Topic: Why All The "Perfect 10's" These Days

[mouse_clicker]

That reminds me of the MASSIVE program (that's what it's called) that simulated battles for the Lord of the Rings movies- each solider was programmed to fight in the most efficient manner possible. When they ran the program for the first time, both sides turned and ran away.

And I agree that perfection does not exist, but other people don't see it that way and will try to say things ARE perfect, when in reality that's impossible.

[joeamis]

that's hilarious and very interesting mouseclicker,
do you know where i can find out more about this MASSIVE program?

[Bill Aurion]

Ta-Da!

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1036373442

[mouse_clicker]

Here's a fairly descriptive article- it has some links to more information, too.

[joeamis]

thank you guys!

[Ian Sane]

"Gamespot's 10/10 literally means the reviewer thinks the game is perfect and cannot be improved in any way."

I just find that really funny since Gamespot gave the PS2 version of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 a 10 meaning they thought it was perfect.  I mean that's a good game but compared to some of their other perfect 10 titles like Ocarina of Time and Soul Calibur that review score looks a little high.

In regards to ports I find that there's often a problem with how to review the game.  Do you review it for people who have played it before or for newcomers?  Ocarina of Time for the Gamecube is not as much of a must-own title for people who've played it before as the N64 version was back when no one had ever played it.  Yet as a title alone it's something that everyone must play regardless of which version.  One thing that would be a good idea for ports would be to give two scores: one for those who've played it before and one for those who haven't.

[KDR_11k]

I think review scores are flawed for one reason: They use the upper scale! A 7 is considered fairly bad already. Means there are about 3 or 4 (depending on site) scores to measure good games while there are much more for bad ones. Why not change the system so the average game gets a 5 instead of a 7? If more quality titles come out, you need to lower the score for a certain quality!

[PIAC]

yeah, a lower score would be good, nothing over about 5 unless it truely warrents it, but then ALL reveiws should be taken with a grain of salt untill you actually play the game

reveiws for me are usefull to findout the features of the game, not how good it is overall, i determine that for my self.

[mouse_clicker]

KDR: I completely agree. That'swhy I kind prefer a scale of 5 or a letter grading system. A score 3/5 means the game is fairly good, but if you doubled it to a scale of 10, it would be the equivalent of a 6/10, which is pretty bad. Letter grades are my favorite, not only because it's divided into Superior, Above Average, Average, Below Average, and Failed, but they're not as specific as a scale of 1-10. You wouldn't believe the uproar on the IGN boards when Wave Race got a 9.2/b] and Rogue Leader got a 9.1. Matt and Fran tried to explain there's almost no difference between the two scores, but people wouldn't have it. A letter grade can represent several different scores, accoutning for the readers own personal likes and dislikes.