-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
10/10 should be theoretical
- Thread starter AntoneM
- Start date
Ninja Scooter
Member
**throws tomato**
Of course nothing is perfect. But including an unattainable score on the grading scale serves no purpose. 10/10, 100%, etc. should be understood to mean, "as close to perfection as possible."
Therefore, if a game earns the highest score, then the reviewer considered it to be unsurpassed, not perfect.
Therefore, if a game earns the highest score, then the reviewer considered it to be unsurpassed, not perfect.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
I have gotten 100% on many tests in school.
By your logic, I'm perfect.
Thanks for the compliment!
10/10 should never be referred to as "perfect". It just means exceptional- one of the finest games you can play this year, a game that does everything right (to me anyway).
By your logic, I'm perfect.
Thanks for the compliment!
10/10 should never be referred to as "perfect". It just means exceptional- one of the finest games you can play this year, a game that does everything right (to me anyway).
Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:I have gotten 100% on many tests in school.
By your logic, I'm perfect.
Thanks for the compliment!
Wrong! facts are not subjective. Now, if you had said that you got 100% on book reports or something, then I'd tell you that your instructors a dumbshit.
Code:
9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999994 lyfe!
Sein said:
what do you mean, if the goal is unattainable then there is always something to strive for, some way to improve. 10/10 means perfect as in no flaws, subjectively or otherwise, since we know that nothing can be perfect it means that everything is inherently flawed, consumer products especially since there are compromises that need to be made in order for the product to be profitable. Regardless of whether the review thought it was unsurpassed it still is not perfect.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
I just think 10's should be doled out rarely, like Edge.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
9.9 should be the new 10.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
max_cool said:
I've gotten 100% on book reports and essays. You can indeed subjectively give something 10/10 or 100%. If 10/10 were off limits, all the exceptional games would get 9/10, and 9/10 would become the new 10/10.
max_cool said:
Your problem is that you consider it an undeniable fact that 10/10 means perfection. That is not a fact. The highest score on a scale means whatever the creator of that scale intended.
For example, IGN states that 10 does not mean perfection:
http://games.ign.com/ratings.html
And of course IGN is entitled to define the scale on which its reviews are predicated.
Furthermore, it's silly to argue that it's necessary to make the highest score unattainable in order to create incentives for developers to improve. Do you really think that a score of 10/10 would induce a developer to consider itself perfect and not try to make its next game better?
Alex Anderson
Member
Many of the rating systems magazines/sites use are 1-10 scales with no half points or decimals. When you only have ten available scores to give a game, it's no surprise that a lot of games will get 10's. A 10 on one scale may be a 9.6 on another.
What really gets on my nerves is how most game magazines rate 90% of titles somewhere between 5-10. They're basically saying that 9 out of 10 games are above average. It seems as if "7" is average to most of them.
max_cool said:
Look at what I quoted from your other post. You categorically said, "10/10 means perfection," which is different from suggesting that 10/10 should mean perfection.
Please note also the last paragraph of my previous post, which I seem to have edited in after you responded. I contend that no worthwhile interest is furthered by making 10/10 unreachable. Doing so would not create incentives for developers that would not otherwise be there. From the consumer's standpoint, if someone would buy a game if it earned a 10/10, then he would most likely also buy it if it earned a 9.9/10.
The only purpose served by making 10/10 unattainable would be to appease those like you who insist on symbolic recognition of the impossibility of perfection. I don't think that's a compelling interest.
indeed I did say 10/10 means perfection, I can't be blamed if people add qualifiers saying that on their scale 10/10 does not mean perfection.
symbolic recognition? how about just recognition that 10/10 equals perfect*, or for emphasis, factual recognition that 10/10 equals perfect.
*unless otherwise qualified.
symbolic recognition? how about just recognition that 10/10 equals perfect*, or for emphasis, factual recognition that 10/10 equals perfect.
*unless otherwise qualified.
max_cool said:
I don't insist that you agree with me. I only ask that you understand that your interpretation of 10/10 is nothing more than an opinion. If you start reviewing games, then you're welcome to make 10/10 mean perfection on your scale. But others are free to make 10/10 mean something else on their scales, and they are in no way factually wrong in doing so.
Sein said:
I see what you're saying and I come to this conclusion.
The only real definition of 10/10 would be something along the lines of: an entire object; completeness and that 10/10 has no definition (ie: meaning) when it comes to judging subjective works.
---edit---
when I say no definition I mean no universally understood definition and that the scale must be defined everytime it is used to grade subjective works.
Crazymoogle
Member
Ninja Scooter said:
General yawn against review score theory threads aside, my exposure to Paper Mario 2 had me think I should be pressing the X button right about now.
I disagree ... I think it just means something did all it can at that point in time and no noticible flaws. Jesus, just because you get a 100% on a History test doesn't mean you know more about history than everyone else in the world. People take reviews too much to heart anyway ... like trying to compare a game that was released 2 years ago to the score of one released last week. Its just a guide for what to buy ...
Bauer Action Hour
Member
Any number or scale means nothing w/o a context. 10/10 could mean something is bad or good. Context is everything. Publications have the right to define their own scales.
On a general level, I don't get what's so bad about giving out a 10 (or 5 of 5 stars or 4 of 4 stars for movies). To myself, it inherently means that the production is one of the elite within the medium.
Sein summed it up really well.
On a general level, I don't get what's so bad about giving out a 10 (or 5 of 5 stars or 4 of 4 stars for movies). To myself, it inherently means that the production is one of the elite within the medium.
Sein summed it up really well.
Gattsu25 said:
It's intuitive that 10/10 is better than 9/10, but there are actually some important limitations on that notion.
Time: A 9/10 now is probably worth more than a 10/10 five years ago.
Same publication, different reviewer: You can't really compare a score by Jeff Gerstmann (in particular) with a score by another Gamespotter.
Cognitive failure: Even two scores by the same reviewer in a short period of time may not be comparable. A reviewer may fail to consider scores that he issued recently, and his judgment may be influenced by variables such as his mood, payoffs, and whether he is burned out on a particular genre.
so, can we agree that, 10/10, as a grade of quality has no real definition until someone gives it thier own definition and therefore all subjective scores, if they are based on a 10/10 scale (or any sort of numbering or grading system), are undefined, or meaningless?
take that gaming media!
take that gaming media!
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Durr
Did we really need a whole thread to come to this revelation?max_cool said:so, can we agree that, 10/10, as a grade of quality has no real definition until someone gives it thier own definition and therefore all subjective scores, if they are based on a 10/10 scale (or any sort of numbering or grading system), are undefined, or meaningless?
take that gaming media!
The Prime Director
Banned
Magazines with 5-star ratings, such as what Next Generation used to have, use the whole scale quite often.
I had my annual review at work last month. First, let me say that it's a retail job where I work very hard and do fantastic customer service. In fact, I worked my ass off this year to get the best raise they give. I'm pretty much the best and most versatile worker in the store covering registers, auditing, etc., and I exceed everyone else's standards, especially in anyone managament..
Well, the review consists of ten questions, and each is answered with a score out of five. I got almost all three's (one four and two two's) with the excuse that there's always room for improvement, and the two's had to be dished out to everyone because the whole company could use some improvement. Standards like that are useless! In terms of my job it destroyed my moral, lost the company a worker (when I get a new job offer), and I've little desire to work hard for my remaining time with the company.
For games, the consequenses, for the gamer at least, are far smaller, but for game companies it can mean a lot. And that can affect the gamer. Fire Emblem is a nine or ten to me, but giving it a run of the mill score like eight could cause many gamers to pass up on it. If pressed, I could think of millions of improvements to it or any game. But any time you see a ten, you want to try that game... there's got to be some transcendant magic to it. Unlike an eight or even nine... they're easy to ignore. Maybe they're good but not for you. When a magazine hands out a ten, it could have an affect on sales, especially if advertised. Why deprive game companies of potential sales because of a nebulous concept like perfection? Obviously, Fire Emblem will burn on, but what about Sand of Time or Splinter Cell? Judging them based on the concept of perfection would leave each in the dust. I could give them really low scores in that area. But grading the enjoyment they gave me would put them much, much higher.
Well, the review consists of ten questions, and each is answered with a score out of five. I got almost all three's (one four and two two's) with the excuse that there's always room for improvement, and the two's had to be dished out to everyone because the whole company could use some improvement. Standards like that are useless! In terms of my job it destroyed my moral, lost the company a worker (when I get a new job offer), and I've little desire to work hard for my remaining time with the company.
For games, the consequenses, for the gamer at least, are far smaller, but for game companies it can mean a lot. And that can affect the gamer. Fire Emblem is a nine or ten to me, but giving it a run of the mill score like eight could cause many gamers to pass up on it. If pressed, I could think of millions of improvements to it or any game. But any time you see a ten, you want to try that game... there's got to be some transcendant magic to it. Unlike an eight or even nine... they're easy to ignore. Maybe they're good but not for you. When a magazine hands out a ten, it could have an affect on sales, especially if advertised. Why deprive game companies of potential sales because of a nebulous concept like perfection? Obviously, Fire Emblem will burn on, but what about Sand of Time or Splinter Cell? Judging them based on the concept of perfection would leave each in the dust. I could give them really low scores in that area. But grading the enjoyment they gave me would put them much, much higher.
i think that gamespy proves that:The Prime Director said:
(a) readers don't understand the five star rating system
(b) gamerankings perverts it, so publishers and developers loathe it (3 stars is "good" on the gamespy scale -- but that comes out as "60%" in gamerankings, which makes people fucking FREAK.)
personally i'm becoming a big fan of 1-10, no halves (coincidentally, that's what GMR uses. also XBN, edge.) it forces you to really commit to the score you're assigning, which is great.
1 - 10 with halves (EGM, PSM) works fine. i don't really have any complaints about this one, but i also don't feel like the .5s add anything important.
1 - 100 (gamespy's old scale) sucks because it gets compared to school scoring, with 60s being "bad" and stuff. yech.
1 - 10 with all decimals (IGN, gamespot, OXM) is annoying because people end up totally obsessing over .1 difference between scores, which is ridiculous. an unnecessary level of granularity.
If it makes you feel any more validated, pretend that the scores go up to 10.1.
Most magazines describe what their scores mean. 10 never means perfect. The idea of having a special score that you can't use is just brain-dead. It's bad enough that half the magazines out there only mark in the range 6-10 anyway...
This is another example of why points-based rating systems are stupid (as if we needed another). I still maintain that a fruit-based rating system is better, or failing that, a three-level rating system (buy, rent, avoid).
Most magazines describe what their scores mean. 10 never means perfect. The idea of having a special score that you can't use is just brain-dead. It's bad enough that half the magazines out there only mark in the range 6-10 anyway...
This is another example of why points-based rating systems are stupid (as if we needed another). I still maintain that a fruit-based rating system is better, or failing that, a three-level rating system (buy, rent, avoid).
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
gamerankings doesn't do any kind of normalization?
What i found a problem is more that since 10 years or so, there's MANY more games getting a 10/10. I really doubt all those games deserves that score. 10/10 was never a score you could attain before and i really doubt that the games before Super Mario 64 were NEVER worth enough to get a 10...
I can understand rating a game 10/10 but not fucking more than 1 a year or something common.
I can understand rating a game 10/10 but not fucking more than 1 a year or something common.
