The classic cant give a game a 10. Of course you can. It doesnt mean it has no glitches or anything, It means it wowed them. It has the WOW factor. Otherwise there is no point having a scale. Films get 5/5 or 10/10's. Doesnt mean every1 will like it though.

 Video games have severe ratings inflation. If a game is decent, it gets something in the 7s or 8s. If it's bad it gets a score in the 5s or 6s. Lower scores are reserved for atrocities. Good games fight it out for fractions of a point in the 9s.

 I'll confess that I'm part of the problem. Like pretty much everyone else, I always feel like the games I like deserve to get the best ratings. We're all inclined to believe that it's some sort of conspiracy against the things we like whenever a game gets a rating that's half a point less than what we feel is it's true value.

I ain't no Microsoft fan at all and Halo 3 is still one of the funnest multiplayers I've ever played. That's why I think Haze could be amazing with a good multiplayer.( because it makes me think of Halo)

10/10 is like getting an A+ on a report card, it's not necessarily perfect but it is top of its class.

As long as all of these games are good enough to deserve 9 and 10 scores that is a great thing. I see little reason to complain about developers making great games. That they all seem to be coming at once may be a bit inconvenient but it does mean that when those of us with only one console and plans to get another one do expand our gaming options we will have plenty of quality titles.

Again, I noticed a lot of people saying that it is their opinion that games shouldn't get 10s, or that a game should be revolutionary or set some kind of standard..again, an opinion. Your opinion of things is exactly that, YOUR OPINION, because the majority of gamers would disagree, and obviously reviewers too. Games shouldn't have to be revolutionary or the new pinnacle in gaming to receive high marks, they need just be the best at what they do, and boatloads of fun at the same time. There is nothing wrong with games getting 9s and 10s, just because you think that it should be that way. COD4 is one of the best FPS I have played, totally deserving of its high marks, Halo is one of the best multiplayer games I have played, SMG would arguably the best platformer, Bioshock would also be top of the ladder in its department. 9s and 10s aren't awarded for graphics, so mr clockwork orange, I dont know where you got that from. It just so happens some of the best games have high production value. It also isn't just because it has an enormous budget either, but that isn't going to hurt its chances, but that isn't why the games got their scores. Get over it, rarely are games going to come out anymore that completely change the face of gaming, it just doesn't happen like that.

Heres another problem you take a game like Ratchet and Clank PS3 vs Mario Galaxy. Most reviewing sites are saying that R&C is great.....its a lot like the other R&C's but with badass graphics. This is in no way bashing or saying it is a bad game.

Then reviews come out for Galaxy and (by many is touted as a groundbreaking 3D platformer, with an impact the likes of Mario 64) give the game between .75 and .25 better than R&C.

So then we are supposed to believe that R&C is only .5 worse than the supposed "groundbraking" SMG. It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

Yeah I've started to get very tired of the rated 10/10 games EVERY SINGLE WEEK now. Games are graded on a curve relative to the market, its hard to believe the sudden influx of perfect games.

In my opinion, publishers are probably putting a huge amount of pressure on review sites. Big budget games with high production values and high marketing budgets are important revenue wise to the companies and in turn they're probably pressuring reviewers to give it a perfect score. Since these games are no doubt good in the first place, I'm betting most places are not gonna complain too much to give them a somewhat fair 9+ rating.