Kantor said:
perpride said:
Kantor said:
Gnizmo said:
Seece said:
TBH I don't think a game here will get a 9.9 either, and we're going to simply have to agree to disagree. Just because we havn't scored games 10 and 9.9 doesn't mean we don't know what those scores mean and what would be needed to get that kind of score. As far as this site goes, the scale wasn't invented in someones head, and it has actual meaning behind it, of which I assume the majority if not all reviewers agree with here.
You need to stop picking it apart and over analysing it. The scores here are chosen carefully and have more meaning behind them than the majority of websites. And when you put thought into that then the number does become important, which again unlike most sites on the net, they're irrelevent.
|
The score has meaning. I never disagreed. Numbers don't have meaning without context though. This is not over analyzing. This is the way of the world. If I said 3 randomly no one would have the slightest clue what it meant, nor how to respond. They have meaning in context. In context the maximum score is the highest one that can be given out. A 10 from VGChartz has no meaning because nothing can ever be attached to it. It is a number with no context, and thus meaningless.
|
Perfection can be attached to it, but perfection is unattainable. Perfection is Divine, as the saying goes.
If The Blards of Wigglism is a brilliant game, with few noticeable faults, then still can't give it a ten. Because when Blards of Wigglism II: The Wurbles of Flordus releases, and improves upon the original in every way, it needs a higher score.
|
Can't it be said that a game is a 10/10 for it's time? So, in this sense. if the sequel significantly improves over this, it may still score lower than the first installment. My argument for MGS4 can be an example of this. Rising may improve on the MGS4 formula, but there' s a really really high chance it wont be as good of a game.
|
And yet, I could name any number of flaws with MGS4.
- Excessive reliance on nanomachines as deux ex machina.
- Cutscnees which really ought to have been playable.
- Far too easy to shoot your way through - Drebin.
- Metal Gear Online
It is a brilliant game, and one of the best of the generation. But it's not perfect. Nothing is.
|
Again, I don't understand. So the reviewer has to agree with every "flaw" that me and you bring up? What if I completely disagree with your points and I'm reviewing the game? They are not allowed to think a game is 10/10 becuase others may have certain problems with it?
Or maybe they think a game deserves 10/10 even with with certain flaws? 10/10 is not the end of the world. People in this thread, as well as VGC as whole, have made the review system the subject of philosophical debate. It is really not that big of a deal. We're talking about video game scores here. Like I said earlier, Greek philosophers said that we can never truly see anything that is perfect. But so what? We're not talking about the meaning of existance, we're reviewing games. 10/10 simply entails that a game has gotten the highest possible score. This has absolutley nothing to do with our idea of the word 'perfect'.
