Poll: Perfection DOES NOT exist!!!

[jaketaz]

I believe a 10/10 game could totally exist, and has probably already been made. I still don't have any problems (personally) with the first Half-Life, Diablo 2, Another World, Tekken 3, Metal Gear Solid, Arkham City, Super Mario World, and maybe a couple others.

The thing that kills me about 10/10 reviews is that lately the games getting perfect reviews all have HUGE OBVIOUS PROBLEMS.
For example Metal Gear 4 was mind-numbingly cutscene-heavy and had way too much dialogue, and incredibly limited range of movement (no game these days should be without a &^%$ JUMP button). GTA IV had disgusting brown graphics and furiously irritating frequent side missions and other distractions.
Uncharted 2 had absolutely retarded dialogue and almost everything every character did was downright stupid, and there was no reason to cheer for the hero because he was only in it for the money.
Dragon Age had a ridiculous interface and shamelessly hocked DLC in-game, with idiotic flow-breaking turn-based combat, way too much dialogue (drawing attention to the wooden facial models), and countless hours of in-game text and other pointless clutter.

When a game gets 10 out of 10 even though there are large elements preventing it from being enjoyable, like bad art, ridiculous dialogue, terrible sound effects or whatever, it shouldn't get a 10. Nothing is perfect, and a great game should get a perfect score if it meets and exceeds all the things that make a game fun. But I simply don't understand how the aforementioned games can possibly be given perfect scores, and must assume it's because of industry politics.

 

[blackdwarf]

depends how you see a game. do you see a game as a tool on which you can rate stuff that is visual? i mean stuff as: graphics, AI, systems, bugs, etc. then you can calculate the score.
or do you see a stuff as a experience? then you can say that a certain game is perfect, because for you the experience was amazing. if you see the game as a tool, then it is really hard to get a perfect score, because it is almost impossible to make no mistakes in a production of a game. if you see the game as a experience you can have perfect games.

i don't have problems with the score 10/10, but i find that the value of it is not worth that much these day. knowing that the avarage these day is a 8/10, i don't pay attention to that anymore.

problems with scoring and reviewing is that everyone sees a game different. to some a certain game is a 9/10, but a the same time there are some people who think that the game is bad and worth a 5/10. this the reason why there is always such anger with review scores. people disagree with the score, or people get confussed because of the difference in scores. people have the weird idea that reviews are objective so i wouldn't be possible to have difference in ratings.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

No. If a game is 10/10 (or any variation of that), it must be a good game or at least the reviewer really enjoy it. So long as there are clear cut reasons why the game is so great (disregarding all biases) and what doesn't, as well as actual gameplay, than I can take it upon myself whether this is truly a great game or if it only holds true to fans of the genre, series, etc.

 

[emeraldrafael]

10/10 doesnt mean perfect. it just means its a great game, lives up to every expectation, and even goes a little beyond them.

Just looking at some of the IGN games that have gotten 10/10 you see

1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX
3. Pokémon Gold and Silver
4. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons / Ages
5. Sonic the Hedgehog Pocket Adventures (Neo Geo)
6. Soul Caliber
7. Super Mario Bros. Deluxe
8. Grand Theft Auto IV
9. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
10. Super Mario Galaxy 2
11. Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare
12. Pac-Man Championship Edition DX

While you can disagree and say some of these dont deserve the 10/10, each of these took something that was great, improved upon it, and added its own touch that make it as close to perfection as reasonably possible.

 

[Sylvine]

Hey,look. Perfection! [http://www.teach-nology.com/worksheets/early_childhood/shapes/circle.gif] It does exist!

You misunderstand. 10/10 is a perfect score. It does not indicate a perfect game.

If the scoring system is defined as from 1 (makes You regret every cent spent on the game) to 5 (makes You not regret a single cent spent on the game), then a perfect score of 5 is indeed achievable.

Of course, the confusion does arise from the varying connotations of the word 'perfect'. A 'perfect score', that's using 'perfect' as in 'complete'; in that sense: A 4/5 is not perfect. A 5/5 is perfect.

~Sylv

 

[MADrevilution]

reviews are the opnions of the reviewer.
If what your asking is if there is actually a game that has NO fault, no.
But like i just said, reviews are the opnions of the reviewer, if they give a game a 10 then it is perfect for them, but maybe not for you. If however i see a reviewer JUST list the good things and be too blind to talk about something that they found bad or they just dont want to talk about that then i lose respect for them.
People take reviews way too seriously. Just because a game gets a good/bad score doesnt mean its going to be the same for you.

 

[DementedSheep]

10/10 dose not equal perfect. It means it hit the right notes in every aspect and any flaws are negligible.
But games do get this score too often and with problems that are noticeable, which diminishes its meaning.

 

[Death God]

It is the same thing as saying a restaurant has 5 out of 5 stars. It is just a number saying it is really high quality. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Yopaz]

I am tired of seeing reviewers give 10/10 or 100/100. Nothing can be done to absolute perfection, there will always be a glitch, messed up texture, bug in the AI, plot hole, or maybe a teeny tiny voice acting issue or a nonsensical response from an NPC or your character.

Now before someone goes off about reading the review vs looking at numbers, let me just say.....

The numerical score should be a representation of the written review and giving something 100% implies there is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in the game that could possibly be better or fixed.

So, I am wondering if 10/10 scores bug you?

No, I don't get tired of 10/10, but I do get tired when someone doesn't use the search function. There has been at least 2 threads about this in the last week.

10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect. Check out one of the serious reviews here on the Escapist. Next to the score they have a link labeled "What our review scores mean". Or if you're unable to use any kind of searching, just go here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean it is stted here that 5 stars doesn't imply perfection, but it means you will have an exceptionally good time playing it. Games have been getting perfect scores for eyars, why is it that only just now people start bitching about it? I am tired of people bitching about review scores, both high and low. Seriously. Review scores doesn't mean your opinion!

 

[HentMas]

¬¬ 10/10 or 100/100 is a stupid scoring system in which comes down to the opinion of one man, if you lose respect over one giving a perfect 10 to a game then you my friend have no chance in hell to form a constructed opinion over what he just wrote, read the review, play the game and see if you agree with him, forget the damn score its pointless and stupid IMO

 

[Mictarmite]

10/10 dose not equal perfect. It means it hitthe right notes in every aspect and any flaws are negligible.
But games do get this score too often and with problems that are noticeable. It?s meaningless now.

Exactly right, 10/10 does not equal perfect, why do people think that? It generally means a masterpiece (in a 20 point scale at least) It's a 10 point scale, and it's idiotic thinking. Though i'm certainty not arguing that review scores haven't been horribly inflated recently(i.e. IGN).
I have no pity for the "reviewers" who give games higher than the max possible mark however.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

A perfect score implies that the game itself is perfect and, therefore cannot be improved upon. So it's funny to see a game magazine or, show give a game a perfect score then, months down the line, give its DLC another great score. If source X proclaims the core game is perfect it shouldn't acknowledge the existence of said DLC other than to state that said DLC is unnecessary. I'm of the mindset that perfect scores devalue the whole system but understand that the system is in place mainly to sell games more so than to criticize them.

 

[retyopy]

I've always taken 10/10 to mean "excellent, definitely worth playing." Not perfection.

 

[Canadian Carnage]

Scores shouldn't exist in reviewing. For those not wanting to read the article, summaries should do. If you would not like to read anything, then you would not understand the context of the score itself.

See, to me, I don't care if a mass amount of critics give a game 10/10. I have 3 - 5 critics and publications I follow for reviews of games and stipulate my opinion to buy from there. Most of them (yes, Yahtzee is one, love him to death) don't even give a score, just a "would buy, wouldn't buy" parts here and there. They review the game and not grade it.

But lets face facts. The scoring system won't go away. It isn't just the laziest way to summarize a game, but it looks great for box art and commercials for the companies that produce them.

Its a cancer you will just have to ignore by reading reviews start to finish and follow whose opinion you agree with best.

 

[The Abhorrent]

Honestly, I find the idea that people think a 10/10 or 100% means "perfect" to be ludicrous. Especially when it's widely accepted that nothing can be perfect. Clearly, someone is being way too inflexible with their thought-processes and taking things far too literally when they shouldn't.

What does 10/10 mean then? That the game's a masterpiece, any flaws are relatively minor and overshadowed by everything else the game does great.

Everything can be improved, at least once more advanced techology allows for it.
Ergo, nothing can be perfect; because everything everything could be better.

So why the hell do people ever think that any scoring system, which must always be arbitrary rather than absolute because it's someone opinion, should have the maximum score possible indicate that the thing being scored is perfect?

That, my good fellows, is a complete lack of commonsense.
Opinions are never subject to the mathematician's answer.

---

If you want a good example of this in the real world, perhaps even one in the context of academia?

Design courses/projects and theses.

The best demonstration that a person has knowledge in their field is not for them to regurgitate it, but to apply it. This is why many post-secondary programs (i.e.: university degrees) have some sort of thesis or design project as the "capstone" (final course and thing to complete) of the program.

The wheels are off, and you're asked to create something of your choosing (if subject to a set of criteria, though it's a reasonably loose set of conditions). What do you do? Whatever the hell you want, provided it works for what it has to be.

The knowledge & experience you've already acquired through your education should never be all you need, there's always something else to learn. However, you're expected to know quite a bit already; the point of a design project or thesis is for you to demonstrate that you know at least that much. Getting a perfect score in one of these means you've shown that you know all you're supposed to know; not all you can know. A few years down the road, it's more than likely you could do it better than when you did simply because you know more.

That's no reason for why you shouldn't get a perfect mark in the course.

---

How does this apply in the context of game reviews?

A 10/10 game isn't perfect, that's already established.
What it does mean is that the game is an innovator and spectacularly executed.

Can it have flaws, even those which aren't technological limitations? Yes.
Can it be improved on, be it now or later? Definitely.

So yes, applying the mathematician's answer to review scores can only be described as "stupid". It's the a special kind of stupidity which only those who know much but understand little come up with, usually by trying to do something intelligent while ignoring one of the basics and/or making things unnecessarily complex; in these cases, the simple answer is almost always the correct one.

Specifically, the case here is that people are accusing that a basic condition is being ignored.
However, the truth is.... it should be ignored.

 

[Sylvine]

A perfect score implies that the game itself is perfect and, therefore cannot be improved upon.

No. It's a perfect score, not a perfect game. It implies that the score cannot be improved upon, which is a tautology. You can't have more than 100/100.

'sides, DLC is added content. Why shouldn't You grade added content? Additional content can theoretically improve a game in the sense that it creates a richer experience with it, but there's no contradiction in that. I can cook pasta, and do it perfectly. If I then add meat and tomato sauce and it turns out a perfect pasta bolognese dish, that doesn't make the previously cooked pasta less perfect; it's a different thing. I could have enjoyed my perfect pasta without those. In that sense, yes, they're unnecessary... unless, for example, I'm sick of eating pure pasta, no matter how wonderful it is.

~Sylv

 

[midknight129]

Before you go asking this question, you need to comprehend what perfection is.

Point 1: I strive to be perfect.
Point 2: I know that no matter how good I get, I'll never reach perfection.
Point 3: By always stretching closer and closer to a perfection that can't ever be reached, I attain perfection.
Point 4: If I ever stop reaching for it, either out of futility for never reaching it or an idea of success that I've attained it through getting close enough, I've lost that perfection.

Perfection isn't a goal; it's a process. A perfect score means that the game demonstrates that the developers were trying their hardest. Sure, some games may get an undeserved perfect score; but that doesn't overshadow the concept of striving for perfection.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I do because usually it's just for the games with the prettiest graphics that had the most money spent on them. I rarely ever see a 10 handed to something that might actually deserve it.

You are right perfection cannot exist and... err, wait.

*rethinks*

I take that back, I would call Resident Evil 4 (there is a reason why they can remake this game 50x and people will still buy it) and Shadow of the Colossus perfect games. Absolutely nothing could be added or fixed to make these games more enjoyable. Every sound/texture/sequence is exactly where it should be/sounds exactly like it should/looks exactly as it should. But that said I don't think either of these games got perfect 10s (I may be wrong about RE4).

 

[weker]

does a test paper mean perfection if a full score is filled? NO it just means it fulfilled all the requirements that the test was testing, it might have grammar mistakes or be poorly formatted, but it still scored top marks on the results.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

A 10/10 score, to me, has always meant "as close to perfect as is humanly possible". It won't be PERFECT, but that score is meant to indicate the best of the best of the best. I see no point in having a 1 to 10 scale with an unattainable number at the end, like expecting this "perfect game" to come along at some point and finally a 10 will be awarded...

...no. As you rightly say, no game will ever truly be perfect. So why would we rate games on a recommendation scale with a number at the top that will never exist? "10" has never meant "perfect," anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. It's like the opposite of This is Spinal Tap. If we cut 10 off the scale, that means 9 becomes the new 100% anyway.