If it is not possible to get the score, then it is not part of the scale by default. Let me illustrate by way of hyperbole. I can start to rank posts based on a scale of 1 to a billion, but nothing can get better than a 10. No possible way to get higher. Is my scale 1-10, or 1 to a billion? It is quite obviously not the latter as the bulk of the numbers are worthless, and the real point of comparison is 10.

These numbers are not valuable on their own. You can't just stick the number on it and have it mean something. I could rate a game on a scale I just invented in my head (and different from the one above) as a 20. How good is the game? The scale is a comparative one with an absolute maximum and absolute minimum. Any number that cannot be attained by something on the scale is irrelevant as it is not part of the scale. 10 games don't exist, and thus no game is judged against them. They are judged against the 9.9 being the top of the scale, and the best it could achieve.

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.

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.

If it is not possible to get the score, then it is not part of the scale by default. Let me illustrate by way of hyperbole. I can start to rank posts based on a scale of 1 to a billion, but nothing can get better than a 10. No possible way to get higher. Is my scale 1-10, or 1 to a billion? It is quite obviously not the latter as the bulk of the numbers are worthless, and the real point of comparison is 10.

These numbers are not valuable on their own. You can't just stick the number on it and have it mean something. I could rate a game on a scale I just invented in my head (and different from the one above) as a 20. How good is the game? The scale is a comparative one with an absolute maximum and absolute minimum. Any number that cannot be attained by something on the scale is irrelevant as it is not part of the scale. 10 games don't exist, and thus no game is judged against them. They are judged against the 9.9 being the top of the scale, and the best it could achieve.

Edit: More specifically video games use an ordinal scale for reviewing in almost every instance. I couldn't remember the name a second ago.

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.

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.