(12-06-2015, 05:45 PM)Omegajak Wrote:

(12-05-2015, 11:11 PM)Koh Wrote: A rather simple question.  Has a game ever been a 10/10 for you?

My answer would of course be no, never, and there never will be, no matter how much I like the game.  Final Fantasy Tactics is probably one of the most finely crafted, incredibly orchestrated and deep RPGs you can play, but even with all that I'd only consider it a 9/10 game.  Nothing ever get s a perfect score, because nothing is perfect.  There's always something somewhere that makes it lose some points, whether it be a design oddity, bugs or glitches, or whatever else that takes away from the polish or experience.

You son of a snitch you WOULD use Tactics as the go to "It's really great but it's not perfect!" game!

I'm sorry xD!  It's one of my top RPGs, and games in general, and a game everyone should play to see just how deep games can be, and its story is so believeable.  But there's no denying the game is unbalanced, with a lot of broken abilities, and the difficulty curve is very sporadic, rather than a steady and continuous increase. It doesn't stop it from being a wonderful game, but as always...there's room for improvement. And there's simply no overlooking those things, since they slap you across the face, lol.

(12-06-2015, 08:15 AM)Koh Wrote:

(12-06-2015, 02:50 AM)Zero Kirby Wrote: In my humble opinion - why bother having a ten out of ten if you're never gonna hand one out. What is the point.
-Rest-

Those of us who use this system would probably explain it this way:  A point of reference.  Since we're establishing that 10/10 implies the game is perfect, and that no further polish could be done to enhance the experience, we're saying a 9/10 game is "near perfect."  This doesn't mean that the concepts behind the game can't be perfect for us (i.e. Pong, Chess, Tetris, Columns, Puyo Puyo, Solitare, etc.), but something about the execution seems off or could be improved.

For example, I think Puyo  Puyo is a 9/10 puzzle series, and will always enjoy its gameplay, but some things about its gameplay always came across as awkward for me.  Like how you can't access the hidden rows above the board until you build a staircase and rotate the piece up it.  You can't just simply move the pieces over those high columns while it's coming from above the board.

If you had read the rest of my post you'd realize why I thought that's stupid.

Because if all you can get is a nine and you get a nine then why bother improving if no amount of improving will increase the score. You might as well rate 9-out-of-9 for all the good it does you. But oh wait then 9/9 would be perfect BETTER START ONLY GIVING OUT UP TO EIGHT

It makes you look like a pretentious stick-in-the-mud that can't see the forest for the trees.

I agree with Gors that numbers are stupid and it's for precisely this reason that numbers are stupid. People take them at face value way too often and yet there's too much room for interpretation with some scores as evidenced by the fact this conversation even exists. It's the most bizarre paradox I've ever seen.

(12-06-2015, 10:39 PM)Zero Kirby Wrote: It makes you look like a pretentious stick-in-the-mud that can't see the forest for the trees.

But you must also realize the reverse is also true.  People who give out perfect scores just because they happened to like something makes it look like they're incredibly biased, are just ignoring problems with the game despite the fact they exist, or have incredibly low standards to the point they'd play just about anything, or some or all of the above.

There are two sides to the coin~

And this is why the scores alone are meaningless. The accompanying text should have absolutely everything they noted; pros and cons, no matter how major or minor.

(12-07-2015, 12:15 AM)Koh Wrote: But you must also realize the reverse is also true.  People who give out perfect scores just because they happened to like something makes it look like they're incredibly biased, are just ignoring problems with the game despite the fact they exist, or have incredibly low standards to the point they'd play just about anything, or some or all of the above.

Or it could just mean that how good a game is is subjective... which it is. True, some flaws are objective (a game-breaking bug or obvious graphic glitch), but if people don't acknowledge them then that just means that, for them, the rest of the game is good enough to ignore them. People don't just ignore flaws for no reason.
And yes, when people are giving their opinion on a game there is obviously bias. Why is that a bad thing?

The problem with scores (in my opinion) is that you need to rate the game in an objective manner to actually rate them like that. Or at least, in a very strict manner that makes the aspects measurable. That's just not how I, and a lot of people, rate games.

There is always bias present, yes, but reviewers should be trying to minimize it as much as possible and be as objective as possible when they're giving a verdict on it, because they do have to realize that everyone's tastes are different, even if they all like a certain genre.

So lets say a reader is a fan of RPGs, but absolutely despise having to drop all the progression in the game to grind for experience for hours, is looking at a game review for a game they heard about. A pro-grinding reviewer rates the gameplay 10/10 "A must play for RPG fans, it's perfect!", just because it slid into his tastes, without realizing that "gameplay is 9/10; I really liked it, but admittedly there are long grind times. This can turn people off."

The former is super biased, to the point it's unbelievable and doesn't carry much weight. The latter is more wholesome and also more believable, because they admitted that "hey, while it was almost perfect for me, I realize there's problems here."

That's largely the point of a review though. The author expresses what they personally find to be a positive or negative and assigning a numerical value to the process is a lazily implemented system that provides no significant information, opinion, or means to improve.

(12-07-2015, 12:15 AM)Koh Wrote:

(12-06-2015, 10:39 PM)Zero Kirby Wrote: It makes you look like a pretentious stick-in-the-mud that can't see the forest for the trees.

But you must also realize the reverse is also true.  People who give out perfect scores just because they happened to like something makes it look like they're incredibly biased, are just ignoring problems with the game despite the fact they exist, or have incredibly low standards to the point they'd play just about anything, or some or all of the above.

There are two sides to the coin~

And this is why the scores alone are meaningless.  The accompanying text should have absolutely everything they noted; pros and cons, no matter how major or minor.

I like how you take just a single sentence of my posts, disregard the rest, and attack that one to discredit the whole post.

Again, when you say the whole "biased, there are still problems with the game that they're ignoring, they have incredibly low standards" that's because in your mind, a 10/10 means "absolutely perfect." You're taking it at absolute face value. When also in my post, I said this:

Quote:I agree with Gors that numbers are stupid and it's for precisely this reason that numbers are stupid. People take them at face value way too often and yet there's too much room for interpretation with some scores as evidenced by the fact this conversation even exists. It's the most bizarre paradox I've ever seen.

It's kind of funny how that answered your problem with bias because 10/10 doesn't mean the same to me and others as it does to you. There's two sides to the coin, sure, but when your own bias is clearly showing it's a little hard to see where you're coming from, whereas I at least adequately explained why never handing out a ten is meaningless.

Quote:Because if all you can get is a nine and you get a nine then why bother improving if no amount of improving will increase the score. You might as well rate 9-out-of-9 for all the good it does you.

Context matters! Of course that sentence you quoted by itself is easily dismissed. With the two quoted above though it means rather a lot more!

As for your comments on the text of the review, obviously I agree because as I mentioned I hate review scores but I was under the impression we were talking about review scores!

Just to be clear, I don't disregard the rest of the posts or discredit entire posts (unless their foundation is based on one thing). I only quoted the portions of a post I disagreed with and gave reasons why. I've already said that I agree that the scores alone are meaningless, lol.

But the question I raise is...even if they don't view 10/10 as saying the game is perfect, if they acknowledge that it indeed has problems that couldn't just be overlooked, because they're aware it could be an issue for other types of players interested in the genre, then why IS it still 10/10? Using your same reasoning from before, if they got 10/10, telling them they still had certain problems under that rating won't do much of anything either, because they already received the maximum score from that person despite the fact the problems exist. What's the point of improving if they're maximizing scores already? Which is probably the mentality many games adopt anyway, lol. "Why fix what isn't broken, but slightly scratched."

One of the things that bugs me is when people reference the big gaming site ratings as to how good or bad a game is. Like how someone who wants to tell you how good a game is, they're like "Oh it got a 10/10 on IGN!" or "It's got a 99 on Metacritic!", and it's like so what, that doesn't tell me anything about what the game does right or wrong.

I sort of prefer the ProJared style approach to this conundrum. He gives all the details on something, good and bad, and after all is said and done, he gives a score, then recaps the highlights of the good and bad.

If you're the sort of person who is going to make their buying decisions based on reviews, it's a good idea to have a pool of reviewers you follow for various reasons, reviewers whose unique and individual perspectives are ones you value.

I don't fault the reviewers for being subject, because I don't want them to be anything else. I fault the audience for being lazy and only considering one supreme review source. I fault some reviewers or review sites for shady practice. But I can't fault subjective opinion.

(12-07-2015, 06:52 AM)Koh Wrote: Just to be clear, I don't disregard the rest of the posts or discredit entire posts (unless their foundation is based on one thing).  I only quoted the portions of a post I disagreed with and gave reasons why.  I've already said that I agree that the scores alone are meaningless, lol.

But the question I raise is...even if they don't view 10/10 as saying the game is perfect, if they acknowledge that it indeed has problems that couldn't just be overlooked, because they're aware it could be an issue for other types of players interested in the genre, then why IS it still 10/10?  Using your same reasoning from before, if they got 10/10, telling them they still had certain problems under that rating won't do much of anything either, because they already received the maximum score from that person despite the fact the problems exist.  What's the point of improving if they're maximizing scores already?  Which is probably the mentality many games adopt anyway, lol.  "Why fix what isn't broken, but slightly scratched."

One of the things that bugs me is when people reference the big gaming site ratings as to how good or bad a game is.  Like how someone who wants to tell you how good a game is, they're like "Oh it got a 10/10 on IGN!" or "It's got a 99 on Metacritic!", and it's like so what, that doesn't tell me anything about what the game does right or wrong.

I sort of prefer the ProJared style approach to this conundrum.  He gives all the details on something, good and bad, and after all is said and done, he gives a score, then recaps the highlights of the good and bad.

I would argue that a 10/10 means the few problems that exist are so minor they can be overlooked simply because the rest of the game is just that good. Why care about improving on a 10/10, well, since a 9/10 means the problems are a problem - 10/10 means I don't care about the few, minor problems the game has.

For some example of games I would give a 10/10, Batman: Arkham City. Does it have flaws, sure - it's a little unfocused and kind of short. But the game as a whole is just outstanding, one of the best I've ever played, so good that it should be recognized for it. Metroid Prime Trilogy. Each individual game has some little problem with it and Corruption especially isn't as good as the first two, but just having all three together with a fantastic control scheme is simply too worth it. Uncharted 2. The final boss isn't that great and some of the treasures are mean, but holy crap, it's just a blast from start to finish. Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, there simply wasn't enough of it, but everything else was just about perfect from start to finish.

It just means the improvements to be made are so minor that the game wouldn't really be that much better for it. What better improvement to make than simply give us more, after all?

As for review content similar to ProJared - a lot of reviewers do the same thing? Most modern reviewers have an article, with all the details, and then a score and a recap with bullet points. But I mean, that isn't going to stop people from simply quoting the scores.

Dark Souls I exists. therefore the perfect game has been made and you can all go home.

Finally, someone gets it.

I'm the sad sap who hasn't played the Dark Souls or Demon Souls games yet, lol.

Anyway, that was an excellent post Zero Kirby, and it makes a lot more sense that way.

(12-07-2015, 02:31 PM)Koh Wrote: I'm the sad sap who hasn't played the Dark Souls or Demon Souls games yet, lol.

Anyway, that was an excellent post Zero Kirby, and it makes a lot more sense that way.

Thanks. Sorry if I got a little hostile for a second there - in retrospect my posts weren't terribly polite and when it comes to what actually matters (the review content and not the score), we seem to agree, so bleh.

I cannot think of any game that truly hits a perfect on my meter, or at least, was able to stay there.

The closest games that come to mind for me are:
Epic Battle Fantasy series (includes spin-offs)
MineCraft
GemCraft series (except original)
Crystalien Conflict
Spybotics The Nightfall Incident
Radioactive Teddy Bear Zombies
nearly any Nitrome game
...to name a "few"

However, each one has had an issue with at least one of the following: glitches, lag, crappy limitations, difficulty curve, premium content, "balancing" , aesthetic appeal changing (MC!), broken promises by developers, etc...

EBF and its Spinoffs are awesome, but are now nearly unplayable for me because Matt finally pushed the absolute limits of Flash. The difficulty at times is overwhelming, also.
MineCraft had a good thing going, but I feel the heart and soul of the game isn't entirely there anymore.
Gemcraft is still really awesome, but newer versions have too much exclusive content, and the difficulty can easily get out of hand.
Crystalien Conflict is not a challenge to me anymore, I am now a seasoned veteran and bored to death. The lack of a map editor also is a downside.
Spybotics is an awesome game, but sometimes the difficulty curve is a bit much, and there are some weird glitches that spell instant death.
Radioactive Teddybear Zombies certainly isn't a gem, but it meets my requirements if not for three main factors. Firstly, the cheaty tactic of flipping non-symmetrical graphics. That's just an OCD thing for me. Secondly, the third boss, referenced in the code as "Bearcrab" IT IS NOT EVEN THE FINAL BOSS, AND THIS THING IS A PAIN IN THE ASS TO KILL. This bastard has killed me many more times then I've killed him. And then there's random noclipping issues. These rarely become critical, but I have had it happen in bad places like the aforementioned boss's room.
Nitrome Games are innovative, they're fun, they have a very retro feel, they don't need a lot of resources. On the other hand, the difficulty tends to get intense pretty early on. I have yet to beat any game or really figure-out how to. They all involve some element of strategy , timing, or puzzle-solving. They're fun, but they are hard, almost to the point it is soul-crushing

tl;dr:
A perfect game, to me, needs to be stable (or at least, mostly), fun to play, look and sound good, reasonably balanced, perhaps customizable, and it certainly doesn't hurt to be innovative, story helps. No game has yet maxed these traits out simultaneously, or managed to keep it that way, IMHO.