9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review.

NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review.

So objectively speaking:
If a game is perfect in its execution but it still isn't your cup of tea, it should get a 10/10?

NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review.

You're looking at it from an objective perspective, analyzing every individual aspect as a influence on the score. That's fine, but you should also respect that some people are more subjective, and give their score on their overall experience with the game.

Again, you're looking at it from an objective perspective. A game like Tetris (or give me another game that's declared as perfect) might be perfect, objectively, but I wouldn't give it a 10/10 simply because my overall experience with the isn't the best of the best.

pezus said: NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review. Think of the suit in Crysis: "Maximum. Speed." doesn't mean the speed of light, does it?

That's a ridiculous comparison.

Between the advertising of a suit in Crysis and the reviewing system, so what, do they give metaphorical/simile scores?

Jay520 said: NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review. You're looking at it from an objective perspective, analyzing every individual aspect as a influence on the score. That's fine, but you should also respect that some people are more subjective, and give their score on their overall experience with the game. Again, you're looking at it from an objective perspective. A game like Tetris (or give me another game that's declared as perfect) might be perfect, objectively, but I wouldn't give it a 10/10 simply because my overall experience with the isn't the best of the best.

Hence why sites give different values for different aspects such as "Gameplay/Value/Presentation" etc, If you thought graphics would need improvement, you'd give it a 9.5, if you'd think value was great for you - ie great replayability you'd give it a 10 and if you thought gameplay is perfect it'd be a 10, add them all up and voila an average, grade the areas as they should be, and mention the graphical inconsistinces in the review etc.

NotStan said: Jay520 said: NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review. You're looking at it from an objective perspective, analyzing every individual aspect as a influence on the score. That's fine, but you should also respect that some people are more subjective, and give their score on their overall experience with the game. Again, you're looking at it from an objective perspective. A game like Tetris (or give me another game that's declared as perfect) might be perfect, objectively, but I wouldn't give it a 10/10 simply because my overall experience with the isn't the best of the best. ...add them all up and voila an average...

See, this is what I'm mean. You're essentially saying judging the game for the sum of it's parts as if every component was equally important in the overall quality of the game. As if Gameplay = Presentation = Value, etc. There's nothing wrong with thinking that way but a lot of people don't.

Some games are more gameplay/presentation oriented with low value, like say God of War, but I wouldn't give that game a low score for it's low value. I know the game is focused on the gameplay & presentation, so I'll base my score on my experience with the more important components. Other games are more based around replayability and should be scored based around a person's experience with the replayability IMO.

This is why I think scores should be subjective based on a players personal experince instead of using a universal, pre-set method with every game. Just seems pretty heartless to things which can be quite personal experiences IMO.

Lets take Halo for example. It doesn't have perfect graphics. Graphics would probably score a 8.5-9.5 by most people. When calculating the overall review, you wouldn't let the graphics effect the overall score, would you? I know I wouldn't. I know the game is after specific goals, so I should give a score based on my personal experience with the game instead of using some sort of objective measurement. Technically Halo isn't perfect, because the graphics aren't perfect, but if the gameplay is fun enough & the value is high enough, I'd still give it a 10/10. But that's just me.

Jay520 said: NotStan said: Jay520 said: NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review. You're looking at it from an objective perspective, analyzing every individual aspect as a influence on the score. That's fine, but you should also respect that some people are more subjective, and give their score on their overall experience with the game. Again, you're looking at it from an objective perspective. A game like Tetris (or give me another game that's declared as perfect) might be perfect, objectively, but I wouldn't give it a 10/10 simply because my overall experience with the isn't the best of the best. ...add them all up and voila an average... See, this is what I'm mean. You're essentially saying judging the game for the sum of it's parts as if every component was equally important in the overall quality of the game. As if Gameplay = Presentation = Value, etc. There's nothing wrong with thinking that way but a lot of people don't. Some games are more gameplay/presentation oriented with low value, like say God of War, but I wouldn't give that game a low score for it's low value. I know the game is focused on the gameplay & presentation, so I'll base my score on my experience with the more important components. Other games are more based around replayability and should be scored based around a person's experience with the replayability IMO. This is why I think scores should be subjective based on a players personal experince instead of using a universal, pre-set method with every game. Just seems pretty heartless to things which can be quite personal experiences IMO. Lets take Halo for example. It doesn't have perfect graphics. Graphics would probably score a 8.5-9.5 by most people. When calculating the overall review, you wouldn't let the graphics effect the overall score, would you? I know I wouldn't. I know the game is after specific goals, so I should give a score based on my personal experience with the game instead of using some sort of objective measurement. Technically Halo isn't perfect, because the graphics aren't perfect, but if the gameplay is fun enough & the value is high enough, I'd still give it a 10/10. But that's just me.

Again, no Halo is perfect either, nor any game that I have played for that matter, again we can agree to disagree but the whole rating is misleading, because in fact, the game isn't perfect, but if one of those does come along, it can only receive the amount that a previously rated imperfect game has received before, let alone some sites handing out 10s like candy.

If you believe that graphics need an improvement you definitely shouldn't be scoring that category a 9.5. What the hell is a .5 difference? That's why I think the .1, .2, .5 system is crap. This is not a 9-10 scale.

@ Notstan

I wasn't trying to argue that Halo is perfect. I'm just saying something like imperfect graphics wouldn't contribute towards an imperfect score. This goes the same for most games for me. Though some games may have flaws, those games COULD still achieve a 10/10 if my experience with the game was indeed out of this world.

NotStan said: 9.9 means a point has been deducted for whatever flaw has been found, 10 would mean that no flaws were found - the game is flawless. Giving a game a maximum score and then proceeding to say that the game is not perfect is a contradiction in itself. What if the game is absolutely perfect, without any flaws? (Highly unlikely, but it's a hypothesis) does that mean that it will get 11/10? Because its completely perfect does that mean that it deserves same score as a game that has faults? If there is room for improvement, you reflect that in a score, the whole scoring system has really gone to shit this generation, other than the last few VGC reviews I struggle to find any worth reading on the Internet, as most are either moneyhatted or the score is altered to get more traffic, because it doesn't fall in line with the review.

This is not a defensible position.

On a five-point system, do you hold that nothing should ever get higher than 4/5? After all, 5/5 is a perfect score, right?

Or let's take that a step further, even. In a system with a binary scale (Good and Bad), should nothing ever be rated positively?

That's what your argument implies, if nothing deserves a "perfect" score. Maximum scores do not mean flawless games.