Ben-DutkaWe've wondered if the majority of game critics should ditch the 10-point scale , but as the heavy hitters come down the pike, another question springs to mind: what does a perfect score even mean?
Of course, perfect scores mean different things depending on the source and other factors. However, gamers everywhere also have their own definition, so this question is for the consuming public: when you see a perfect score, what do you think? Do you first look at the source? Does it make you more interested in reading the review? Or do you simply not agree with the idea that any game is "perfect" and therefore, nothing should really receive the maximum score allowed?
Personally, I've long since been in the latter group. I just don't like giving 10s because there's no such thing as the perfect production. I've only scored one game over a 9.5 this generation, and that was Grand Theft Auto IV (9.9), which I loved but even so, I couldn't in good conscience drop the 10 bomb. We've given a 10 to Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots this generation (but that wasn't my review), and 9.8s to games like God of War III and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (again, not my reviews).
But others believe a perfect score doesn't imply perfection. All it really means is that it's the best game possible for the time. In other words, while even Super Mario Bros. wasn't "perfect," it was a benchmark for its time, and that's the only way a title can drag down the highest score possible. Even then, though, I'd be reluctant to just say, "yup, nothin' wrong with anything here." What's your take on the issue?
There is NEVER such a thing as a perfect game. A 10/10 should mean that is just the best game in its category unless the game is complete junk and the games below it are no better. The pursuit for perfection never ends.
Last edited by fresh4life10 on 10/19/2011 9:41:27 PM
I getcha. I guess I come from the latter group. A 10 means something is unmatched in quality, and will be unmatched in the foreseeable future, from within the genre, and outside of it, which implies it is is irreplicably innovative, or at least a definitive bar-raiser within the industry.
I guess what I really mean can be better conveyed with an analogy.
A perfect wife for example, doesn't necessarily mean she is a person without flaws, or that she is "perfect" in every artificial or meaningful way. To me, it means even if she was perfect in every other regard, my love for her would be no more or less, because at the end of the day, she is better wife than I, or anybody could possibly ask for.
i think means u get best bang for your buck…. in a sense it is like ben said a step ahead of everything else like super mario.
Are we talking wives now or are we back on video games?
Sorry my mind just wandered for a second…
I believe that if the reviewer enjoys a game without any complaints that would be valid to the general gaming populous, then that game deserves a 10. If these complaints are geared towards your hardcore gamers, then the score needs to start dropping. Try to go into every gaming experience thinking "10" from the start, no matter how much you dislike the genre, no matter how much hype you've heard (or not heard) surrounding it. When you happen upon something that you thought could be improved in a small way, then subtract a point (or .1 depending on the scale) If the fault is pretty obvious, take a fiver. If the fault is major, then take 10 (or 1). If the game is utter crap, toss it in a bonfire and watch that sucka burrrrrn! Mmmm…..crispy crap.
Last edited by fatelementality on 10/19/2011 9:59:25 PM
I think there should be a specific formula to calculate the overall score. I have seen games that score :
Graphics 9.0
Gameplay 8.8
Presentation 9.1
Overall 9.5!!
How is that even possible. It's as if the reviewer has a final score in mind. The other lower scores in each category seem to not affect the final score at all.
A reviewer has to take into account many more things than just the basic categories, it shouldn't always just be the those sections added up and divided by how many sections there are. In those cases you can add or subtract based on details, though I think those details should be mentioned in the written portion.
If a game gets an 8.8 on gameplay, and a 9.5 overall, even with 9+'s in every other category, I'd be a little concerned, too, but yeah, as World said, a game's quality can be greater than the sum of it's parts. Some anomalies exist like Heavy Rain. Light, maybe even sparse gameplay. Mixed bag of voice acting. Exceptional visuals, but not without obvious blemishes. But, the overall immersion that it was able to convey is extraordinary.
You don't often see the opposite, where a game is scored lower than the ball park average of it's scores. Though, Sometimes reviewers allow their overall opinion to unfairly influence the individual categorical scores. And while it is unrealistic to expect scores carry any absolute value, they should make sense, and carry RELATIVE value. That is, from a reviewer, I should be able compare the scores between games to reasonable extent, and within a reasonable time frame, as it is understood standards are raised with time.
That is the BS i'm talking about. My point is because there's no formula to calculate the final score. Reviewers have an excuse to give higher scores than the game deserves.
-GTA IV has clumsy shooting controls. The reviewer says gameplay makes up for it.
-GTA has lots of texture pop in. The graphic and environment are too nice, you can ignore them.
The list can go on and on. Because theres no way to track the scores the reviewers can give perfect scores to games with imperfections.
Look at Dead Island though, if you gave it a purely technical score it would be doing both the game and the gamers a disservice.
I think some of the few games I've played that I consider to be masterpieces aren't perfect.
MGS one to me is pretty close to being perfect and is my favorite game. However, the controls are a bit clunky and hard to get adjusted to. That would really be my only complaint about it and yet it deters it from being a "perfect" game. And I'm not a fan of the Meryl ending.
Therefore as great as a game can be, and as much of a masterpiece as it can be, there is always something that holds it back from being totally perfect.
Same thing with movies, or books, or plays. Nothing is completely or truly perfect. Although many things are damn near close.
Ben,
How do you adjust the score over each generation? Even within this generation, Uncharted 2 raised the bar. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune probably can't score as high if it were released after Uncharted 2.
I reckon you need to review each game in its own "place and time".
If a current game is worthy of a 10 out of 10 then it should get it. Then debating if a 2008 10/10 is lesser than a 2011 10/10 seems like a debate that could be endless.
We can't be reviewing games on what might be around in the future. If you do that you will never be satisfied…
I think there are loads of games that are "perfect" as in best in class. Comparing them with anything else is a mares nest.
While it's true that there's no such thing as a perfect production I do understand why some sites see the need to give some games full marks. I believe it is because some games just do everything right.
Let's take your 9.9 for GTAIV. If GTAV comes out and is exactly the same as IV, will it too get a 9.9? No. It will be criticized for not taking the series to the next step.
Now let's take Arkham City. We all waited with baited breath to see if Rocksteady could somehow rival the first one or would simply put out more of the same. Turns out, AC has blown a lot of critics away. Is there any other Batman/superhero/action/detective/sneaker out there today that comes close to it? Is there anything seriously wrong with it? No. So they see the need to give it 100%.
All it does is tell us that hey, this is the best game like this you'll see in stores today.
It doesn't mean anything. Every review it's subjective and the only review that matters it's the one you make when you play the game, IMHO.
nonsense, you should read reviews before you buy or you'll waste tons of money. If the reviewer does his job you'll be able to tell if it's your thing based on the written part no matter the score.
Wrong. There are some subjective parts to any review, but there are also aspects that critics are simply more qualified to judge than others.
when i see 10/10 or a 100% i see it as a game thats enjoyable to the point it outshines the flaws.
GT5 is an example for me, the game is so rich in content that overall i feel like it deserved a solid 10 cause of quality. yes it had flaws but when u dont even compare it to other developers that try to compete u just look at it for what it is being available in this generation of video games the quality is outstanding.
no matter how much we advance in technology we will never reach perfection in consoles or games & thats just being realistic. the next systems that release will still freeze have glitches & etc. the key point of a review in a game i think is the joy.
No offence, but I think that GT5 is an excellent example of a game that deserved NOT to get a 10 out of 10.
Brilliant driving physics, don't get me wrong but a tonne of areas for improvement such as convoluted menus, load times, no interior views for the standard cars and blocky shadows.
Personally I think there was a missing layer of polish and usability which could have made it a 10 out of 10.
If those flaws affect the key aspects of gameplay, then no. It should not receive a 10. Anything in the 9-range is MORE than worth a purchase.
I think, using the 10 point scale (which is probably improperly used everywhere), that a 10 should be almost perfect where any flaws are no match for what the game achieves elsewhere.
A 9.9 for GTAIV is insane to me because it had a broken fighting mechanic, a checkpoint-less system for car chases, and missions that were terribly repetitive compared to previous entries in the series, poorly controlled mini-games and a messed up mission-collapsing GPS system.
Ahem, anyway a 10 should be hard to get, but on the 5 point scale a 5 could easily be reached by Drake's Deception or even Arkham City (not that those are easy achievements in gaming, but they represent some of the best).
Anybody else watch Harrison Ford playing Uncharted 3 today? Great stuff.
so uncharted 3 isn't perfect ur saying?
No one knows… Yet.
ben might have gotten a review copy
I take every review I read with a grain of salt because at the end of the day it's still someone else's personal opinion.
With that said, I also think a perfect score is impossible. The 10 point score system makes it SEEM that a perfect game is achievable, but like you said Ben all games have potential downsides, even the most brilliant ones.
Having a review score to look at does put things into perspective, but it doesn't properly address minor (or major) flaws. An aspect of a game that bothers one person may not bother another person in the same way and that's why the written portion (the body of the review) should be the most important. The general population just doesn't always read all the content, so a score is the most convenient way to summarize.
Wasnt gt5 givin a 9.9 here?
Yes. Arnold did the review, I believe.
Now days a perfect score means nothing, except that it's a good game to me. The perfect score either, 100/100 or 10/10 gets thrown around too much. On metacritic all the AAA games receive a few perfect scores at least.
A perfect score to me should be given to a perfect game. The only game that even comes close to a perfect score in my opinion is Uncharted 2. No other game does as many things right as Uncharted, NOTHING! Uncharted is the whole package. But there's still some issues, but damn there hard to find! 😉
Now days most reviewers review based on opinion or how much they enjoyed the game, so the whole thing is construed anyways. I think you have to score on a 10 point scale with decimals, and you have to average the categories, that justifies the score given in each category, like graphics, sound, replay value, mp, etc… That's why games are getting so many higher scores and we see the perfect score. Because even if the games sound isn't great, is that enough to deter the games overall integrity, if the rest of the game is great? I think most reviewers overlook most things now and give free passes in some areas if the game is still enjoyable. But that's a fine line because if a game gets 9's across the board and the sound is a 7 (let's say 4-9's and 1-7) the score does drop to a 8.6, is that still fair? I think so…
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 10/20/2011 12:23:50 AM
You might as well remove the 10 from the grade scale if nothing in your opinion can ever reach a 10. but if you do that, the next score before 10 becomes that 'perfect' score. this is why i dont agree with those who say no game should ever get a 10 cuz it means perfection. Quite simply, it doesn't
Makes sense.
Yeah, pretty much this.
What is the standard of a 10, then? That's the question.
Whenever I see a perfect ten I think, "overrated". I just don't trust a perfect score. It looks kinda cheap.
I actually get more impressed by a 9.6 – 9.9.
There's one huge exception: The sites that don't do decimals (like the dice scores (1-6) that's so common here in Norway), or just half point steps like IGN. In those cases a perfect score makes more sense cause they really need to use the whole range.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/20/2011 1:17:07 AM
It means that for one moment in time absolutely nothing matters, because in front of you is sheer awesomeness tangibly manifested.
A perfect score means that the game is exemplary at the time of creation, and that it will be beaten some time in the future. Personally, I don't think that any game should get a perfect 100 points, but on a stricter scale, a perfect score is more than forgiveable.
I dunno, I always take them with a grain of salt.
Regarding scores, why is it when a game gets a 7/10 it's not good enough & classed as average? Why is 7/10 the new 5/10?
It reminds me of when i read Eurogamers Alan Wake review. People were up in arms because it only got a 7. That is only 3 points off a 10, how is that bad? Hyperbole or not. 7 is a good score for any developer i'd reckon.
It's like people only accept 8's or higher & dismiss any number below 8 as shite. Which just seems wierd to me personally.
I also don't take 10/10 scores too seriously but at the same time can acknowledge that even though a perfect score was handed out, doesn't necessarily mean the game isn't without a fault or two.
Really though, it is just a number but i've noticed alot of review sites where people will skim through the review itself, check the number at the bottom of the page & automatically dismiss the game as shite because it got a 7. They don't read the review half the time, they just look for the score & call it a day.
Yip 7 out of 10 seems to be the new average. Nowadays people seem to go off the deep end if their game of choice is give less than a 9 out of 10.
How many comments do you see like this when a less than stellar review score falls:
"Just cancelled my pre-order".
"Bargain bin now"
"Will buy used"
We should be going:
"Ah well, I like this genre and style of the game so will pick it up regardless".
Such as with Alan Wake. A 7 out of 10 just means proceed with caution but it will probably be fine if you like that sort of thing!
That's exactly the reason Ben has been contemplating removing the 10 point scale.
Gordo,
I see your point. Spaeking for myself (and I am sure many other gamers), I am in my adult years. I have finite time and a finite budget for gaming. Therefore, I use review scores to try to select the best games that fit my interests. For the most part they must be reviewed in the high 8s with 9 and above preferred. I want to know with some certainty that I am choosing the best games offering the greatest experiences.
Can we say that the emphasis on ratings could be seen as a deeper symptom of the relative immaturity of video games as an art form?
We see music get review scores but they don't seem to matter as much or get dissected as much as with video games (we certainly don't seem to see the level of rivalry between musical genres)
Lady Gaga versus Metallica? Nah seems pointless…
I wouldn't go mad if Dexter got reviewed at 7 out of 10 when I was expecting a 9.
We get theatre reviews but would you cancel your pre-order to The Lion King Musical because it get a 7 out of 10?
We don't seem to have got to a point where artistic merit has broken through in video games. We still seem to want to categorize and quantify everything!
Ben's Heavy Rain review is the closest I have seen where a maturity in regards to artistic value shines through and basically makes the actual score pretty irrelevant.
Imho obviously 😉
Well said, sir. It is a little odd how fans of videogames salivate waiting for a review score of an upcoming title, and act like lunatics when it does alot better/worse than they anticipated.
I'm guessing it has to do with the higher cost of the games. A new albulm from your favorite artist costs $10-15 on iTunes, while a new game costs $60. So obvioiusly they want to feel that their purchase is justified.
Just hurry up with the Uncharted 3 review then you will know what a 10 is all about!
Some of my favourite games this gen havent even reached the 9 mark, take Nier for example. I found Nier to be an excellent action-RPG with plenty to do, engaging story, enough variety in the battle mechanics and tons of replay value. But an avarage reviews gave it 4-7/10. While like you said GTA IV got near perfect reviews. But I found GTA IV stale buy the second Island. Once I completed the story I never looked back, unlike GTA 3 or Vice City where I played it for many hours after the game.
I just hate reviews which arent fair to the context of the game, where they look at a platforming game and slap it with a linear label, this is why there are no decent platformers this gen, because people want open world with miles of land to explore. I am really open Sonic Generations will put this bad rep to waste, I dont want to have SEGA compromise with horrible towns to make the game longer like in Sonic Unleashed.
Just because a game gets a high review does not mean I will instantly buy it either, take the recent example of Batman: Arkham City. I am just going to say it bluntly, I dont like Batman. So I am just not interested in the game. Same with God of War III I bought GoW 1 & 2 for cheap, but I just lost interest (The hack n' slash genre has gone stale in my books)
Of take Final Fantasy XIII, I loved it, IT is one of my favourite games this gen, but that to got slapped with the linear brush so everyone whinned. While FFXII got near perfect reviews and I was so devistated when I played through it and found it bland.
So basically, take on board what games you like and branch out from there I like RPG's so I have recent bought the Dark Cloud and Valkyrie Profile series and I am having much more fun with them than I would with a new 10* game.
Imo, the ?/10 rating system is broken. We don't use half of it, and a difference of around 20% toward the upper end of the scale is considered the difference between a masterpiece or a bargain-bin game. If movies were rated this way on their 4-star system, we'd only see 3-stars and above, and 2-star "trash" movies, with the first half never used. There's no sense of scaling, and it makes most everything impossible to judge.
Just looking at a couple relatively random games on MetaCritic, Dark Void is a nearly broken and repetitive mess of a game, with obvious large gaps of missing levels, while Quantum of Solace is a well developed, fun and entertaining romp through the latest Bond films, yet they're rated within 6% of each other. One is worth playing if you're interested in the subject matter, and the other is wholly disappointing at all levels, but you can't tell that from the scores.
If you ask me, the entire system needs to be thrown out and replaced. The only time I pay reviews scores much attention is if the overall average is below 50%, and even then I take it with a grain of salt.
To the topic: A perfect score, to me, means that the game is wholly entertaining from beginning to end, worth revisiting, and has almost no negative elements holding it back. That's it.
I have an issue with how the scale is used as well. The scale, if you ask me, is great. But it isn't used properly.
A 10/10 -should- fill the following criteria:
-It should achieve the style it set out to achieve. (Subjectivity in preferred style of gameplay can be mentioned in an article, but not considered for a score… ie: just because you hate, say, FFXIII's gameplay or think it's a departure, that doesn't mean it should be marked harshly as long as it does what it meant to do well. (although, aspects like depth or simplicity should be considered. You don't want to have something that's too repetitive either.)
-It should have -NO- flaws or glitches related to graphical quality nor to it's gameplay.
-Sound quality should be immersive, and voice acting should be well done. (where applicable)
-Writing should be well done (where applicable)
-It should have a quality that NO 9-point game can match.
-Control should be FLAWLESS. No camera issues… no targeting issues… no restrictions in action due to animations, and no exploitations possible due to design flaws.
If any of these are missing from the equation, it might get a 9-point something, but it shouldn't have a 10. The standard for perfection should be perfection.
Basically, as long as it has it's own uniqueness, has no flaws directly related to gameplay or graphics, and it accomplishes exactly what it set out to accomplish, you have a solid 10-point contender.
But, to be honest, I haven't played a single game this generation that I would consider giving a 10 to. A 10 needs to be something… really special. And they shouldn't start showing up, really, until the end of the generation.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/20/2011 8:45:41 AM
First of all, a perfect review score never means a perfect game.
A perfect score to me means the game has gone above and beyond expectations of the reviewer. Minor quirks aside, the title shows either a level of innovation, intelligence, or polish that only a handful of games reach. Lasting appeal or lasting impact usually are expected from highly rated games.
A perfect score should typically follow a game that offers the complete package – not as in online options – but in experience. Also, a perfect to one person is not to another. But that's okay, because the world would be a very boring place if everyone always agreed.
Maybe Im just tough to please but if a game gets a 10, in my opinion, there is no need to ever make a game like it again.(unless it's a sequel) I do believe a 10 rating implies perfection, but also the max out of the genre/system/storyline.
I happen to think, on a 10 scale most games should be 7 or 8's with the rare exception of a 9. A 10 is a once in a lifetime kinda game you go back and play 2,3,4,5 years later and will give you goosebumps even then.
Last edited by wackazoa on 10/20/2011 10:19:13 AM
IMO a perfect score should mean that the game is one of the best in it's specific genre such as fps, rpg, hack and slash etc. The title raises the bar in it's specific genre that other games have to reach and exceed.
There shouldn't be much technical issues either.