So what you're saying is we should have a 1-9.9 scale, but then 9.9 would be perfect and no game is perfect.

I agree with Khuutra on this one. Without a ten, the scale becomes meaningless. Let's take what is widely accepted as the greatest game ever made: Ocarina of Time.

Now, if we had taken Ocarina of Time (still 1998) and added a secret level where you could play as Donkey Kong, breathing fire on New York, would it have been better? Yes, it would. Was it necessary? No. Would it be a waste of time and money? Yes.

I think this can best be summed up, once again, by IGN:

10.0 (Masterful)
No game is absolutely perfect, but 10s represent the pinnacle of gaming brilliance. It doesn't get any better than this, and products in this range are virtually flawless. This is like winning the lottery on your birthday. It takes a rare and special game to earn a 10 from IGN.

The pinnacle of gaming brilliance. Virtually flawless. No game is perfect.

What a ten means is this: the game could not have been improved in any significant or meaningful way at the time of release. Obviously, if a developer released Ocarina of Time for the PS3, it would get awful reviews. It's outdated, the graphics are awful, and it's OLD. But how is a developer meant to go ten years into the future and tweak their graphics to work on a system that doesn't exist yet?

That's my two cents.

Scores mean shit. It`s so subjective to rate something. I think Citizen Kane is overrated as hell.
When somebody says a game is the BEST EVAAAHHH!!!!11!!one!! they are exagerating. People tend to do that when they like something. It`s stupid.
If you think about it, for a game to be perfect it would have to please everybody who ever plays it. Have you ever heard of ANYTHING that pleases anyone who tries it? Sex may be the only exception...

That is a great point.  I would like the OP to think with me.  Let's say your argument holds true, and 10.0 means perfection.  Then the reviewer plays an awesome game (say GTA IV) , it's the best he's played so far but it does have a single dropped frame during an intro, he wants to give it a 9.9, but then he thinks again, GTA V, might be more awesome than this, and when it does come out, he might like it better, so he should reserve 9.9 for that and give this one 9.8, but then again what about GTA VI,  so let's get GTA IV down to 9.7, and on an on, it will go.  SO a mythical GTA might come out one day, that will have really good looking hookers that will let you really touch, smell, and taste them, and after you've done them the health they give you actually means health in real life too.  We should reserve 9.9 for that, because even that one is not perfect, then all GTAs between then and now we reserve lower scores.  Since GTA IV is not bad, we give it 0.1, all other games get 0.0.  Pursuit of perfection is folly.

If I was IGN, I'd change the phrase "It doesn't get any better than this", to "It hasen't been done better yet".  Because it might get better than this in the future.

Valkria Chronicles is the best PS3 game ever made, very awesome. Not because it's a PS3 exclusive that 360 owners can't have, the awesomeness surpasses fanboyish consolism. It's because it's an awesome SRPG with an awesome story line and awesome voice acting. The graphics are in a world of their own, cell shadded water colors, now that is awesome. It also doesn't hurt that it's made by the best, SEGA. SEGA is awesome.

I still say that there shouldn't be a 10/10. Games are given too high scores for having obvious technical flaws. See, the problem I'm addressing here is the use of number ratings to hype a game. Clearly, reviewers are very guilty of this, as they throw 10's left and right this generation seemingly. Like they're driven by emotion and not rationality.

There can be no 10/10 game. I stand by this decision. If we accept you guys' argument that "the 10 is just to serve as a benchmark", then what's the point of writing the number when you don't really mean it? It's like "oh we say 10, but really, it's not 10". I think that's really irrational. Instead of a number score that you don't really mean, I'm sure you can figure out a better way of expressing the quality of the game without saying the misleading 10/10. (kotaku found a way)

Once again, if you slap a 10 on a game and say "it can't get any better than this", as countless reviewers have placed on games (read the ign gta review), it eliminates the possibility of something coming better. "it can't get any better" means there's no more room for improvement. And again, for the last time:

THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

Why do you refuse to understand what we are saying?

It is ten. Any game that earns a ten deserves a 10 in the reviewer's opinion. Maybe you agree, maybe you despise the game. Maybe everybody despises the game.

Imagine a seven year old writes an essay. This essay is to the standard of a twelve year old. Naturally, he gets an A+, because it is far beyond his level and, for his age, is very high quality.

Now, ten years later, he is 17. If he tries to turn in this same essay, he will get a bad grade. Why? Because it is outdated. With his knowledge and experience, he can write better.

If, however, he was showing his essay to somebody and saying he wrote it when he was seven, they would think it is very good. Excellent. Not as good as what a 17 year old could write, but for his age and experience, excellent.

Now imagine the child is time and the essay is a game. And there you have it. Maybe it wasn't a perfect essay. There were probably corrections. But there was nothing significant, and it was very high quality.

I have never said MGS4 is the best game this gen. But it is the best game this gen so far. That's what people mean when they say it. And believe me, Gears 2 has just as much love.

EDIT: If cutscenes were flaws, every movie would be horrible. You know what is equally annoying? People putting down aspects of a game they haven't even played. It's almost as bad as those people who say they 'can't use the sixaxis' when they've never tried.

EDIT 2: And yet you own MGS4... I'm confused.

i already mentioned my views about the 10/10 and i no longer need to repeat myself.

about mgs4, my only comments were that A.) people keep claiming that it's the best game in this gen despite future competition, and B.) it's not perfect because it does have a flaw, it's overly long cutscenes.

i didn't say it was a bad game. it just has a flaw. i love metal gear as much as the next guy, but i'm not driven by emotion when i review a game. it's just not the second coming of jesus for christ's sake. There are flaws to the game and it's not fair to say that it's the "best game forever".

People are just DYING to find the OoT or SoTC equivalent this gen.
Too bad our standards are set so low, we may never see it.

@bugrimmar:

What you seem to ignore is that no one is saying that a score of "10" means "best game ever, no game could ever improve on it." It means that at the time of release, the game stands above its peers and sets a new standard. That doesn't mean that a new standard couldn't be set two years later, or even a week later. If someone were then to retroactively re-rate the previous standard-setting game, it may no longer qualify for that score. Scores are subjective to many factors, not in the least their release window.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that ANY game is the "best game forever of all time." There's always a chance that something could come out and better it.