Can we all agree that giving a game a 10/10 shouldn't be exclusive to its technical aspects cause no game ever will be...

Can we all agree that giving a game a 10/10 shouldn't be exclusive to its technical aspects cause no game ever will be perfect or flawless in that way

Well, Super Mario 64 is the only 10/10 game in existence and its technical faults actually ended up making it a better game so you tell me.

Portal is.

There are literally no flaws with that game.

Technically yes that is true. Rating a 10/10 should incorporate everything but mostly imo it shows the overall enjoyment and experience with the game. If on a technical aspect it was almost perfect but I barleyreturned to the game? Not a 10/10. If it has flaws but everything else was great and made me want more? Possibly a 10/10

Rating a video game or movie a 10/10 and meaning is it LITERALLY perfect meaning no flaws at all is just pure autism cause no game will ever be flawless in that aspect ever.

this

this pretty much

we can agree that numerical scores are dumb

this is true

these

hurr durr no game can ever be perfect so let's just never use 10s

then 9.9 effectively becomes a 10/10 anyways.

zelda could've been a 10 if it was on ps4

but then it triggers the ocd autist cause it isn't an even number

like me

asdsdfasadf

scores are meaningless

10/10 shouldn't really mean the perfect game. A 10/10 game to me means that it's a game that you need to play, the perfect use of $60, maybe good enough that you could consider a platform to be worth paying for just because of that game. A 9/10 would be that you're a fucking idiot if you have that platform and not the game.

No game will ever be perfect except Super Metroid, everything will have flaws, but there are still games that can be 10/10s if you just treat it like a recommendation number.

>10/10 = perfect and flawless
Autism.

>Portal
>Good
Pick one, choose wisely.

But user

I'll take you seriously when you give one good reason as to why it's bad

number scores shouldn't be a thing.

I like how old gamepro used to do it, with faces.

Bad games are given 10/10 so giving a good game with flaws a 10/10 is alright I guess.

Horizon is Zelda on PS4. It was not a 10.

That's what 11/10 is for.

64 sucks

Horizon has quest markers everywhere with zero self-discovery. Obviously not Zelda.

>Can we all agree that giving a game a 10/10 shouldn't
>shouldn't
i can't hear you nigga

I view reviews like scores on a school essays. 6 is passing and 10 is exceptional.

The idea that a 10 means perfect is retarded. There is no realistic expectation that anything can be literally perfect, but you wouldn't use a rating scale that includes values that are never functionally used. A 10/10 just means it's as good as you could reasonably expect something to be.

Which off the top of my head is Shadow of the Colossus and Ico.

10/10 doesn't mean perfect.
10/10 represents something that is among the best of its respective genre at the time of its release.
But numerical scores are dumb anyway.

I've always been of the mind that the best game rating system would be Bad, Good, Great.

There's no need for anything lower or higher. There shouldn't be a BAAAAD or something lower because all you need to know is a game is bad, try to avoid it

Good is just that, it's servicable, maybe it has a few flaws, or maybe it doesn't try to be anything more than a good fun disctraction.

Great is a game that goes above and beyond, something truly remarkable


it's fuckin brilliant

>Boring 3d platformer
>No story
>terrible controls

>the original walking simulator

lol. might as well give gone homo a 10/10 as well.

10/10 is the most subjective score, because by logic you can't 10/10 a game if it has even one smallest flaw. Objectivity goes up to 9 and then it's only personal preference.

If you'd payed attention, you would know I was referring to Portal.

Thankfully adults have aged enough to have something called "temporal awareness" so a 10 now can still be remembered much later as "being a 10 back then, even if might now be an 8"

I'm calling you an underaged retard, by the way.

>objective reviewing
Literally doesn't exist.

The only 10 that has ever released.

>by logic you can't 10/10 a game if it has even one smallest flaw
This is untrue, depending on the kind of scale you're using. If you settle on integers from 1 to 10, your scale goes
1/10: 1% - 10%
2/10: 11% - 20%
...
9/10: 81% - 90%
10/10: 91% - 100%

shit wrong pic

The shitty game from valve?

Yeah but you're missing the point of maximum score. It is literally the best thing ever created and it doesn't get any better than this.

Find a flaw in this 10/10
protip: you can't

Shit wrong pic again

So Dead or Alive Extreme 3?

You're not missing anything. Whatever arbitrary opinion numbers you go with are not required to have a separate specific spot for divine perfection

The original release was rushed and buggy. Pretty great after it got modded though.

Necropoils is op

3D ruined Mario. And most old franchises, to be perfectly honest.

I'd call Zelda a 7 on any system. They fell for the open world meme, and it suffers from it just as much as any other title. The fact that there are so many little touches and character in the enemies and the like are the only reason I don't consider it a 5.

>Two or three hours long on a first playthrough, without speedrunning
>Perfect
Nigga you're retarded. Unless you bought the game on same or after a few price drop, you felt ripped. Game if fine, but no game that short with so few replayability deserve a 10/10

>tfw the op gets btfo by a random slav who has been playing homm3 for 18 years straight

>shitty
>portal

None of your criticisms applied to it

>what is the orange box

An imperfect tool to measure them maybe, but very fast and useful on the user end.

They give you a rough idea, then you can read the review of you want a more accurate idea.

I don't argue with you about that, but the sole purpose of putting scores on things is communication. I don't need a number to feel how much I like or dislike certain thing, but I do need it to save time and frustration of explaining it to another human being, who thinks differently. Naturally in this sense maximum score is pretty much divine perfection and of course it is already integrated in the evaluation system of choice, but it means just a bit more than a score, you know?
Shit it feels like I've lost the though I've had here

It was as long as it needed to be. Not every game needs to be a 100-hour long checklist-quest by Ubisoft.

>Game if fine, but no game that short with so few replayability deserve a 10/10

*in your opinion.

Surprise, surprise, game scores and reviews are mostly about opinions!

Super mario 64 also had Fish AI which was like a 10 year into the future technology

>Naturally in this sense maximum score is pretty much divine perfection
How is this natural at all?
Is thumbs up on facebook a 100% perfect divine score rather than just "good"?
Is Positive on a 3-point Steam revew scale a 100% perfect divine score?
Is 5 out of 5 stars a perfect divine score?
Why is a 10 point scale suddenly so precise that it apparently includes hypothetical unreachable perfection?

The impossible coin makes Mario 64 a 9/10 now fuck off

You don't give 100% on an exam if someone doesn't get all the questions right.

...

>what is scaled grading
you actually do, faggot

That's simply incorrect so no

Don't really understand why video games are the only medium where morons think its acceptable to equate technological progress with visuals

Wait no, now that I think about it I completely understand
Gamers are mentally deficient human beings

Nigger, if a kid answers 57/58 questions correctly, it's still not a perfect score, he doesn't get 100%.

I'd give it a 9/10 with high praise, but not 10/10 - if it's not literally perfect, it's not 10/10.

>there are 100 points maximum
>you can earn up to 110 points

it's so the dumb people in the class don't feel left behind. Because it's college, and everyone is special.

>Still clinging to that irrational romantic bullshit where 10 stands for perfection
You do know everything up of 94.(9) rounds up to 10?

No it doesn't.

*9.4(9)

>play random map session with buddy
>god of roll bestows upon me necropolis and sandro as starting hero
>find amulet of the undertaker in w1
>boots and cowl shortly after
>fastforward to endgame
>my buddy has 53 titans and the rest of his army is up to the numbers
>I have ~2000 archliches

What fucking bastions of retardation do you come from?

In the real world targets do not scale - I have a DIFOT quota of 98.5%, 98.4% is as good as 90%.

arent all zeldas open world?

did you really fall for the open world meme meme?

>8 years ago, Russia
>do state exam in russian language
>only one mistake in the whole thing
>misplaced comma in essay
>shit is questionable
>94/100 score
>file a petition for review, back it up with 3 examples from classic literature where the same comma is used pretty much the same way
>get reply back
>denied, score down to 90/10

School scores ain't shit. I'm still fucking mad

>my niche field-specific example is "the real world"

Again, have you ever heard of a scale (sometimes called a curve)?

It is quite common practice in college to add points to everyone's score based on how far the mean score deviated from the expected mean. If the class average on a given is, say, 58%, a professor may add 17% to every student's score to bring it up to a 75% or C average. As a result, it is quite possible to score above 100%.

I once got a C on a biology final one which I had only scored 54% because the class average was only 50% and the prof scaled it to 70%. Had an unfortunate friend whose 38% still came out to an F after the scale (IIRC, he passed the class anyway, despite bombing the final).

Scaling is not the same thing as bonus questions. It's an adjustment on the basis of statistical evidence suggesting that the exam was more difficult than intended.

As a rule of thumb if you get a score like that NEVER ask for a review. I got a 92 in maths and asked for a recheck because there's only so much you can cut for a small error and they sent it back with 90 as well.

every single zelda is a 7

series is like the simpsons of video games.

overpraised and overhyped and done much better elsewhere.

Nigga you retarded. Any game that has replay value is justified. How long a single playthrough is only matters if theres no reason to ever play it again.

>retards give an obviously flawed game a 100/100 score
>american education is behind it
That explains a lot desu

>go to college in America
>1st year
>freshman English teacher is black woman
>freshman seminar TA is literally harder on us about grammar and punctuation than my English teacher
>2nd year
>philosophy professor marks me down for using "guaranty" in a sense where that (and not "guarantee") is, in fact the correct spelling.

Yeah it's all so simple in retrospective
Personally I'd be happy with any score because I already booked a trip to europe to study in university, so russian exam scores didn't matter at all to me. They did however matter to my teacher who was just so mad I didn't get 100 that she actually provided me with aforementioned examples and told me to go and ask for a review.
But after I got my score even lower, then I got mad myself. Oh well

Numerical scores are stupid and worthless. Every review should be just written with a text based TL;DR rating at the end. Something like a "a very flawed game, but if you can overlook X and X and you are not bothered by this and that, you might like it, but it's best to get it during a sale".

Numerical scores are ass.

FUCK YOU

Been there, done that. Post-bloc education is all a sham, it gives you some character and a whole lot of nothing.
Hope you enjoy university elsewhere, whereabouts you studying now, if you don't mind me asking?

really?? i heard that russian uni is very hard unless you're the son of an oligarch.. i have a 33 year old friend who went to school in SPB for finance

Nah.
Not as comprehensive as written reviews - sure, but numerical scores are much faster and easy to understand. Also it's a lot easier to get triggered about, so bonus points for all'yall internet demagogues

Only if you're doing physics or maths, since the good teachers haven't died yet. Though if you go to some shit university outside Moscow you might get unlucky as far as things go.

That's been my policy. A perfect game only needs to be great at what it was meant to do, not do everything everyone wants, and unfortunately deadlines are a thing, so all bugs will happen. People like Molyneux or that No Man's Sky dude abuse this though, they can eat dix.

What I think the real issue is this point system. It's really really stupid that people act like an 8.7 is better than an 8.5 when grading a game, as much as a single or even ten points make a difference on a 1-100 scale when at certain intervals.

A 5 point system, without decimals would be better. I'm no more convinced that a game rated at a 7 is really going to be notably worse than a game rated at an 8. It's too wishy-washy to deserve to be taken seriously.

It's not HoMM2

Finished 3 year bachelors at Charles Uni in Prague then shit went bananas and I ended up in Thailand almost buttnaked. So yeah

I don't completely agree.

I think numerical scores, or letter grades, or a star system, are fine as long as they have relatively few gradations. 100-point scales, and even 20-point (or 10-point with allowance for half points) scales are excessively granular, IMO. Pure 10-point (no half points) is borderline. Really, 5 or 6 grades should generally be enough.

When you use a scale like that, it forces you to rely on the scale ONLY for putting things in very general categories. Details are generally too difficult to compare on a consistent basis, and do require description and contextualization, making numerical scores of limited value. Generalizations, however, are much easier.

The way things are perceived on a 10 scale is anything 0-6/7 is garbage, 8 is amazing and 9-10 is GOTY. So essentially it's a more obtuse 5 scale.

Shit, how'd you end up there of all places?

>perfect game only needs to be great at what it was meant to do
That's a whole lot of bullshit.
>game didn't meant to have a perfect combat
>story isn't the main focus
>graphics aren't everything
Every game is a 10/10 now.

Scores are retarded and if you honestly can't read a review and get a "Yes I should play this" or "No I'll miss out on this" from the review, either the review sucks or you are retarded too.

Also remember, reviews cannot be objective. It is the reviewers OPINION on the fucking game.

I sure did feel ripped off getting like 8 games with that included, and then it having tons of extra content after beating it.

Oh wait I didn't.

i mean russia still has the #2 space program in the world, it can't be too rough

shit wrong pic AGAIN

#2 in the world because no other country really has anything that can compete. Japan, China and whoever else are relatively passive about it, whereas Russia is actively pursuing research in multiple fields related to that.

>The way things are perceived on a 10 scale is anything 0-6/7 is garbage, 8 is amazing and 9-10 is GOTY. So essentially it's a more obtuse 5 scale.
This.

In theory, the same thing can happen to a 5- or 6-point scale, but in practice I don't generally see it.

My family was there, so it wasn't really a choice. Either here or go back to russia and serve in the military.
It's actually not that bad here.