Describe the scaling system you use to rate games.

[Mr Khan]

Jay520 said:

Mr Khan said:
I assume that a 9/10 game is one that is perfectly satisfying, lacking any real flaws (or its flaws are negated by its virtues), but one that doesn't really go above and beyond. Flaws put the game *below* a 9, and anything of true excellence nudges the game above. For me a 10/10 is truly timeless, the kinds of games that i know i'll remember forever, and are thus limited in number. Of course, sometimes i really love a game in spite of its flaws. For instance, Monster Hunter Tri is my favorite of 2010, above Galaxy 2, but i gave Galaxy 2 like a 9.6 or something, while Tri was an 8.5 since some of the monsters were rather broken (looking at you, Rathalos, Diablos, and the physics-defying Barrioth).

I don't necessarily dedcuct points from a game because of it's flaws. I just make an overview of a game after I've finished it and measure the enjoyment I got out of it. A game like Shadow of the Collosus for example, had a lot of technical issues. But I'd still give it a 10/10 because the experience I got from it felt perfect.

I guess in a way, my scale isn't based on how close the game is to perfection, or a measure of quality. It's more just measure of how much I enjoyed it. A 10/10 from me wouldn't be a perfect game. A 10/10 would be a game that provided me with the most enjoyable experience I could imagine. And sometimes that can happen even with a few flaws. I guess I prefer rating games more subjectively than objectively.

Oh, there's a fair amount of subjectivity in my system too. "Timelessness" is often impacted by the nostalgia factor, or simply because the game rubbed me the right way. What i do and don't consider flaws are set on a more or less subjective scale too (all the frustration with the monsters i named for MHTri meant that there were a few stretches where i wasn't having much fun at all with Monster Hunter, so though i loved it on the whole, the patches of severe frustration were "flaws.")