Andrespetmonkey said: NotStan said: tendoronie67 said: 10 couldn't be bothered writing everything i love and hate about the game, it's not perfect but it is my favourite and my most enjoyed game to date so that warrants a 10. Non-perfect games don't score a perfect score, your description direcly contradicts your score.. Haven't played it so can't comment on the topic at hand, but we should definitely do the Ranking game of MW3 *trollface*, that'll be a fun thread. 10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect.

Since when is that the case? 10/10 means 100%, 100% means that the game exceeds every expectation you have and it's perfect in every way. People really need to revise their scoring systems, I suppose 7-8/10 would mean mediocre to you? Really..

10/10 highest possible score, how can games that you don't deem as "perfect" get the HIGHEST POSSIBLE score?



Surely if the game is GOOD in almost EVERY way, not perfect, but VERY good it ranges somewhere in the region of 9-9.9 not a 10.

NotStan said: 10/10 highest possible score, how can games that you don't deem as "perfect" get the HIGHEST POSSIBLE score? Surely if the game is GOOD in almost EVERY way, not perfect, but VERY good it ranges somewhere in the region of 9-9.9 not a 10.

If you read Greg Millers' definition of a 10 out of 10 game and still don't understand then I suggest you forget about it.

Not everybody uses the same scoring scale as you.

NotStan said: Andrespetmonkey said: NotStan said: tendoronie67 said: 10 couldn't be bothered writing everything i love and hate about the game, it's not perfect but it is my favourite and my most enjoyed game to date so that warrants a 10. Non-perfect games don't score a perfect score, your description direcly contradicts your score.. Haven't played it so can't comment on the topic at hand, but we should definitely do the Ranking game of MW3 *trollface*, that'll be a fun thread. 10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect. Since when is that the case? 10/10 means 100%, 100% means that the game exceeds every expectation you have and it's perfect in every way. People really need to revise their scoring systems, I suppose 7-8/10 would mean mediocre to you? Really..

I wouldn't say so, 10/10 or 5/5 to me and to most mean it's the best of the best, it's an incredible game, there aren't any major flaws. It doesn't mean it's absolutely perfect in every way and completely flawless - that doesn't and will never exist. 7-8 would be good-great to me. 

 

MW3, Batman AC, Halo CEA and Gears of War 3 look good for the next thread.

Am I the only one who really hates the whole .1, .2, .5, .9 thing? A simple 1-10 scale by each number is good enough. Not many games deserve a 10. A 10 is about as damn close to perfect as you can get, but even as good as U3 is, it's not perfect.

NotStan said: 10/10 highest possible score, how can games that you don't deem as "perfect" get the HIGHEST POSSIBLE score? [img] Surely if the game is GOOD in almost EVERY way, not perfect, but VERY good it ranges somewhere in the region of 9-9.9 not a 10.

Many people base their scoring off their overall, personal experince of the game instead of simply adding every individual component from an objective perspective. Therefore, some people might just base their scores/review off the level of fun they had with it compared to other games they played, or whatever their scale is.

For example, I'd give SoTC a 10 even with it's technical issues. Even with it's technical issues, the incredible experience that I was left with would still warrant a 10/10. Or another game, Hitman: Blood Money. I'd give that a 10/10 too. I know the shooting mechanics are weak, the game freezes up on me, etc. But that still wouldn't erase the fact that the fun I had with the overall game is unparalled by anything I could have imagined.

Scores don't have to be objective measures of quality. They usually aren't, to be honest. A lot of times, they just represent a player's personal love of the game. So, a 10/10 probably doesn't represent absolute quality. It probably just represents the highest level of enjoyment that they could ask for.

Jay520 said: NotStan said: 10/10 highest possible score, how can games that you don't deem as "perfect" get the HIGHEST POSSIBLE score? [img] Surely if the game is GOOD in almost EVERY way, not perfect, but VERY good it ranges somewhere in the region of 9-9.9 not a 10. For example, I'd give SoTC a 10 even with it's technical issues. Even with it's technical issues, the incredible experience that I was left with would still warrant a 10/10. Or another game, Hitman: Blood Money. I'd give that a 10/10 too. I know the shooting mechanics are weak, the game freezes up on me, etc. But that still wouldn't erase the fact that the fun I had with the overall game is unparalled by anything I could have imagined. Scores don't have to be objective measures of quality. They usually aren't, to be honest. A lot of times, they just represent a player's personal love of the game. So, a 10/10 probably doesn't represent absolute quality. It probably just represents the highest level of enjoyment that they could ask for.

I have to disagree. Games need to be reviewed based on every aspect. Technical issues, fun, quality, story, gameplay, music, etc.

I've stated previously on VGChartz that my fav game this generation is The Last Remnant. I can't sugar coat the fact that the game had technical flaws. There's no way in hell I would reward that game a 10/10 with the problems it had, even if it is my favorite. I think that's one of the major flaws that reviewers have this generation. They review based on hype, bias, and only certain factors of the reviewing process rather than considering everything. I think this is also why this generation 7/10 became the new 5/10. Scores are so heavily inflated.

Professional reviewers for example need to remember that they are reviewing a game that can be experienced by everyone, and not just by themselves.

Wagram said: Jay520 said: NotStan said: 10/10 highest possible score, how can games that you don't deem as "perfect" get the HIGHEST POSSIBLE score? [img] Surely if the game is GOOD in almost EVERY way, not perfect, but VERY good it ranges somewhere in the region of 9-9.9 not a 10. For example, I'd give SoTC a 10 even with it's technical issues. Even with it's technical issues, the incredible experience that I was left with would still warrant a 10/10. Or another game, Hitman: Blood Money. I'd give that a 10/10 too. I know the shooting mechanics are weak, the game freezes up on me, etc. But that still wouldn't erase the fact that the fun I had with the overall game is unparalled by anything I could have imagined. Scores don't have to be objective measures of quality. They usually aren't, to be honest. A lot of times, they just represent a player's personal love of the game. So, a 10/10 probably doesn't represent absolute quality. It probably just represents the highest level of enjoyment that they could ask for. I have to disagree. Games need to be reviewed based on every aspect. Technical issues, fun, quality, story, gameplay, music, etc. I've stated previously on VGChartz that my fav game this generation is The Last Remnant. I can't sugar coat the fact that the game had technical flaws. There's no way in hell I would reward that game a 10/10 with the problems it had, even if it is my favorite. I think that's one of the major flaws that reviewers have this generation. They review based on hype, bias, and only certain factors of the reviewing process rather than considering everything. I think this is also why this generation 7/10 became the new 5/10. Scores are so heavily inflated. Professional reviewers for example need to remember that they are reviewing a game that can be experienced by everyone, and not just by themselves.

Wagram said: Jay520 said: NotStan said: 10/10 highest possible score, how can games that you don't deem as "perfect" get the HIGHEST POSSIBLE score? [img] Surely if the game is GOOD in almost EVERY way, not perfect, but VERY good it ranges somewhere in the region of 9-9.9 not a 10. For example, I'd give SoTC a 10 even with it's technical issues. Even with it's technical issues, the incredible experience that I was left with would still warrant a 10/10. Or another game, Hitman: Blood Money. I'd give that a 10/10 too. I know the shooting mechanics are weak, the game freezes up on me, etc. But that still wouldn't erase the fact that the fun I had with the overall game is unparalled by anything I could have imagined. Scores don't have to be objective measures of quality. They usually aren't, to be honest. A lot of times, they just represent a player's personal love of the game. So, a 10/10 probably doesn't represent absolute quality. It probably just represents the highest level of enjoyment that they could ask for. I have to disagree. Games need to be reviewed based on every aspect. Technical issues, fun, quality, story, gameplay, music, etc. I think this is also why this generation 7/10 became the new 5/10. Scores are so heavily inflated.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I'd never deduct a game's overall score because of something so unimportant like music or story, unless it's so blatantly bad that it's annoying. If you think story & music are important, than story & music will effect your score. But if your like me, and you only care about the overall experience, then you probably won't care about that.

Like I said, plenty of people here are reviewing their games more subjectively, and I do too. There's nothing wrong with that. The only people that need to worry about being objective are professional reviewers. And even with professional reviewers, there's still a great deal of subjectivity.

I hear people talking about how the 5/10 score used to be average, but whenever I think back to past generations, I can never find any 5/10 game that was considered average. The average back then seemed to be 6-7/10 also.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You want to be more objective. I want to be more subjective. You care about the quality of every individual component. I only care about the overall experience I was left with.