So what I've gotten from detractors of the score are "Another 10? Wow" or "MGS4 doesn't even deserve a 10"....all this annd no one has played it. So games can't be THAT good anymore, or can only Nintendo games be THAT good. Galaxy got 10s, Brawl got 10s, hell, OoT got 10s, but no one complained. Now GTAIV got 10s and there's an uproar, and now MGS4 got ONE 10, and you're furious. So I guess games that aren't either Nintendo, or are completely new IPs (because we all know MGS hasn't had some kind of change or improvement in each installment *false*) can only get 4/5's and 9/10's, and that is not the case. GREAT games CAN exist, it's just that many don't EXPECT games to be great. But hey, I'll use the logic that's currently going on. So next time a new Mario, or a new Smash Brothers comes out, and it gets even one 10 from a reviewer, I'm gonna create a thread saying how "Wow, this game shouldn't get a 10. 10 = perfection, and this game isn't perfect in anyway" despite how good the game may actually be.

Think about this.....many are syaing MGS4 should have gotten a 9/10 from the magazine.....same people gave Ratchet and Clank: Tools a 9/10......so many believe this game is EQUAL to R&C.....blasphemy

Oy. Another perfect 10 for a high budget game. I'm sure that MGS4 is a technical marvel but after the past year of BioShock, CoD4, Halo 3, SMG, and GTA IV pulling 10s left and right, the review system means absolutely nothing to me anymore.

Someone wake me when magazines stop hiring fanboys and actually start critically judging high profile games.

What? It didn't get an 11? Couldn't they have given it a 9.75 or something? I'm sure that it's a fantastic game/movie like all of the other installments of the MGS series .

So what? All that means is that R&C scores were inflated, too. R&C was an extremely pretty game with slow shooting and mostly mediocre gameplay. The only time the game really shined was when Insomniac let Ratchet speed things up on rails, flying (not the space combat, that was friggin' horrible), and jumping.

Or maybe because R&C was actually a solid, fun game (Gamerankings has it at 88.5%, only 1.5% off of what OPM gave it, basically put, your opinion doesn't outweigh the masses). Now, making a pretty good assumption that MGS4 is better than R&C, and based off of OPM review system, how does that make either Ratchet's score inflated, or detracting from MGS4, if it's "better" than R&C, and the only thing that's higher, to OPM, than a 9 is a 10?

Could also mean all those games deserved their scores LOL.  I played all of those but SMG and I have to agree with the scores given.  Do people just want crappy games for the hell of it?  This gen there are less games though with more time being spent on them which hopefully leads to better games.  God forbid a hand full of games in a year get such great scores like it is a bad thing.  Bottonline is good games are getting good scores and bad ones are not so the system is just fine.  It apprently sucks for some people that we have been getting so many good games at once LOL.  Serisouly when the games lisetd above start to get thrash just because then I see a problem.  Take away those games and wtf where people actually playing in 2007?  It will become retarted when all games will just get an 8 just to make EVERYONE happy LOL.   We going to be so spoiled that everyone game will be crap from now on unless we can actually play in the game.  Basically 9-10= fanboys 8 or less is the real review LOL. 

All I am saying and others are saying is that there are TOO MANY 10s being handed out these days. It just makes you say to yourself that a 10 doesn't mean what it once did. It really doesn't have anything to do with I love Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft. I'm saying that all three systems are getting scores that are too high. This is what rocketpig is saying about the reviewers being fanboys and not reviewers I believe.

Exactly. I've played every game that received multiple 10s over the past year and frankly, I don't think a single one of them deserves that kind of score. They're all good but they lack the "wow" factor I expect from a 10 game and every single one of them had pretty significant faults. SMG had a buggy camera and it was an evolutionary step from M64, BioShock was in many ways a worse game than its predecessors, Halo 3 was too bloody short and just like Halo 2, and GTA IV was buggy as all get-out with repetitive missions.

When reviewers are handing out perfect scores to flawed games, the review system is pretty much worthless. What happens if a game like Spore flips the industry on its head with radically different gameplay and a perfect interface? Will reviewers start handing out 11s to differentiate it from the flawed games they gave 10s earlier in the year? 

Yes what if Spore or Little Big Planet turn out to be truly revolutionary? 12.75?

QFT