By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - VGC never gave a review score of 10. Do you think GT5 will change that?

Kantor on 11 November 2010
Gnizmo said:
Kantor said:

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.


Let us assume for a moment that the top of the scale has to represent perfection. I disagree, but its worth it for a thought exercise. In order for the number to stay relevant you must then define what perfection is in regards to gaming. This is a much more onerous task than just creating a perfect game.

Still there is nothing wrong with any scale. It is just disingenuous to say the score is out of 10 possible points when 10 points is not possible. It creates a meaningless number that people can bicker about. The whole concept is beyond me of course as I am against review scores anyways. I just think it is better to use the full scale as otherwise you get a bunch of useless numbers that do nothing but skew the perception of what the actual score means.

Our highest score ever is 9.6, awarded to both Super Mario Galaxies and Mass Effect 2. But if we make our scale 0-9.6, then 9.6 becomes the unattainable perfect score. 

I suppose neither system really works.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Gnizmo on 11 November 2010
Kantor said:

Our highest score ever is 9.6, awarded to both Super Mario Galaxies and Mass Effect 2. But if we make our scale 0-9.6, then 9.6 becomes the unattainable perfect score.

I suppose neither system really works.


Until you accept that the top of the score is not equivalent to perfect. It is just the top of the scoring system.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

hatmoza on 12 November 2010

I have to agree with Gnizmo here. Will I personally ever give a game a 10? Most likely never. Do I believe some games could and should reach a 10 on VGC? Yes, probably once in a life time here. Unfortunately this myth of an unreachable score is like a bad calculus nightmare, derivatives that can only  get closer to a maximum or minimum number but never reach it.

If a game meets all the requirements that our methodology page suggests and some, I don't see why it's not possible.

"9.5-10 – A near perfect game. This game transcends all expectations of its genre and platform, and misses no major opportunities for improvement. We have not yet given a 10 to a game."

Never say never. I really hate closed-mindedness.



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

Seece on 12 November 2010
Kantor said:
Gnizmo said:
Kantor said:

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.


Let us assume for a moment that the top of the scale has to represent perfection. I disagree, but its worth it for a thought exercise. In order for the number to stay relevant you must then define what perfection is in regards to gaming. This is a much more onerous task than just creating a perfect game.

Still there is nothing wrong with any scale. It is just disingenuous to say the score is out of 10 possible points when 10 points is not possible. It creates a meaningless number that people can bicker about. The whole concept is beyond me of course as I am against review scores anyways. I just think it is better to use the full scale as otherwise you get a bunch of useless numbers that do nothing but skew the perception of what the actual score means.

Our highest score ever is 9.6, awarded to both Super Mario Galaxies and Mass Effect 2 Halo: Reach. But if we make our scale 0-9.6, then 9.6 becomes the unattainable perfect score. 

I suppose neither system really works.





 

Zkuq on 12 November 2010

Unless you are doing reviews for your own pleasure and for your own pleasure only, you do them for the reading public. And the reading public clearly thinks, whether it's right or wrong, that 10.0/10.0 means perfection.



Around the Network
perpride on 12 November 2010
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'.



Kantor on 12 November 2010
perpride said:
Kantor said:

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'.

The reviewer may not have those exact problems. But he will have problems. You had problems with MGS4, I can guarantee it. Perhaps not significant problems. Perhaps not important problems. But there are things which you would have changed, right? Hell, I would have changed several parts of Shadow of the Colossus, which is my personal favourite game ever. I'd be happy to give that game a 9.8. But not a 10. It's not perfect.

It's just irresponsible to use a 10 in a 100-point scale. That is to say that it is at the very pinnacle of everything. Why not 9.9? 9.8? even 9.7? There wasn't enough wrong with the game to justify a score 4% less than the pinnacle of everything? 10.0 would suggest that nothing was so significant as to even reduce the score by 1%.

EDIT: I'll add that any reviewer who thinks a game should be given a 10/10 will be heavily scrutinised by the content editor, but there's no strict reason why the score wouldn't go through, if it was justified, which would be near-impossible.

In a 10 point scale, of course, a 10 is fine. All that means is that nothing was significant enough to take away 6% of the game's score. We already have a couple of those.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

GuyDuke on 12 November 2010

haha funny one!



hatmoza on 12 November 2010

@Kantor

I already posted but it seems a lot of you still want to ignore it.

 the methedology page never assumes a 10 is perfect!

"9.5-10 – A near perfect game. This game transcends all expectations of its genre and platform, and misses no major opportunities for improvement. We have not yet given a 10 to a game."

So obviously the 10 score is within the 2-3% of that range of significance you speak of.

A lot of people are coming up with their own crazy theories of perfection O_o



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

FireBringer on 12 November 2010
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.

You're dumb! Yes, we will resort to being children. Haha, but no... MGS4 is perfect. The only thing not perfect is that it came out before trophies existed, but that's Sony's fault. Other then MGS4, nothing is perfect, you're so correct on that one!