23rd May 2018 - What's a 10/10?

Leonardo Da Sidci - Yesterday at 10:01 PM
Today's Topic - 23rd May 2018

Submitted by @The Communist Wookie

What should qualify a video game's review score as a 10/ 10?
Blake Grae Hammer - Yesterday at 10:03 PM
The quality of a video game should be based off of the quality, the amount of microtransactions and money you have to put into the game beyond buying it (such as DLC, in game cash, etc.), mechanics and gameplay, and the overall satisfaction from the product.

Julian - Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Nothing, there cant be a perfect game for everyone. In my opinion there can only be a 10/10 recommendation for certain types of people - if you hate weapons breaking and open world games Zelda obviously isnt a 10/10 to you, just for example.

That is also why I dont like review scores in general

TheSlyBrit [EU - PC] - Yesterday at 10:09 PM
I don't think 10/10 should be given really. I for one like scoring games, but I feel like people need to realise there are two kinds of reviewers. People that review technologies and function and people that give an opinion on storytelling, game 'feel' etc.

Superuser - Yesterday at 10:13 PM
Games rated 10/10 should contain masterfully designed systems - the bits that makes games games - and avoid bloat, superfluity, or pitfalls of conventional game design. Building on that idea, a 10/10 game should do more than execute a concept well; it has to innovate and push gaming as a collection of experiences forward. They should also execute other technical elements such as art and music well, because they are crucial components to the rich media experiences that games are.

Relevant to this: we can recognise that a review is inherently founded in the time it is written. If a game is 10/10 in 2018 but perhaps not so impressive after it receives many copycats in future, so be it; let the year it was reviewed in be known as one of gaming's finest hours.

A quick note on what the others have been saying; there is no such thing as 'perfection', in anything. The rating is only relative to other games, and any game will of course contain some flaws. But we understand by rating a game so highly that we could not, at the time, seriously comprehend a better and more presently refreshing gaming experience. Because of its relative nature, a 10/10 can be justified.

yitz - Yesterday at 10:21 PM
It is subjective; any game that I find myself thinking about late at night a year later is my criteria
Ruby Valentine - Yesterday at 10:28 PM
Games can be enjoyed differently based off of preference, there isn't necessarily an overall 10/10 game for everyone but there can definitely be 10/10 games on an individual level. I loved playing Ark: SE and raising dino-children in a pacifist playstyle, while my friend hates Ark: SE and strictly plays COD, Destiny and Overwatch. I like playing games for stories, emotional connections and perspective but that same friend wouldn't "waste" money or time to take in any of those stories. We met on the middle ground of Dying Light because we were able to wonder without purpose and play a multiplayer game with interesting and entertaing mechanics that satisfied their needs. The story offered rewards and unique situations to go through so not only was there a story for me to enjoy, but my friend was given motive to go through it with me. That's why I would personally give Dying Light a 10/10 regardless of bugs and inconveniences(they also basically gave away what was almost an entirely new game so I got to enjoy that). But I've heard multiple people unpleased or unhappy with the game. There isn't a perfect game just like there isn't and perfect music, paintings, art or form of entertainment.

Unenthusiastic_ - Yesterday at 10:30 PM
I feel like companies can make pretty good calls on what gets rated 10/10, they've seen what there is to see for the most part, even if some of them are biased, others can help drown out the bias. I feel like a topic that needs discussion is what should warrant a 10/10 for old games. While new games are held up to a standard, old games, like, 90's and before, should be held up to a different standard. Since you can't hold them accountable for not being up to par with today's game standards (but can be with the other games of it's generation), their rating should be adjusted (by today's standards, not the rating they received when they were first released) on their nostalgic value just as much as their playability. Games like Call of Duty don't have as much of a nostalgic impact, since they recycle their basic concepts, which is okay. But games like Earthbound don't get much in terms of spiritual ancestors from games made today unless they're indie passion projects or spin offs of the games directly.

UltraPhi - Yesterday at 10:46 PM
Over the 2,000 character limit gosh-darn it

I would say that review scores are very surface level and generalize the quality of a game too much to be very useful for quantifying the quality of a game.
That being said I can see why people use them. It makes comparing like games simpler since you can use the score as a short-hand and is a convenient way to end a review after a summation of the game's qualities.

But I would say for a game to be 10/10 it would have to have an experience (Gameplay or otherwise) that innovates far beyond what the industry has to offer at the time with masterful execution;
the game may come with a few flaws elsewhere, but i'd say it would fair for them to be overlooked in lieu of being a pioneer (such as the frame drops found in Breath of the Wild). However, the innovation would have to benefit the quality of the game and show promise for future games to build upon and not just be a shallow gimmick for innovation's sake.
(A shining example of innovation I would point to would be Ocarina of Time and the "Lock-On/Z-targeting mechanic" that it introduced, effectively solving a glaring problem 3-D games had at the time (Being the difficulty of both manoeuvring the camera, and attacking a specific enemy in a 3-D environment do to all the extra space the players have; a mechanic that sees widespread use in Adventure games to this day)

or alternatively a 10/10 game can be that perfects an existing formula and builds upon it, utilizing it to its fullest potential. (à la Super Mario Odyssey/Galaxy) Although I do admit that games like these are sometimes hard to decide between a 9 or a 10. For me Cuphead falls into this category as the execution of every aspect of the game is impeccable but there is just something I cannot seem to express that keeps me from seeing it on the same level as other "10/10" games. Perhaps it is the scope of the game not measuring up to AAA games, but they can hardly be faulted for that since they are just indie devs.(edited)

A game can do both as well. Although I'd say that using a score to compare games that get a perfect score would lose some of its purpose, since there can be so many different types of games that can claim this standard. (Story driven vs Gameplay as a big example)

(as an aside: I don't believe there to be a "Perfect game" regardless of a 10/10 being perfect, as scores are bounded by the time they are reviewed and the state of other games that are released in the same time-frame as that is the only fair frame of comparison they have.)

In spite of all of this the rating is still subjective.
Wii Sports and the Nintendo Wii were pioneers of the motion control craze for example. Whether you see that as a glorious step forward for games or a huge misstep is up to the person and their own experiences.

Kristian's Good Values - Yesterday at 11:06 PM
I personally don’t like scoring games. A 10/10 is a perfect score, but that’s left to the reviewer and what aspects of the game the reviewer is taking into account. Some people can give a game a 10/10 just for what they like in a game without having to address other parts. This is fine to me since people play games for certain aspects, but I find this inadequate for a review. I don’t find review scores to be indicative of the true experience of the game. Someone’s 10/10 game could be someone’s 6/10.  Rather than give a flat out score, I believe a review should be a thorough examination of each and every aspect of the game taking into account gameplay, story, music and technical details. What does it do well? What does it not do well? Would I recommend it based on (insert aspect)? Even though I don’t believe in perfect scores, what warrants something close to one is simply doing whatever and doing it well with as little flaws as possible. It does not need to be revolutionary by any means, but overall solid.

May 24, 2018
Rednose - Today at 1:01 AM
In my opinion for a game to get a 10/10 it doesn't have to be perfect, but the reviewer shouldn't want to change anything about it. In some cases a games flaws can make it better. A good example of this would be deadly premonition, one of the few instances in gaming where the "so bad its good" factor works. Many people scored that game highly despite the fact that it had many obvious flaws and if the game didn't have them I doubt that it would have been remembered as much as it is today.

UltraPhi - Today at 1:24 AM
@Rednose Don't flaws inherently mean that the game isn't perfect, and that in that case those flaws should be worthy of criticism? If there is nothing a potential reviewer would want to change in a game, wouldn’t that make the game flawless? Maybe even perfect?

I haven’t played deadly premonition so I cannot comment on that case. I’ll use Breath of the Wild as an example; I personally think the game is phenomenal, (I won’t go into detail why because it’s beside the point) But I, and many other reviewers concede that it has its fair share of flaws, namely a less than stable frame-rate. In spite of that blemish most outlets still gave the game a perfect 10.

I’m fairly certain that most people would agree that removing that issue would make for a better game. (At least from a technical perspective) Because people would like to see it changed, would that make the game not a 10/10 from you?(edited)

Rednose - Today at 1:33 AM
@UltraPhi What I meant was the game doesn't have to be objectively perfect, but it just hast to be the perfect experience for the the reviewer, that there is absolutely nothing they would change. Though I suppose it really depends on what the reviewers intent is, are they trying to judge the game as a product or an experience?

For an example of a reviewer judging as a product I would look to IGN or kotaku and for judging as an experience I would look to someone like shammy or Jim Sterling
UltraPhi - Today at 1:40 AM
I personally fail to see the distinction. Both between being "objectively perfect" and the "perfect experience" as well as the distinction between IGN and Sterling. They both cover news, although Sterling in a much more opinionated fashion, and they have both released reviews for games. (Granted Sterling doesn't anymore, but he used to) I would say that Sterling's review would be equal in value to any reviewer/writer that IGN hires.

Rednose - Today at 1:42 AM
An ign review will commonly look at the value of a game based on price and how many enjoyable hours  it can offer

Games have been marked down for being too short for the price or not worth the entry cost
UltraPhi - Today at 1:45 AM
Sterling is very commonly unhappy with the direction of the industry based on the monetisation methods they employ, so in that case I would also disagree with that sentiment, but this discussion isn't about that.

What do you mean by a "perfect experience"?

Rednose - Today at 1:59 AM
I meant the cost of the game itself to the amount of content but you're right

For a perfect experience, I would say that it would be that you stand up after the game is done and think "That was exactly what I wanted and I would not, if I had the chance, change any part of what I just experienced". Of course theres no such thing as a perfect experience and I shouldn't have exaggerated but it needs to be close

UltraPhi - Today at 2:06 AM
It seems like you had a very high and specific standard for games to get a 10/10. Which is fair, I mean it is a perfect score. I feel like with that criteria people would only have at most one or two perfect games for them, if any.

I wanted to see how much a game is able to do wrong in your eyes until it isn't perfect, since if you look hard enough you can always find small things to nitpick about anything.

Thank you for clarifying your points, I think I understand now.(edited)

Rednose - Today at 2:19 AM
Yeah in retrospect I was really unclear with what I was trying to get across and having to move classes in between writing muddled it even further. I'm against numeric scoring in general and I think that 10/10's are silly. Thank you for helping me clarify my stance

Emms - Today at 5:16 AM
I don't think there is such a thing as a 10/10, every game is it's own thing for it's own audience, letting games be reviewed by morons at IGN, ofcourse you are gonna see a 10/10, but if there would be a 10/10 then it must be truly a amazing polished experience, but I don't think we are getting that anytime soon, because people don't think about making the most amazing polished experience, and they are totally right for that, when making a game I wouldn't say that this is gonna be a 10/10 amazing polished experience, I'd rather keep it at an audience which could find this stuff interesting and it spreads, it's how the new God of War game appeals to such a audience but eventually got spread out and became such a huge thing, atleast to me.

Firecakes - Today at 12:27 PM
I'm going to try and get a more clear definition of a 10/10 game. There are so many factors to grade a game on, and all of these factors have to eventually be combined into a single score. That means assigning weights to the individual factors, giving them a level of importance compared to other factors. Art style, story, controls, depth of game mechanics, interplay, etc. People will have their own opinions on which is more important and maybe these weights should be different for every game depending on what they're trying to do.

When you give a game a score, the idea is that you can compare the number to other games. But how do you compare two completely different types of games, like Tetris vs Breath of the Wild? It's hardly a fair judgment. We need some similarities between two games to rate them more accurately. Since we are limited to a single number, I think a fair choice is to rate a game 10/10 if they have done something that no other game has done before. How can it be compared to other games if there is no other game that has done such a thing?

If the work is truly derivative then we can start judging the game from picking elements from existing titles and figuring out which did better. There's still some weirdness about how you actually will score a derivative work. You find 5 other games that shares elements with this derivative work that do that one thing better. Do you just knock off a point for every example you find? Every quarter point? There's a lot of issues to still deal with but that's what happens when you're limited to a single number for judgment.