By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
rajendra82 on 21 November 2008
Edit Thread
Kantor said:
bugrimmar said:
it shouldn't exist. that's the point. today's review standards are simply tools for overhyping.

again, if i give something a 10, i'm saying games can no longer be better than this. and that is a gross overstatement and nothing more than hype.

So what you're saying is we should have a 1-9.9 scale, but then 9.9 would be perfect and no game is perfect.

I agree with Khuutra on this one. Without a ten, the scale becomes meaningless. Let's take what is widely accepted as the greatest game ever made: Ocarina of Time.

Now, if we had taken Ocarina of Time (still 1998) and added a secret level where you could play as Donkey Kong, breathing fire on New York, would it have been better? Yes, it would. Was it necessary? No. Would it be a waste of time and money? Yes.

I think this can best be summed up, once again, by IGN:

10.0 (Masterful)
No game is absolutely perfect, but 10s represent the pinnacle of gaming brilliance. It doesn't get any better than this, and products in this range are virtually flawless. This is like winning the lottery on your birthday. It takes a rare and special game to earn a 10 from IGN.

The pinnacle of gaming brilliance. Virtually flawless. No game is perfect.

What a ten means is this: the game could not have been improved in any significant or meaningful way at the time of release. Obviously, if a developer released Ocarina of Time for the PS3, it would get awful reviews. It's outdated, the graphics are awful, and it's OLD. But how is a developer meant to go ten years into the future and tweak their graphics to work on a system that doesn't exist yet?

That's my two cents.

If I was IGN, I'd change the phrase "It doesn't get any better than this", to "It hasen't been done better yet".  Because it might get better than this in the future.