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?

moved to gaming discussion

Agreed. If anyflaw is mentioned in a review, then don't give it a 10/10 no matter what (Even if it has other features that try to make up for it)

Honestly, you're making threads like crazy.

There is no "perfect game," but Morrowind, Psychonauts and the combined Orange Box got awfully close.

A 10 out of 10 should only represent that it is the best game in it's genre that has ever been seen up to that time period.

Personaly I feel a more effective way of establishing the quality of a game relative to other games is to have a constantly updating list of games where the higher the game is on the list the higher quality the game in the reviewer's opinion. Please note that I realize the headach making such a list would cause so you do not need to tell me how inefficiant it would be.

This is the trouble with numerical scores in general. Game reviews are not, and should not be written like spelling tests. Marking each aspect of a game on a 1-10 scale is just... silly. Whereas a spelling test can be objectively marked right/wrong, game reviews are purely subjective. At most all we need is a Buy It/Rent It/Avoid It at the end.

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.

Hmmm... I give Another World 10/10, but that's just me. Gaming is a matter of opinion, but I do agree that far too many games are getting 10/10 based on hype and fanbase. What do you think FF7 would get if it was remade? Anything under a 10/10 rating would result in somebody getting fired. It's a sad world. :(

though no game is perfect i would say games deserve ten to make people go and buy them you know. i mean example wouldnt half life 2 been better if you had the freedom of the whole of city 17 to escape from/skirmish in? but people use that game as like an perfect example of what an fps should be.
another much better example of what i mean is the new alone in the dark. it has so many revolutionary and new ideas in it that to me it deserves a ten for effort alone. if it got straight tens would you have gone out and bought it? i think most people would. and what that would in turn do is encourage developers to think out side the box and make more interesting games.
so i belive that no game is perfect but perfect score should be given if innovation and interesting design are in play

EDIT: Slow computer today.

I believe some games do deserve the 10/10 title if they are fun and have stood up to their hype. But like all things, this is just a matter of opinion. One person may find it to the greatest game to date, while another might find it overhyped. Person A will argue with person B and internet flame wars ensue. Yay.

I have heard many flaws about morrowind which makes it imperfect. Because games are subjective they cannot be perfect.

williamjg:

another much better example of what i mean is the new alone in the dark. it has so many revolutionary and new ideas in it that to me it deserves a ten for effort alone. if it got straight tens would you have gone out and bought it? i think most people would. and what that would in turn do is encourage developers to think out side the box and make more interesting games.

You give AitD a 10 for gimmicks, ignoring betrayal, terrible controls, poor 'I wanna be like those actors on Lost' storytelling? Bahhhhh! I'm still drunk.

CTU_Agent24:
For a game to get 10/10 it should have to be absolutely perfect with no faults.

Says you.

If a game never get's a 10, then why bother having 10? Make the top score 9 then and be honest with yourself. All this never giving the top score shit does is lead to fiddly and stupid scores with decimal points in them and who fucking cares? I would rather those stupid numbering scores just go away altogether if we're going to deal with a top score that is never given and moronic fractions like that.

Jack Spencer Jr:

If a game never get's a 10, then why bother having 10? Make the top score 9 then and be honest with yourself. All this never giving the top score shit does is lead to fiddly and stupid scores with decimal points in them and who fucking cares? I would rather those stupid numbering scores just go away altogether if we're going to deal with a top score that is never given and moronic fractions like that.

Exactly what I was going to say, if a game can never get a ten then why is there a ten? You lot just need to lower your standers and actually enjoy the games you play rather than just worry about the scores tagged onto them. Can you not judge games yourself?

I think that a game should only be given 10/10 if it is perfect in every way. The only games I think deserve this are Portal and Perfect Dark.

Games that get 10 are only getting 10s in the eyes fo the reviewer. There are plenty of games i would give a ten to that i know others wouldnt. Bioshock, Halo 3, COD4 and Oblivion for example.

no game deserves a ten unless its perfect and cant be improved in any way gta didnt deserve ten because it could have been improved by having planes in it

Stubee:
Games that get 10 are only getting 10s in the eyes fo the reviewer. There are plenty of games i would give a ten to that i know others wouldnt. Bioshock, Halo 3, COD4 and Oblivion for example.

i would give oblivion halo 3 and bioshock all tens

Fire Daemon:
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.

Why?

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 doesn't mean everyone will agree. Most people picking up a copy of Fallout for the first time today and be forced to play through it would scream, scream, scream for days about the awful graphics that hurts their eyes. Many people will disagree that it is as good as I think it is. That doesn't change my score, and my score doesn't imply that everyone will like it.

No one can ever judge something for everyone, someone will always find something wrong, so NO review EVER can mean that everyone would think something is great, no matter how high a score that review gives it. A score of ten says only that the reviewer loved the game and that anyone with similar taste will too. NOTHING else.

I agree however that not many games deserve a 10. And if there was a more precise scale, no game could ever reach it. If you give a game a scorde between 1 and 10 however, that 10 is attainable. If a flaw is mentioned, then no, the game shouldn't be given a 10. Then again, there are horrible technically flawless games.

I think that a game deserves the highest score if that game fully utilizes what it has. Withing a deep forest for example is a very simple game. It doesn't offer too much, it doesn't offer amazing graphics, deep storyline, very much immersion, etc. It offers a fun gameplay and some interesting puzzles. It does those things extremely well however, and makes no pretense to offer anything else. In my eyes that makes it a candidate for a 10/10 score. It does what it's supposed to perfectly. It's not much, but it's right. It's got a few glitches, it gets awfully frustrating sometimes, but it still deserves a ten, because it delivers what it promises perfectly.

I don't agree with William in the least. Giving something a high score for effort is like rewarding someone for showing up in class, or for trying to answer a question. A rating should be fair. If someone has a great idea and executes it in a horrendous fashion it doesn't deserve a high rating, no matter how great the idea is. Just if it has a great concept, and lives up to it and delivers can such a high rating be achieved.

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.

I belive no game should recive a 10/10 score. In my mind whenever a game gets 10/10 its the reviewer sucuming to bias or hype.

10/10 only exsits as that Can we reach it dream to me.

Oh, except Half-Life 2. It deserves a 10/10, Noble prize and to be F**king Knighted.

10/10 should mean a game is among the best the system has to offer and is a excellent example of the genre. I think there are games that deserve 10/10.

I do not, however, believe any game should get 100/100 (PC Gamer magazine-esque system).
This would the game was absolutley perfect in every way.

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.

Graustein:
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.

Silvertounge:

Fire Daemon:
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.

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?

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.

CTU_Agent24:
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.

Graustein:

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.

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.

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."

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.

EDIT:sorry for the double post.

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