Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that "10" means a perfect game and then also say no such game is perfect (which is true.)
Because then why include it? Why then include a unit of measure that doesn't exist? In which case just say 9/9. but then people would say "9 means perfect but why give a game a 9 since perfect doesn't exist?"
The better way to think of it is to acknowledge every game's (or any thing for that matter) imperfections as a given and just look at how well a game comes to achieving what it is meant to achieve, how enjoyable is it, how much does it makes you want to go back, to talk about it, to discover its depths.
Because a game that makes you want to linger and ponder and continually play would be a 10/10.
10 is a goal to shoot for. Once you give a game a 10, what else can they do? They have reached the pinnacle, right?
Perfection is a journey, not a destination, in my opinion
But what defines that goal? Oh sure, the journey is the thing, but since we can't really conceive of "perfect" being imperfect beings, what are we aiming for? And everyone's idea of perfect will also be different.
Much better to think of 10 as a completely captivating experience, that even with flaws we continue to play because they mean nothing.
Because what will then happen is that people will say 9.3 ... 9.5 as if those small increments, creeping closer to 10, carry more weight. It just doesn't work. And how can we really parse the difference between a 9.2 and a 9.3? It's always going to be subjective.
therefore we should treat 10 as a subjective number (like the rest) but with the explanation that it's as perfect as one could have hoped for but could never have achieved.
I think that may be my trouble.
Perfect: the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.
"or as free as possible" is my sticking point. If anything has a "flaw", it is not perfect. But people want so badly to be perfect, they fudge the rules. If a preferred hairstyle in an RPG is not a choice, it is not perfect. If a technical limitation exists, I can see that as "or as free as possible."
Nobody is perfect. How can an imperfect person, or group of imperfect people, create perfection?
And that's the thing, we can't create perfect. only "free as possible from flaws ..."
As possible is the key here. So a 10 would be as free as possible from flaws and defects. Any top number, whether we get rid of 10 and make it a 9 or just make 1 - 5 with 5 being top, will still be scrutinized because we can't have real perfection. If we can even envision such a thing. Which we can't. Especially because it's subjective.
The top number has to have real meaning otherwise it's useless.
Why not give them 9's, or "near perfect?" I do see your point though.
Maybe my trouble is the word "perfect", instead of the number. "The Best" instead of "Perfect" would suit me, but I'm just one person
Is it so awful to strive for an unobtainable goal? Frustrating, for sure, but in the end better efforts.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I guess I am easily pleased and awed. I give ten's out a lot.
Or overly generous and supportive?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I think giving anything a 9 or 10 in the moment is an emotional response. If you can review it 5 years later and still think that then perhaps it's that great, but most games only feel awesome in their own era.
Funny this thread pops up because just today i saw a game on Steam with all kinds of websites giving it a 9.5 and a 10/10 but is clearly a sub par game.
It uses an old game engine,the overhead top down view,tiny puny characters,very linear and very mediocre graphics.It basically looks like an Albion online game but with a different setting. They say the story is done well but there is zero combat and mostly if not all typed words instead of voice overs. So yeah there are people that may like a game where you can read 5 million lines of text,they like that there is no combat but you cannot give a proper score rating knowing the game delivers on a sub par platform and omits voice overs.
Also to be perfect means we ALL want to play it right,i mean who wouldn't want to play a perfect game? Truth is there is a boat load of ass kissing in this industry,it is like everyone except the real gamer's are in this to make a buck,from advertising,to streamers to holding each others hand to benefit financially in the long run.Even the very laws that TRY to contain unfair marketing practices,basically trying to keep the big money operations from owning the market are circumvented through various means.
MOST people will offer up the excuse...MY OPINION,except a score should not be opinionated because that would be a biased score which should carry VERY little weight.You also need to be decently knowledgeable in game design to know what the heck your looking at to rate it properly.Most of the time it just looks like...i love the game so it's a 10/10.
@DMKano he has to be talking about Disco Elysium in the beginning right. Another almost near perfect game that I gave a 9.4 too
Maybe not though... What the hell is he talking about? Wish you mention the game you were talking about Wizardry
Sounds like Disco Elysium. It doesn't have 2002 chibi jrpg graphics so for him it's a shit game. Odd to use an indie title as a "JUST BECAUSE ITS POPULAR DONT MEAN ITS GOOD" example.
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I don't think todays' gamer could ever rate a game a 10, their expectations are unrealistic. In the late 80's and 90's your average gamer could find plenty of games to rate as a 10. Objectivity still existed as a human trait.
Why not give them 9's, or "near perfect?" I do see your point though.
Maybe my trouble is the word "perfect", instead of the number. "The Best" instead of "Perfect" would suit me, but I'm just one person
Is it so awful to strive for an unobtainable goal? Frustrating, for sure, but in the end better efforts.
And that's the thing, what's the difference between a 9 which is "close to perfect but with flaws" or just acknowledging that "10 is close to perfect but with flaws?"
It's like that old spinal tap gag. "This goes to 11, we bumped it up to be higher than 10," "but why not just make 10 as loud as 11 and that would be the highest ..."
"But this goes to 11 ..."
In any case, as another remarked, the score is just the TL:DR version. People don't really realize that as they don't want to read the reviews but that's where the real decision is being made. Someone might give something a 4 and it's a 9 for someone else.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I don't think todays' gamer could ever rate a game a 10, their expectations are unrealistic. In the late 80's and 90's your average gamer could find plenty of games to rate as a 10. Objectivity still existed as a human trait.
As a 50 year old gamer I have never seen a '10' game. It is not about unrealistic expectations it is about what we personally feel is a high water mark in the medium. I reserve to give it where I feel it is deserved. Not because of the 'feels' it gives me at the time. I have played a couple that were in the 9 area but nothing yet a 10. When and or if it happens I will award one.
At 63, I've also never given a game a 10. If I do, it will only be after 5+ years of constant play that is still entertaining me and that I'm still learning from. Some games I would personally rate as 9.75+, Civ I, XCom I, HOI3, and maybe EQ1 (up to a point -- I think EQ1has expanded beyond its capacity to entertain me).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
Yes and No.
First off. the 1 - 10 rating system is more like a School Grade, where 50% (5) is a complete failing grade, with 6 still being a D (which while not a total failure, still a failure really), and 7-8 being roughly equal to a C grade (or average) as it were, with a 9 being a B grade and 10 being the A grade.
If you use that system, it makes a lot more sense when you see a 7 to 8 game being vastly "Meh" and a game that got between a 5 to 6, being an "Incomplete buggy mess"
With that said.
Perfect is of course a matter of one's own desire and what pleases them, what I might view as a 10, someone else could view as a 7 or 8, so we should accept that as part of the system.
But for me, a Great game, a 10/10, is a game that absorbs them. that excites them to keep playing it, and players look forward to when they can log back in.
Using that, I would say EQ was a 10/10 game for me. I just got sucked into that game and loved it. Sure it had problems, but everything else was so much fun that the problems where not an issue at all. In fact you only really notice the problems when the game becomes less fun.
So, EQ was a life sucking game, where you just could fall into it and play all day, every day, and to be honest, I did that. So, I would have to say that was a 10/10 game for me.
GW2 Core was my other 10/10 game, of course HoT blasted that out of me, and the game just died for me after that.
Which of course is a risk that developers take when they have players that feel their game is 10/10, any change they make can transform the game into a 5/10 very quickly, and more invested, the faster and harder the fall can be.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
To me a 10/10 just means its an awesome game, it doesn't mean its perfect. Its just like a movie or a restaurant meal getting 5 stars. Its entertainment, its subjective. We at times make it sound too much like we're judging figure skating at the Olympics.
Nothing in this world was ever perfect and nothing in this world will ever be perfect, well....except for my wife of course
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I don't think todays' gamer could ever rate a game a 10, their expectations are unrealistic. In the late 80's and 90's your average gamer could find plenty of games to rate as a 10. Objectivity still existed as a human trait.
As a 50 year old gamer I have never seen a '10' game. It is not about unrealistic expectations it is about what we personally feel is a high water mark in the medium. I reserve to give it where I feel it is deserved. Not because of the 'feels' it gives me at the time. I have played a couple that were in the 9 area but nothing yet a 10. When and or if it happens I will award one.
At 63, I've also never given a game a 10. If I do, it will only be after 5+ years of constant play that is still entertaining me and that I'm still learning from. Some games I would personally rate as 9.75+, Civ I, XCom I, HOI3, and maybe EQ1 (up to a point -- I think EQ1has expanded beyond its capacity to entertain me).
Same here at age 56.
Bugs are my number one concern. I don't think games today release without bugs. I could be wrong as I don't play every game released, but from what I hear, read, and experience, bugs are a problem in the gaming industry. Bugs show me that the developers couldn't be bothered, ran out of time, or just lacked the quality assurance help to put out their best effort. These games certainly are NOT "as close to perfect" that a 10 should indicate.
Back in the old days, batch files or boot up discs to even run games on PC would deter a 10 rating for me.
I have played a few games that I deem awesome, easily a 9.5 or better. There is always something that could have been better for me, though. Maybe a UI element or story point. Maybe some part of combat or lore didn't make sense to me. Maybe game balance needed tweaking. Or, as with Master of Magic, one my favorite games of all times, a whole portion (diplomacy) did not work well at all.
PS: @Sovrath, Spinal Tap's "11" occurred to me, too, in this discussion
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I don't view a 10 as being a literally perfect game, because that's impossible. If you nitpick, even the very best games by general consensus have flaws.
Scores are comparative, and a 10/10 game is one that would be one of the very best examples of its genre's potential. And by genre is important. It isn't helpful to compare a 9/10 RPG to a 9/10 racing game. You have to compare a 9/10 RPG (a Skyrim) to a 10/10 RPG (a Witcher 3).
And failure to give a 10/10 score to some games is just as detrimental as failure to give certain deserving games 1/10 or 2/10 scores. These scores contextualize everything inbetween. A 5/10 is meaningless if we don't know what the ideal is and what the bottom of the barrel is.
Moreover, as time passes, genre potential may go up. "Good for its time," may defend a game, but it doesn't make it as good or better than a superior modern one.
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I don't think todays' gamer could ever rate a game a 10, their expectations are unrealistic. In the late 80's and 90's your average gamer could find plenty of games to rate as a 10. Objectivity still existed as a human trait.
keep in mind that back then, and up to early 2000's, games didn't have the internet for patching. Developers had to make the best game they could if wanted to stay afloat, or at least stay relevant long enough to release another game.
On the other hand, today is all about releasing early builds for full price and finish them by the time a sequel is on its way.
I'm in the boat with Sovrath and the other folks who accept that game reviews are subjective opinions and view a top score not as an indication of a perfect game but as a game that stands among the very best. Many scoring systems explain their 10s (or whatever their top score is) as "masterpieces" or something along those lines, rather than "perfect", to avoid the very arguments in this thread.
When I see a 10/10, I know that the reviewer considers the game a crowning achievement, a pinnacle of the genre or the platform, simply not to be missed. That doesn't automatically mean that the game is right for me...if some anime hack-and-slash fan were to give a 10/10 to the next Dynasty Warriors game, I know to steer clear regardless. But I do know that the reviewer at least feels so strongly about the game that they recommend I give it a shot, anyway.
As Aeander said above, if nobody ever uses the scores at the extreme ends of the spectrum for games that fall on the extreme ends of the spectrum, all the scores in between have less value as a result. Which is where we are now, with every site pretty much only using 4-9, which just moves the bar so that everyone now knows that a 9 is not to be missed and a 4 is an unplayable mess.
If you won't give a game above 9/10 or below 4/10, then you're rating games on a scale of 4-9. That seems kind of dumb. If you're going to put numerical scores on games, then the extremal ratings should be realistically possible to get.
When a rating is going to be mixed into an average, giving it an extremal score such as 10/10 or 0/10 is the way to maximize your ability to move the average in the direction you want. That's why in some contexts, you'll see a lot of 10/10 ratings. It's also why sites like Steam don't average scores, but only thumbs up or down.
I believe a score should for the most part represent something objective, naturally you can never do a fully objective review. But anyone that would give say, the witcher 3 a score of 5 or below should probably not have a job anymore.
In my mind a game can only ever 'objectively' get a score of 9, the 10 is only achieved entirely with personal preference by having a unusual love for the setting or something.
I wanted to thanks you fine folks for this great discussion!
I fully see and understand what "the other side" is saying and can agree to their good points.
Everyone likes different games. I can now see a "10/10" as an opinion of a superbly well-made video game. I may not agree, but that's opinions for ya
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Late arrival here, as I see you already concluded the thread
Personally I'm in the "nothing's ever perfect" camp, so no 10s. A bunch of 9s though.
But since everyone has a different subjective approach, I don't have issues when people list games/movies/books/etc. as perfect or masterpiece.
Objectively (reviews, etc.), now that's a whole different thing - at least for me, since it's subjective how you rate objectivity as well... I just don't see how could be a rating system accurate enough, unless it's for a narrow but numerous group.
Like a certain type of boardgame compared to the hundreds of similar type of boardgames, or there was a point-and-click adventures fanzine in the late '90s which could rate the games of those few years pretty good - and even they had five or six categories, and no overall score just a short summary rating description.
Any other case (again, just imo) the industry should stay away from single-score ratings, because it's usually nothing more just a marketing tool. Unfortunately it works too well... there's something in the brain's wiring which loves rates and comparisons. Add to that effect the latest 10-20 years of dumbing down, pre-digest, etc. and it puts the present reviewers in a tough situation. They have to make it short, full with big words, and a single "give this a X" rating at the end, since if they just make a detailed and thorough review, nobody cares.
At around the mid-2000s a gamer mag introduced the number rating (after a public poll, the competition already had it and turned out most readers want a simple number next to each game...) and I still remember their opening manifesto: we won't give a 10, ever, since there are no perfect games, and you won't see a number below 5 either since those games don't worth your time, and our paper to print. If there's no review on a new game, and no note about a detailed review in progress for the next month, you can safely ignore that crap
ed. of course they just covered the AAA games, not everything. 100-120 pages a month ain't enough to the entire gaming market... so if they didn't mention an indie game it didn't mean that is crap.
We all do it occasionally but I don't like 1-10 or any other grading schemes for rating games and especially the use of decimals. They pretend to be a scientific methodology that does nothing but try to disguise the fact that it's just a highly subjective opinion.
Also, the scores IMO actually detract from the meat of the opinion that is contained in the text and leads to silly debates about 7.2s vs. 7.4s. Some people don't even bother to read the text and just go straight to the number.
A simple binary thumb up or thumb down or buy / don't buy would be much more honest.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Late arrival here, as I see you already concluded the thread
Never late! Let the discussion continue
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Maybe my trouble is the word "perfect", instead of the number. "The Best" instead of "Perfect" would suit me, but I'm just one person
Is it so awful to strive for an unobtainable goal? Frustrating, for sure, but in the end better efforts.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
First off. the 1 - 10 rating system is more like a School Grade, where 50% (5) is a complete failing grade, with 6 still being a D (which while not a total failure, still a failure really), and 7-8 being roughly equal to a C grade (or average) as it were, with a 9 being a B grade and 10 being the A grade.
If you use that system, it makes a lot more sense when you see a 7 to 8 game being vastly "Meh" and a game that got between a 5 to 6, being an "Incomplete buggy mess"
With that said.
Perfect is of course a matter of one's own desire and what pleases them, what I might view as a 10, someone else could view as a 7 or 8, so we should accept that as part of the system.
But for me, a Great game, a 10/10, is a game that absorbs them. that excites them to keep playing it, and players look forward to when they can log back in.
Using that, I would say EQ was a 10/10 game for me. I just got sucked into that game and loved it. Sure it had problems, but everything else was so much fun that the problems where not an issue at all. In fact you only really notice the problems when the game becomes less fun.
So, EQ was a life sucking game, where you just could fall into it and play all day, every day, and to be honest, I did that. So, I would have to say that was a 10/10 game for me.
GW2 Core was my other 10/10 game, of course HoT blasted that out of me, and the game just died for me after that.
Which of course is a risk that developers take when they have players that feel their game is 10/10, any change they make can transform the game into a 5/10 very quickly, and more invested, the faster and harder the fall can be.
Nothing in this world was ever perfect and nothing in this world will ever be perfect, well....except for my wife of course
uhm hi honey
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Who is with me......!
The cheese stands alone.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Bugs are my number one concern. I don't think games today release without bugs. I could be wrong as I don't play every game released, but from what I hear, read, and experience, bugs are a problem in the gaming industry. Bugs show me that the developers couldn't be bothered, ran out of time, or just lacked the quality assurance help to put out their best effort. These games certainly are NOT "as close to perfect" that a 10 should indicate.
Back in the old days, batch files or boot up discs to even run games on PC would deter a 10 rating for me.
I have played a few games that I deem awesome, easily a 9.5 or better. There is always something that could have been better for me, though. Maybe a UI element or story point. Maybe some part of combat or lore didn't make sense to me. Maybe game balance needed tweaking. Or, as with Master of Magic, one my favorite games of all times, a whole portion (diplomacy) did not work well at all.
PS: @Sovrath, Spinal Tap's "11" occurred to me, too, in this discussion
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Scores are comparative, and a 10/10 game is one that would be one of the very best examples of its genre's potential. And by genre is important. It isn't helpful to compare a 9/10 RPG to a 9/10 racing game. You have to compare a 9/10 RPG (a Skyrim) to a 10/10 RPG (a Witcher 3).
And failure to give a 10/10 score to some games is just as detrimental as failure to give certain deserving games 1/10 or 2/10 scores. These scores contextualize everything inbetween. A 5/10 is meaningless if we don't know what the ideal is and what the bottom of the barrel is.
Moreover, as time passes, genre potential may go up. "Good for its time," may defend a game, but it doesn't make it as good or better than a superior modern one.
When I see a 10/10, I know that the reviewer considers the game a crowning achievement, a pinnacle of the genre or the platform, simply not to be missed. That doesn't automatically mean that the game is right for me...if some anime hack-and-slash fan were to give a 10/10 to the next Dynasty Warriors game, I know to steer clear regardless. But I do know that the reviewer at least feels so strongly about the game that they recommend I give it a shot, anyway.
As Aeander said above, if nobody ever uses the scores at the extreme ends of the spectrum for games that fall on the extreme ends of the spectrum, all the scores in between have less value as a result. Which is where we are now, with every site pretty much only using 4-9, which just moves the bar so that everyone now knows that a 9 is not to be missed and a 4 is an unplayable mess.
When a rating is going to be mixed into an average, giving it an extremal score such as 10/10 or 0/10 is the way to maximize your ability to move the average in the direction you want. That's why in some contexts, you'll see a lot of 10/10 ratings. It's also why sites like Steam don't average scores, but only thumbs up or down.
In my mind a game can only ever 'objectively' get a score of 9, the 10 is only achieved entirely with personal preference by having a unusual love for the setting or something.
I fully see and understand what "the other side" is saying and can agree to their good points.
Everyone likes different games. I can now see a "10/10" as an opinion of a superbly well-made video game. I may not agree, but that's opinions for ya
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Also, the scores IMO actually detract from the meat of the opinion that is contained in the text and leads to silly debates about 7.2s vs. 7.4s. Some people don't even bother to read the text and just go straight to the number.
A simple binary thumb up or thumb down or buy / don't buy would be much more honest.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
But I take your point about stat inflation and the devaluation of average.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests