tombi123 on 15 June 2008
| CDiablo said: What the hell are people talking about, 10/10 is perfect. If anyone goes to school and gets a 10/10 on a test that means they got everything right and nothing wrong. Now the smaller of a window that people have to score the more leniency they have. For example if a critic has a thumbs up/thumbs (equivalent to a pass/fail score system in a class)down score then a thumbs up doesnt mean prefect. But in a world where most reviews have a 10 point system with at least half point increments, it is inexcusable to give a game 10/10 unless it is perfect. 0 = shit, 5= average and 10 = flawless. The "10/10 is the best in its genre is pure crap" If MGS3 got a 10 and MGS 4 got a 10 how good is MGS3 in relativity to 4. If an mgs like game(Splinter Cell maybe?) now gets a 9.8 does that mean its better than MGS3 seeing that MGS3's 10 is no longer as valued due to the fact that MGS4 got a 10. Its a complete catastrophe and ass backward thinking. For the record I use MGS just as an example and am not shitting on any particular game. |
This is completely wrong.
If you can't give a game a 10/10 because that means it is perfect, then what is the point of including 10 in the score? So the maximum a game can score is 9/10, so there is no need for it to be out of 10. You might as well make it out of 9 and give the maximum as 9/9. But then 9/9 means it is perfect, so you can only give a maximum of 8/9. So then there is no point in scoring it out of 9. This cycle continues until you get to 0.
So 10/10 does not mean perfect, it means the best in its genre at the time of release, or pushing the boundaries of the genre really far.
