10/10 Scores for games

Silentbomber


No game is a Ten.

You are on a site which has given games a 10/10.  I review for the site, but have never given a 10/10 score.  Recently though, I've been thinking, why not?  It's there for a reason!

I've been fortunate enough to have GRAW2, Bioshock, and Mass Effect to review.  I didn't give any of them 10/10.  However, if  you refuse to use the 10, why not review games from 9/9?  Obviously a 10 would be an exceptional score, but then why not use it for exceptional games?

I'm really up for your opinion on this, I feel as a reviewer (privileged enough to be writing for Kikizo!) you guys are my target audience.  I always write to entertain (first and foremost) but a score at the end of a 3 page review, along with a final word, means something.  So why not a 10/10 score?  A lot of people skim the review and go to the end for an informed opinion.  Your thoughts?

***flyingsaucersdisguisedasmushrooms***
***mushroomsinvadingfromouterspace***

As a reviewer let me just tell you guys that you're NEVER going to see a game get a 10 from me. EVER! I don't care if you all cry yourselves to sleep at night, it "ain't" ever going to happen! THANK YOU So Very Much!! *blows kisses to all of his adoring fans* :D

Terry Bogard - currently the most Unhelpful member of the Kikizo forums.

Hahahaha the sig says it all!!   :P

Also, as long as Geonetry Wars 2 is on my 360, I doubt I can afford to lose any more sleep than I do at the moment.  Damn you to hell, Ghost!  A sausage sandwich and a full haggis supper I owe you now.....

***flyingsaucersdisguisedasmushrooms***
***mushroomsinvadingfromouterspace***

If I reviewed games for the site, I'd ONLY give them 10s in order to balance things out.

?? I thought I explained in the other half of my post, no game is a Ten, while you may not think so, think about it like this; 10/10 means that everyone will love it, everyone will enjoy it, everyone will have fun playing, 10/10 is perfect, the ultimate score, the perfect game.
But sadly the perfect game cannot exsist, even if you think a game is perfect somebody else may not, for example the said game might have some technical errors/balancing issues which you oversaw that others will not, maybe it isnt as fluid or as easy as some would like, maybe its too action heavy or full of cutscenes. But you recommended them this game, you said here take this, this game represents everything the game industry has to offer, this game is how far we have come with this genre, its the best you can find, if you dont like it then you dont like this genre wtf is wrong with you?? if you dont like this, you dont like good games.

This Industry is odd, its full of double standards, game with any hype recieve ten out of ten for being cool, for being new, for bring pixelshader 4.1 into the world,  Some sites hand out 10's like free coupons, Franchises esp, games like Zelda,Mgs and Gta. it cheapens what a ten out of ten is, we have got to a point if a game dosent get 7-10 we think its bad.

Some reviwers believe that more than one review is a good way to 'generalize' the score, but thats just irgonring the problem, other reviews offer Alphabetical scores but thats just avoiding the problem alltogether, what should be done is a Higher Tier of games, only the best go into, and while they may not be perfect, they are damn good games.


on a side note id be intrested on writing a review for kikizo, as long as I dont have to attach a number :(

Not all sites see ten as the same. There's no unified rating system so its pretty hard to say. Tho the number is nothing without the words.

Anyhow I just read them to get a general idea. Most reviews won't thwart my already set thought. I may drop a purchase down to a rental.

You people with 10 phobias are driving me nuts, it makes no sense.  Why don't we just remove the number if it's so useless?  10 is NOT PERFECT.  If it is why not adopt 11 for above perfect?  If perfect doesn't exist than why can't we have above perfect?  That has just as much logic.  Actually we should adopt 11/10 for perfect.  It's better than a 10 and it doesn't exist, problem solved.

A 10 does not have to be perfect.  A game isn't a multiple choice test, it isn't something with universal values.  Games are artistic endevors.  You don't rate a game only on technical achievement.  Even if you did they still would never be perfect.  First you consider who the game is targetted towards.  You assume that the person reading the review enjoys this type of game, you don't fucking take marks off because you don't like the genre, so forget about the idea that a game has to appeal to everyone.  Imagine taking marks off MGS4 because you don't like third person shooters, that would be ridiculous.  You have to be objective about things that are not objective.

percentages and appropriate score (VERY SIMPLE)

0-10= 1
11-20=2
21-30=3
31-40=4
41-50=5
51-60=6
61-70=7
71-80=8
81-90=9
91-100=10
 
A rating system needs to be universal so we're on the same page.  We use 10 because it works well with 100, 9 doesn't not work well into 100.  The number I shown should go without even saying, I didn't make them up, those are the values they have.  You start to make up your own values for numbers and no one will be on the same page.  Which defeats the purpose of a rating system.  Then you have jackasses that start to say oh you can't use 1-3 and you can't use 10.  GTFO!

"This is sad. There's no other word for it. The person who invents a way to punch someone in the face over the Internet will make millions from the demand generated by people like this." Youtube comments

There we go. Thats something I had in my mind but just took the lazy route instead. i don't get where ten means perfection. I should have never meant that. Should just be a damn good game. So yeah.

I think it is a given no game is perfect.  That being said why have a 10 point scale and not use the whole thing?  The 10 is for games that are near perfect.  
I do think 10s are given out too much though, especially for franchises like GTA.  GTAIV didn't deserve a 10 imo.  It did have massive amounts of content, but it had major flaws, like the controls, which were far from perfect.  In a 10 every major aspect of the game should be near perfect.  Controls, gameplay, story, graphics, etc.  But a 10 should also have a ton of content.  Gears of War was a 10 in about everything imo, but to deserve a 10 overall rating it would need to be longer, have more multiplayer maps, etc.  
But also, if the rating has to be an integer, and the game is 9.5 or better then you have to round up and give it a 10, which is why I prefer a scale with 1/100 accuracy.
I think if you're rating a game you should try to give it a rating based on that.  But readers have to realize that a review is effected by personal prefrences and a game that is a 7 for one person may be a 9 for them.  

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

I prefer percentage scores to decimal as it gives a better level of granularity - so for something given a 10 in the latter it wouldn't necessarily mean 100%.
But anyway 10 is not a perfect game, it should be given for those games that are the finest of their genre at the current time, and do almost everything about right and have no major hang-ups. They could also be genre-defining or push the boundaries of what has been seen in games.
For me in this generation GTAIV, MGS4 and Mass Effect would all score 10s, but none would get 100% imo in a more refined scale.

I think if a rating scale says "one through ten" then ten should be utilized.  I don't know if a perfect game exists, even for myself, but I do know that I could go back through my history of gameplaying and give a couple of titles a ten.

So, anybody wanna try?  I'll go first...

Chronicles of Riddick.  Yeah, I liked it that much!

I have to agree that 10 is a score that should be given. If you have the full scale, use it. However I also think that a game that got a 10/10 score is something really special. For me a 10/10 game is something I can pick up in a couple of years and when I play it, it still sticks out of the mass of games. A 10/10 game is exceptional in game design, atmosphere etc. (Basically almost anything, that isn't technical) like for example OoT, the first Halo, Shenmue or Deus Ex. Therefore I think that a 10/10 game should be reviewed again after a certain timeframe to see if it had that lasting impact or if, after some time, became irrelevant. But that is only my personal definition of what makes a game a ten.

on a side note id be intrested on writing a review for kikizo, as long as I dont have to attach a number :(

Shit, I'll do one better. I hate reviews with numbers, but I'm shameless, so I'd tack them on to the end. I'd even curb my filthy tongue for mass readership.

What now Silent? What are you bringing to the table? Huh?

I agree Lad ofc you should be able to give out 10's and btw 10 doesnt mean 100% you dumbfucks.

Do you think gamepro when they give 5/5 means the game is perfect?
Or moviesites claims a movie is perfect?
No,what they mean is that it as good as you can ask for in that genre and by that time.

Yes small things could have been better or changed,byut if you did that then someone else might be pissed off so its a question to the reviewer,did this game blow you away or not?
And if it did,that game is a "10" since we have to judge the scale based on some games or else 1-10 is useless.

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

The ten is there to establish the scale, doesn't mean its meant to be used.

I think some games deserve a 10, but they're far and few between.

Here's my list of 10's:
Super Mario Bros. 3
Gran Turismo 2
StarCraft: BroodWar
Rome: Total War
Halo: CE
Star Wars: KOTOR
Final Fantasy X
Resident Evil 4

I haven't played any games this gen that I would give a 10, and especially not GTA IV, which imo was a huge step down from GTA: San Andreas, and not COD4, which is just another shooter with good graphics and great animations, yet it doesn't bring anything new to the table.  Halo 3 would probably be my highest scoring game this gen so far (somewhere in the low to mid 9's), but it just doesn't have that freshness that the original Halo had when it first debuted and blew everyone's minds.

Who gives a fuck about ratings and whether perfect.
Ratings to any game is a score by people likeness to that particular game, based on their marking schemes.
While Gamepro gives a game 5 out of 5
Or 1up with an A- rating, it is up to WE the consumers who buy the game.
What our final verdict is on a game. Everyone is different some us us will like it others will hate it.
As humans we like to complex things, make imaginary and real numbers that does not exist, just to put order or define quality and quantity.

What is absolute perfection?
No flaws...i agree with Silentbomber no game is perfect. We are too picky to justify what absolute perfection really is.
Just like lysol and their 99.9% kills all bacteria and germs.

Now like AgentGhost was saying, the score is like 1-10, 11-20, etc. That makes sense.
So too Quezcatol "I agree Lad ofc you should be able to give out 10's and btw 10 doesnt mean 100% you dumbfucks "

Now with that said what are we discussing about? Everyone agrees no game is perfect and a score of 10/10 means it meets and goes above expectations for that particular field.
The best review system should be BUY, BORROW, PASS. or like i call it: Must have, there is something there but not for everyone, what were they thinking.
 

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Umm....reviews are opinions, not definitions of quality.  A review can never be described as accurate or inaccurate. It's an opinion...there is no such thing as an accurate opinion.


A perfect score doesn't mean the game is perfect. Nothing is perfect. It just means the reviewer thinks the game deserves the absolute highest praise.

If you tell a reviewer his or her review is "wrong" you're literally telling them that they didn't enjoy the game as much as they think they did. That's just stupid.

Opinion... not definition.

That means that if YOUR opinion differs, it's ok. 


This doesn't apply to actual technical criticisms of course. 

I think number ratings systems should be done away with altogether. They really don't mean anything, and they influence people's buying habits far too heavily.
 

Numeric and percentile scores serve to those who are too lazy to encounter the absolute horror that is light periodical reading... It's not like most reviewers are particularly verbose anyhow.

We're talking a half a page of preview info, not Focaults Pendulum here.

The 10 is there, so it should be used. For me, 10 doesn't mean a perfect game, every game has its share of little things that will keep it from being perfect, so it definitely should be used sporadically. So far, I have only played 2 games that I would rate a 10:
Final Fantasy VII for the PSX

Chimura

If a reviewer would only rate the experience of playing the game, there would be more 10's for me, but being as every single aspect must be considered, only those two games have managed to have this score in all aspects. 

What's your point? Nothing at all is perfect.  I love how you guys only apply this to games.

If games like GTA IV and Orange Box do not warrant "10s" then I see little point in the review process at all...

Adam Doree


If games like GTA IV and Orange Box do not warrant "10s" then I see little point in the review process at all...

ummm....so did you actually play GTA?

Adding numeric value to a subjective interpretation of quality is asinine. Period.

10/10 scores are just as dumb as 7/10 scores, or 2/10 scores. Everyone will have a different 10, every time.

absolutely its just a subjective indicator of quality - but you get to know which reviewers to take note of and whose opinions match yours so you can tell a 10 you'll like and those you don't (and equally a game which gets a 6 or 7 which you consider to be a must buy)

If the previous game in the series (GTA:SA) was better in almost every aspect than the game in question (GTA IV), I'd find it impossible to give that game a 10.

CRUCIFY HIM NAO!!!

skurf


If the previous game in the series (GTA:SA) was better in almost every aspect than the game in question (GTA IV), I'd find it impossible to give that game a 10.

you were forced to ride a bike in SA, and in the beginning = Bad game

The eating and body fat/muscle ratios were the most irritating thing. And on the xbox you had to be a contortionist to be able to press the buttons to shoot out of a car.

San Andreas was pretty awful...

Silentbomber

This Industry is odd, its full of double standards, game with any hype recieve ten out of ten for being cool, for being new, for bring pixelshader 4.1 into the world,  Some sites hand out 10's like free coupons, Franchises esp, games like Zelda,Mgs and Gta. it cheapens what a ten out of ten is, we have got to a point if a game dosent get 7-10 we think its bad.

This is something that I've also mentioned before in another forum. Tens should be reserved for very groundbreaking games that are at the same time well made and fun to play. But these days I think that too many get a ten or very close to a ten. Ocarina of Time which was groundbreaking then has a lower average score than for example one of these newer games that only improved (might have some technical issue even), and not revolutionized.
As you said, it cheapens the score kind of. Just look at discussions over the internet because a certain game got 9,2 while another rival got 9,4. Or why "their" game only got 9,8 while it also deserved a ten like another one. A seven should still be an entertaining game, with some technical problems maybe. Eight and more should be very good games and above nine exceptional.
I mean, if people think that ten should be used to take full advantage of the 10/10 system. Then why not also use some of those numbers under six or seven also? ;) It would maybe make it easier to distinguish between good and really bad games. Movie or music reviews can often be a bit harsher for example. Though I don't know if this is due to a more matured, professional industry there or simply because of all reviewers getting bored and cynical :P
PS I also thought that San Andreas was a good game. The bike and eating/training thing didn't bother me at all. It wasn't that much of a hassle if you wanted to avoid it.

Personaly I think GTA4 is much better than Sa.

Silentbomber


Personaly I think GTA4 is much better than Sa.

Personally I think taking sandpaper to my dick is better than San Andreas.

I dont want to celebrate, I want to sell you hate.

whatever turns you on.