in my opinion, a game should only get 10/10 if
A) it is perfect (Portal) (never gonna happen again until I get into development)
B) it tries something new and interesting and for the most part doesn't fail (Killer 7, No More Heroes)
C) it polishes existing elements to a mirror sheen (GTAIV, MGS4:GOTP:TEA, Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2)
D) it focuses on one unique element and makes it totally perfect. (again Portal)
E) it has and engaging story with an artful presentation and great humor that manages to completely negate any bad gameplay aspects (Psychonauts)
F) it is considerably better better than anything that has ever come before it in it's particular genre (half life, counter strike, ocarina of time, guitar hero (1 & 2), rock band and all of the MGS and GTA series successively)

Takatchi:
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."

Amen! AMEN! I most definitely agree with that assessment. Although they do often give their honest opinions about bad games, they rarely give their honest opinions about games that are, simply put, not as great as they're said to be.

xtreme_phoenix:
in my opinion, a game should only get 10/10 if
A) it is perfect (Portal) (never gonna happen again until I get into development)
B) it tries something new and interesting and for the most part doesn't fail (Killer 7, No More Heroes)
C) it polishes existing elements to a mirror sheen (GTAIV, MGS4:GOTP:TEA, Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2)
D) it focuses on one unique element and makes it totally perfect. (again Portal)
E) it has and engaging story with an artful presentation and great humor that manages to completely negate any bad gameplay aspects (Psychonauts)
F) it is considerably better better than anything that has ever come before it in it's particular genre (half life, counter strike, ocarina of time, guitar hero (1 & 2), rock band and all of the MGS and GTA series successively)

Okay...um...this may sound kinda rude, but why exactly are you even talking about GTA IV and MGS 4 when they're some of the prime examples that sparked this discussion in the first place?

fuck scores all they do is cause complaints among internet forums by people who somehow turn this into a decimal problem. so yeah i hate scores

Err, frankly: Yes I do agree. Mainly for most of the points listed above. I also think mydogisblue is right and I am starting to think this thread is going to go round and round and round and round and round...

I agree with Yahtzee and say a review and opinion of a game shouldn't try to be placed into a score out of 10, 5 or whatever.

But in the boundaries of the original post, I agree that no game with a single flaw should be given maximum marks, maximum marks denotes perfection, if there is a flaw its not perfect

The 10/10 rating I only believe should be given to games which make you forget that your body has functions it must preform regularly to ward off death. That being said, back when I was young, this honor belonged to Super Mario RPG. ;D

What do you reckon mirrors edge will get?

Zombie Badger:
I think that a game should only be given 10/10 if it is perfect in every way. The only game I think deserve this is Portal

Fix'd.

Also I lol'd at your avatar.

"I am the milkman. I deliver the milk."

I have never lol'd so hard at a game than Psychonaughts.

How can a game be perfect in every way?

I dont think ten out of ten means perfection. I think it would mean that something is highly recomended

I don't regard 10/10 to mean its perfect, just a "must-have". No game is perfect.

also the 10/10 score system is flawed cause if a game gets anything lower or a 5 its like a 1 on a 5/5 point system.

i hate how in reviews most people give scores to graphics. Its a product of its time, and if a game like super mario rpg was released now on Xbox 360, with its graphics the same, it would get a crappy review. However, it is now one of (at least from my perspective) one of the best video games out there. Plot, gameplay, and depth should be counted, not graphics. What im getting at is that reviewers give scores based on frivolous things such as graphics, and its weighted the same as plot development and gameplay. This is why a score of 8 is flawed as they might have bombed in regards to the plot of the game, but at least its graphics are nice...

back on topic, i think a score of ten would mean that the game is unimprovable, or at least it fits together so perfectly any improvments would be unneeded.

guko84:
also the 10/10 score system is flawed cause if a game gets anything lower or a 5 its like a 1 on a 5/5 point system.

um 5/10 = 2.5/5

ccjav:

guko84:
also the 10/10 score system is flawed cause if a game gets anything lower or a 5 its like a 1 on a 5/5 point system.

um 5/10 = 2.5/5

i didn't do the math so sue me

Regardless of whether you think games are capable of earning a ten or not, I think everyone can agree that magazines need to stop handing them out like candy. It seems like every sequel that earns some money gets a ten. I would bet my left nut that Gears 2 is going to get a ten by a major magazine, despite the fact that no one gives a shit about the story (not that there's much story to care about).

guko84:

ccjav:

guko84:
also the 10/10 score system is flawed cause if a game gets anything lower or a 5 its like a 1 on a 5/5 point system.

um 5/10 = 2.5/5

i didn't do the math so sue me

It's not math, it's common knowledge.

I'll call my lawyer...

I personally don't have a problem with games getting maximum marks, because each time I see that they do, they deserve it. To me, its more of a statement on its playability than an actual FACT. My favorite game ever I would not give a "10" to because of its horrible flaws, yet I would love to see it rated as such because I don't think adding its flaws against it would give anyone else an accurate impression as to how much fun it really is.

I have a policy when a game interests me. I read the review and see what they hated about it. But the number counts for a lot. I pretty much wont buy a game if its a 7 or lower. As it is, my policy has gotten me to buy more games than I can open. I have too many games on my shelf that are still in their original packaging.

8= buy
9= buy and play
10= buy, play, finish.

In the end, its all about how much fun a game is that makes me complete it. I'll finish games that are 8's, but its the 10's that beg to be finished as soon as I can. This is about as rare as 10's are given out. I have BAD gamer's A.D.D. Even games I love get neglected (I'm look at you with tear-filled eyes Okami).

Signa:
8= buy
9= buy and play
10= buy, play, finish.

so if its an 8 you just model it in your house????

I think the only game that has ever honestly deserved a 10/10 (barring MGS 4 as i have yet to play/judge) has been CIV 4. The AI and gameplay where absolutely amazing, plus most things sid miers touches are great in their own respects

Signa:

8= buy
9= buy and play
10= buy, play, finish.

You're kidding right?

ccjav:
(barring MGS 4 as i have yet to play/judge)

MGS 4 is about 9.5/10. great near perfect game game, but not 10

The problem with the ratings system employed by most reviewers these days is that they stand over too large-a-period of time. If the scores were broken down into years, for example 2008 compared to 2007, then a 10/10 would be possible for _that_ year. Technically speaking Pong would be a 10/10 and thus perfect, which it isn't, because nothing came before it and automatically it was the best that could be, and thus every game released after that is compared to it as it's the first 10/10.
I don't see Pong in any 100 games of all times list crap that gets spewed out every so often - unless they're trying for the old cop-out of "it was important and thus gets the No. 1 spot" bull crap that they use to make themselves feel intelligent.

Arguably a great game is always a great game; Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Portal I'm looking at you. However comparing them to the games released 20 years from now, it's a fair call to assume technology will allow for new and interesting things in games and should, if handled correctly, produce better games that surpass what we have now. Half-Life 2 is superior to Half-Life in almost all regards, yet if Half-Life received a 10/10 what should Half-Life 2 get?

Then again I've always felt that using a number system to relate the quality of a game to be lacking - used now-a-days by "official" magazines and websites that are funded by advertisements paid for by the gaming companies producing the games they sport advertisements, competitions, give-a-ways and promotions for, which just happen to be the very games they've dedicated 15 pages of jargon to and it just happens to be given a 10/10.

Oblivion was released. And until the next Elder Scrolls game, I've got my 10/10.

I think a game can be 10/10 in its field/ genre ie to me, Under Defeat is the perfect 2D shooter. Perfect gameplay, balance, graphics, soundtrack... it could barely be better.

Of course, if you don't like that kind of game, it wouldn't be perfect.

Arguing is a game can receive 10/10 is the same as saying a game, or any form of entertainment, can be rated anything. Rating is subjective. If you can't brand something perfect, how can you say something is not perfect?

"Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."
"Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient."

Does that mean that a game that has 10/10 (perfect) could and should be enjoyed by all gamers?
Because, since GTA4 and alot of other games had alot of store campers.. Wouldn't that mean that every single gamer would camp outside a store just to get the game?
This one is out in the blue. Like.. You know what! :P
In my own opinion, games cant really get score. Just think about it. There is no ISO or anything that tells how a game should be looked at as a reviewer, so how could any score given by anyone be just?

Game reviewers shouldn't give a number in the first place. It's pointless. Has any of you done risk assessments before where you have to give a risk score for bumping your knee on a table, based on likelihood or occurrence and consequence of action? It's pointless, you know exactly what the risk is, why give it an abstract number?!

Download it from p2p first, if you like it, buy it for multi-player.