enough and enough experimentation was going on that the quality merited lots of clumping on both ends of the scale. There were a lot of terrible games, and also a lot of truly exceptional games, with a lower number of truly average games than there would be on a bell curve. Starting last gen, and becoming complete this gen, the conventions became developed enough, and enough "design by committee" started to take place that both the truly terrible /and/ the truly exceptional games started to disappear, and we had a bell curve with nearly everything falling in the middle.

What I'm saying here is, depending on the scale used (American Education, or "let's use the whole scale") the majority of games should be getting either a 7/10 or a 5/10, respectively. Instead, they tend to cluster around the 8-9/10 range, with more 10/10s than 7/10s. It is highly unlikely that all of those games actually earned those scores.

This is one of the many reasons that I only trust the review if I have no way of playing the game first and no friend's word to take (not likely in this day and age except for the occasional niche release), and even then I only pay attention to the text, not the score. I remember one game in particular that got terrible scores, but it was because it was part of a niche genre that none of the reviewers were fans of. Most of their complaints were examples of well-executed features of the genre, and I wound up buying and enjoying it as a result. The reverse can be true, too; a lot of 10/10s have things that I would count as negatives listed as positive in the reviews.

 

[Windcaler]

I think its a fallacy to think that maximum scores mean that a game is perfect. There will always be some kind of subjective or objective flaw in any game no matter how well crafted.

What annoys me and what I think shows a major problem in the reviewing system today (more so then anything else) is when scores are given that go beyond the scoring system. Yes I recall 11's being given out for a few games and its absolutely absurd

That all said, I think scores are meaningless anyway because I dont believe a complex opinion can be represented numerically. Additionally I think people should read the actual reviews rather then look at a number for a yes or no for whether they should buy the game or not.

 

[Saulkar]

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?

The way I look at it 10/10 represents the best that can be accomplished at the time rather than complete perfection.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Blargh. Speaking as an education major and as a student, I'd like to let you know that any teacher who has that horribly, horribly wrong idea in their head is one that I drop without a second thought during the add/drop period.

And good riddance to you.

The only exception was this one professor who graded that way, but also made it so an A+ was an 85 or better on his grading scale -- and still made the students work their butts off to get that 85. If you're grading on the standard "an A+ is a 95 or better, and anything lower than that counts for less than full marks on your GPA" scale, while also refusing to give perfect scores, you are a bad teacher.

A) You have no rights to say such a thing. The fact that you have no standards has no bearing on anything but your failings.

B) What kind of insane grading scale are you on? A+? What respectable institution even HAS an A+?

C) Where I work, 93% and higher gets an A. That's a 4.0 - best you can get. I never said I never handed out A grades. I said I never handed out 100%.

I've given a 98% once. Normally, an essay doesn't go higher than 96%. Those both get the student an A grade on the essay. As noted, a 93% still gets an A. Between that, and the fact that I generally provide some opportunities for bonus work, my bell curve usually ends up looking very nice.

Of course there's such a thing as an A paper - if there wasn't, then there would be no point to having the grade exist. But there is no such thing as a perfect paper.

A perfect score does not mean the paper is perfect

Yes it does. By definition, a perfect score of 100% means that there are no flaws at all.

I'll skip the other items you mentioned out of absolute ignorance. And yes, on a math test of course it is possible to get a 100% - because it's math. I teach English - and there is no such thing as a perfect piece of writing.

Now, getting back on topic: A 10/10 for a game should be achievable,

Only if you're dealing with whole numbers only. If you have 9.8 as an option, then you should use it. And even then, there are always flaws, always immersion breakers, always bad design choices. Planescape Torment, often considered the best game ever made, has flaws a plenty. If the best game ever made doesn't deserve a 10/10, then really, what game does?

the majority of games should be getting either a 7/10 or a 5/10, respectively. Instead, they tend to cluster around the 8-9/10 range, with more 10/10s than 7/10s. It is highly unlikely that all of those games actually earned those scores.

Yup. Totally. Complete agreement on this point.

So, is our only difference the possibility of achieving perfection? As an education major, you obviously aren't a writer. Trust me, if you were a writer yourself, you'd know that perfection does not exist in writing. There's always ways to improve something. Always.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Blargh. Speaking as an education major and as a student, I'd like to let you know that any teacher who has that horribly, horribly wrong idea in their head is one that I drop without a second thought during the add/drop period.

And good riddance to you.

The only exception was this one professor who graded that way, but also made it so an A+ was an 85 or better on his grading scale -- and still made the students work their butts off to get that 85. If you're grading on the standard "an A+ is a 95 or better, and anything lower than that counts for less than full marks on your GPA" scale, while also refusing to give perfect scores, you are a bad teacher.

A) You have no rights to say such a thing. The fact that you have no standards has no bearing on anything but your failings.

B) What kind of insane grading scale are you on? A+? What respectable institution even HAS an A+?

C) Where I work, 93% and higher gets an A. That's a 4.0 - best you can get. I never said I never handed out A grades. I said I never handed out 100%.

I've given a 98% once. Normally, an essay doesn't go higher than 96%. Those both get the student an A grade on the essay. As noted, a 93% still gets an A. Between that, and the fact that I generally provide some opportunities for bonus work, my bell curve usually ends up looking very nice.

Of course there's such a thing as an A paper - if there wasn't, then there would be no point to having the grade exist. But there is no such thing as a perfect paper.

A perfect score does not mean the paper is perfect

Yes it does. By definition, a perfect score of 100% means that there are no flaws at all.

I'll skip the other items you mentioned out of absolute ignorance. And yes, on a math test of course it is possible to get a 100% - because it's math. I teach English - and there is no such thing as a perfect piece of writing.

Now, getting back on topic: A 10/10 for a game should be achievable,

Only if you're dealing with whole numbers only. If you have 9.8 as an option, then you should use it. And even then, there are always flaws, always immersion breakers, always bad design choices. Planescape Torment, often considered the best game ever made, has flaws a plenty. If the best game ever made doesn't deserve a 10/10, then really, what game does?

the majority of games should be getting either a 7/10 or a 5/10, respectively. Instead, they tend to cluster around the 8-9/10 range, with more 10/10s than 7/10s. It is highly unlikely that all of those games actually earned those scores.

Yup. Totally. Complete agreement on this point.

So, is our only difference the possibility of achieving perfection? As an education major, you obviously aren't a writer. Trust me, if you were a writer yourself, you'd know that perfection does not exist in writing. There's always ways to improve something. Always.

Our difference is in the understanding of whether a perfect score represents a perfect paper -- meaning absolutely no flaws, whether they're relevant to your subject or not -- or simply something that perfectly hits the points that the students are actually being graded on. In English, yes, you have something of an argument there, but it's more because even the best papers tend to have the occasional grammatical flaw than because "perfection" is unachievable. If you're grading your students against "perfection" as a universal constant, and not "perfection" as in, "the students understand the concepts I am teaching them completely," you're acting like a disgruntled writer, not like a good teacher.

Edit: Case in point, the phrase "the students understand the concepts I am teaching them completely" would be better worded as "the students completely understand the concepts I am teaching them." You would mark points off for that because it wasn't completely perfect; I would probably mark it, but not count off for it, because the meaning is clear and no actual rules of grammar were broken -- it just wasn't the absolute best possible wording.

Edit Edit: And I'm probably /at least/ as much of a stickler as you are when actually looking at a paper's conventions. In one of my classes today, we did some peer editing. When the section I was editing -- a section that was only a page and a half long, double spaced -- only needed three corrections, I completely honestly told the person I was working with that that paper had the least marks on it of any paper I've ever proof read. Usually something that long is doing well if has twice that many marks by the time I'm done with it. Some papers are red from the top of the first page to the bottom of the last. The thing is, I've been taught to keep in mind what I'm actually trying to teach the kids -- or in this case, what the professor has told us he's grading us on, as demonstrated by his rubric. If they clearly show a mastery of the conventions (such as the paper that only had three marks; at least two of them were noting clear typos, and not actual mistakes), there is absolutely no reason to mark off points just because a few errors were missed during proof reading. If it's a complete mass of red, on the other hand, I'll have to think long and hard over whether even to assign a passing grade, even if it's a history paper and the student adequately covered the information they needed to cover. I'm not saying teachers should all be easy graders; I am saying they should set goals for their students that, while challenging, are realistic. I wouldn't expect a human to achieve absolute cosmic perfection on an essay any more than I would expect a second grader to demonstrate a mastery of Newtonian physics while filling out their multiplication tables. A big part of teaching is figuring out what you're teaching, and only grading on that. If what you're teaching is "perfection," something you recognize that even you haven't achieved, you need to rethink your rubric, because you're clearly grading them on the wrong subject.

Final Edit: I guess I should also explain the A+. At the state universities in Florida (which are generally well respected schools, though not Ivy league), the professor has a certain level of leeway in creating a grading scale, but if they just want to use the default, it works like this: an A+ is a 95 or better. It counts for a full 4.0 on your GPA. An A is a 93 to a 94. It counts for reduced marks (I don't feel like looking up the exact number at the moment, but it is reduced.) A 90 to a 92 is an A-, which counts for even lower marks. This carries all the way down the scale, with only the "+" form of the letter grade counting for full marks. Most professors, thankfully, don't use the plus and minus system, and if they do, they're usually either easy graders, or do something like the professor I mentioned earlier, who sets the lower limit of an A+ really low, but is such a stickler that the bell curve is /still/ respectable by the end of the year. The ones who use the default scale and warn you that they're tough graders, on the other hand? Not dropping them at the first opportunity is a sign that you're either too sure of your abilities, you don't have a choice because of scheduling conflicts, or that you're too stupid to listen to a clear warning to drop the class. Personally, I tend to hover around 17 hours a term. I don't need to take a class from a professor who thinks he or she is the only professor in the school.

 

[skywolfblue]

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.

This. People complaining about 10/10 reviews are being silly.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Our difference is in the understanding of whether a perfect score represents a perfect paper -- meaning absolutely no flaws, whether they're relevant to your subject or not -- or simply something that perfectly hits the points that the students are actually being graded on.

Again, you're forgetting that style is part of the grading process. If the grammar is correct, great - if complex grammar is being used to communicate more complex concepts, then better.

The idea that someone should get a 100% for fulfilling the rubric requirements (and ever rubric I've ever been given keeps it's top rating for exceptional work ABOVE the requirements) is laughable. Fulfilling the rubric requirements is a C paper.

This is why I don't like Education Majors - because they are the reason that I have to teach a less than 100 level class to catch Freshmen up on what they were supposed to learn in High School. This kind of crap is what is wrong with American schools. You are being taught that doing "good enough" should receive a gold star and an A grade. No wonder none of my students know how to write a complete sentence when they get to a fucking University!

You know what, I don't like having to do your job for you. It offends me that you are preaching a philosophy of "meh gets an A" when that is what I fight against every day. If you give "A"s to meh, then that's all you'll ever get.

I challenge my students. I put their papers through the ringer. And you know what I get? Better students. I may send a few crying to Withdraw from the class, but those that stay get tempered into excellent, confident writers, ready to not just do "okay" but to excel at their college writing.

Which is why I said good riddance to you - if you believe that "meh" should be rewarded, then I wouldn't want you in my class. I sure don't want you in my public schools.

... and we are entirely off topic now. If you wish to discuss this further, PM me. There's no need to bother the rest of the thread with our discussion about the abysmal state of American public schools.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Our difference is in the understanding of whether a perfect score represents a perfect paper -- meaning absolutely no flaws, whether they're relevant to your subject or not -- or simply something that perfectly hits the points that the students are actually being graded on.

Again, you're forgetting that style is part of the grading process. If the grammar is correct, great - if complex grammar is being used to communicate more complex concepts, then better.

The idea that someone should get a 100% for fulfilling the rubric requirements (and ever rubric I've ever been given keeps it's top rating for exceptional work ABOVE the requirements) is laughable. Fulfilling the rubric requirements is a C paper.

This is why I don't like Education Majors - because they are the reason that I have to teach a less than 100 level class to catch Freshmen up on what they were supposed to learn in High School. This kind of crap is what is wrong with American schools. You are being taught that doing "good enough" should receive a gold star and an A grade. No wonder none of my students know how to write a complete sentence when they get to a fucking University!

You know what, I don't like having to do your job for you. It offends me that you are preaching a philosophy of "meh gets an A" when that is what I fight against every day. If you give "A"s to meh, then that's all you'll ever get.

I challenge my students. I put their papers through the ringer. And you know what I get? Better students. I may send a few crying to Withdraw from the class, but those that stay get tempered into excellent, confident writers, ready to not just do "okay" but to excel at their college writing.

Which is why I said good riddance to you - if you believe that "meh" should be rewarded, then I wouldn't want you in my class. I sure don't want you in my public schools.

... and we are entirely off topic now. If you wish to discuss this further, PM me. There's no need to bother the rest of the thread with our discussion about the abysmal state of American public schools.

Two things here: one, again, you suck at writing rubrics. The "meh" option on the rubric should be somewhere in the middle. There are somewhere between 27 and 30 points in the "passing" range depending on your grade scale. If there isn't a spot for all of them on your rubric, which should also include spots for the remaining 70-73 points, you're doing it wrong. Two, this post proves that you really are just a disgruntled author who wound up with a teaching gig to pay the bills, and not a teacher at all. If teachers at the lower level aren't doing their jobs and you're having to teach a sub-100 level class, yes, that's a problem, but it's not a problem with the fact that a teacher should know how to write a rubric, and then stick with it -- it's a sign that those teachers didn't know how to do it either. Rule number one of writing goals is "Goals should be reasonable, achievable, and challenging." Apparently some of the teachers that send kids your way ignored the last one, but you're ignoring the one in the middle, and that is absolutely no better.

Edit: Let me put it this way. Even the essay portion of the SAT and the AP exams that have them have room for a perfect score. And you know what? The occasional minor error is accepted. You can still get a perfect score on either test without being some perfect demigod. I know I earned a 5 which, if for some weird reason you did not know, is a perfect score, on the AP English Literature exam. And you know what? I'm sure there was a minor flaw or two in my paper, and I'm absolutely positive that it wasn't "perfect." But there is level on the rubric for that exam which details exactly what is expected for full marks on the essay section. If you are able to hit all of those points -- as difficult and rare as that may be -- it is possible to achieve. If you can't write a rubric which includes information on exactly what you're looking for, and what students need to earn an A -- let alone if the best you can do is tell them what they need for a C, and just tell tell them "you have to go above and beyond this to earn a higher score," you do not know how to handle assessment in the classroom, and you should not be doing it. If you're not telling them what's needed to earn full marks, it's no wonder you haven't found any perfect papers yet; the students are just as hazy on what you expect as you are.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Two things here: one, again, you suck at writing rubrics.

First of all, I suggested we move this to PM. You haven't done so.

Secondly, you're an undergrad student. I teach kids like you. Successfully. You want to show some respect, kid?

Third, I use the rubric I was given by the department head. The entire department does. Welcome to the real world.

 

[badgersprite]

Aren't you essentially saying no student should ever get an A or an A+ because an essay could always be better?

That's not actually what the ratings mean. Think of ratings as like a mark you'd get in school. You could still have errors or flaws in an essay, or do things that aren't particularly great writing, but satisfy everything in the syllabus to get a perfect grade on your assignment. Same with a game. No one is saying they're perfect; just that, in the reviewer's entirely subjective personal opinion, they tick all the right boxes.