Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums
BloodshotSpectre

10/10 does not mean perfect

Recommended Posts

This is something that's been somewhat prevalent in the world of DSP lately, including in the recent MGSV review, so I figured I'd give my perspective on it.

10/10 does not mean a perfect, flawless game that couldn't possibly be improved, at least, not to most people. 10/10 is generally used when a game is of generally outstanding quality and when it succeeds at what it does so effectively that flaws don't hold it back from being a must play game.

If you look at reviews all over the place, whether it's big mainstream review sites (i.e., IGN and Gamespot), or just individual reviewers, 10/10 scores are usually given on the merits of what the game manages to do, not what it doesn't do wrong.

Some reviewers and review sites (including IGN) use the term "masterpiece" to describe a 10/10 score. This is far closer to the definition I cited above than "perfect".

Now, I'm sure there are reviewers who use this 10/10 logic, but if so, that's stupid, because a 10/10 score could quite possibly never be used in that case. Can anyone really name a game that's absolutely perfect? Look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best . You could easily find flaws whether subjective or objective in all of those games, which automatically makes them imperfect. That doesn't mean they aren't outstanding games at the top of their genre. Also, even if a game were flawless it would still have to meet a particular level of quality to be considered perfect. Perfect means as good as it is possible to be. You see why this is such a high goalpost?

Anyway, I say this because DSP has often criticized other reviewers for giving games which he doesn't see as perfect 10/10. I'm also not saying that flaws can't hold a game back, but that's a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Game_Reviews

As a whole, game scores cannot be cumulatively quantified because there is no uniformity. IGN clearly uses numbers to denote a code, placing reviews on more of a spectrum than a number line. Seeing I have yet to see a published mathematical function that spits out reliable figures, I have to accept the methodology of IGN and other outlets. I wish it were possible to compare review scores or create an average, but it isn't. Creating a common denominator and taking a mean does not suffice. Places like Metacritic claim to take a weighted average. While I agree they should, it has to go far more in depth for any sense of significance. Scores cannot be a fraction or percentile, because there is not a whole piece you're taking from. There are no benchmark titles that serve as the perfect example for a particular score, so there is no sense of deviation. So, instead, benchmark numbers are created with a noun or adjective attached. In cases such as IGN, the one-tenth increments are used to deviate.  

Things get more complicated if one wants to compare genres, or if there is a substantial difference in year of publication. With that being said, it is of my belief that scores cannot possibly be quantified. Scores might as well be represented by shapes, ranging from a circle to a square. It does not matter what you replace the numbers with, because they're only there to create some case of coherence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that 10/10 doesn't mean 100% or perfect is enough to make me facepalm.

Nothing is ever perfect. Someone will always find a flaw, especially within such a subjective media. Following your logic, no game, movie or music album should ever be a 10/10, or even a 5/5. Every gaming website out there has said a 10 doesn't mean perfect for very good reasons. A 10/10 basically means the reviewer thought the game was absolutely outstanding, and the few flaws it had weren't enough to take away from what was an amazing experience.

People put too much emphasis on scores anyway. Who gives a flying fuck that some random guy or girl thought X was was a 8, 9 or 10. Find a reviewer that seemingly fits your preferences and listen to what they have to say. Alternatively, read/listen/watch a ton of different reviews, and judge a game on what is said, not on some arbitrary number.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Game_Reviews

As a whole, game scores cannot be cumulatively quantified because there is no uniformity. IGN clearly uses numbers to denote a code, placing reviews on more of a spectrum than a number line. Seeing I have yet to see a published mathematical function that spits out reliable figures, I have to accept the methodology of IGN and other outlets. I wish it were possible to compare review scores or create an average, but it isn't. Creating a common denominator and taking a mean does not suffice. Places like Metacritic claim to take a weighted average. While I agree they should, it has to go far more in depth for any sense of significance. Scores cannot be a fraction or percentile, because there is not a whole piece you're taking from. There are no benchmark titles that serve as the perfect example for a particular score, so there is no sense of deviation. So, instead, benchmark numbers are created with a noun or adjective attached. In cases such as IGN, the one-tenth increments are used to deviate.  

Things get more complicated if one wants to compare genres, or if there is a substantial difference in year of publication. With that being said, it is of my belief that scores cannot possibly be quantified. Scores might as well be represented by shapes, ranging from a circle to a square. It does not matter what you replace the numbers with, because they're only there to create some case of coherence.

I agree with the assessment that scores can't be accurately quantified - albeit only on a grand scale. A review score is basically how much a game is recommended by a particular person. Based only on the scores of a single person, scores should be consistent, but with sites like IGN, you have to factor in reviews based on the opinions of maybe hundreds of different reviewers over 10+ years. I'm not sure how you could scale something like that. Reviews are hardly gonna be purely based on fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is ever perfect. Someone will always find a flaw, especially within such a subjective media. Following your logic, no game, movie or music album should ever be a 10/10, or even a 5/5. Every gaming website out there has said a 10 doesn't mean perfect for very good reasons. A 10/10 basically means the reviewer thought the game was absolutely outstanding, and the few flaws it had weren't enough to take away from what was an amazing experience.

People put too much emphasis on scores anyway. Who gives a flying fuck that some random guy or girl thought X was was a 8, 9 or 10. Find a reviewer that seemingly fits your preferences and listen to what they have to say. Alternatively, read/listen/watch a ton of different reviews, and judge a game on what is said, not on some arbitrary number.

 

Bingo. Also, there is no real criteria for scores in the first place - people have to make their own. There's no set of boolean values to determine a score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets give out 10/10 more then! Even those massively flawed just like a recent title.

 No one is saying that there need to be more 10/10s. Also:

I'm also not saying that flaws can't hold a game back, but that's a different topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbered rating system in reviews is flawed to begin with. If mainstream reviewers used a more straightforward system and didn't just tack on a number for the sake of hype, we wouldn't even be having this debate to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbered rating system in reviews is flawed to begin with. If mainstream reviewers used a more straightforward system and didn't just tack on a number for the sake of hype, we wouldn't even be having this debate to begin with.

I agree, but a lot of people don't care about the content of reviews, and only pay attention to the score.

 

Ok, if 10/10 does not mean perfect, what does? Is it 11/10? Honestly, what is a perfect score then, TC?

Irrelevant, because no game can objectively be described as being perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People put too much emphasis on scores anyway. Who gives a flying fuck that some random guy or girl thought X was was a 8, 9 or 10.

Too many people, actually.  The problem is that review scores are another condensed shorthand that's very easy for the passer-by to digest.  That said, I think a lot of reviewers feel compelled to use scores when they'd rather they didn't.  One can't deny, it is much faster and easier for someone to peek over at Metacritic and see a collaboration of number values, rather than read several individual reviews and find a consensus among them.  It's faster to scroll to the bottom of a 2 page review or skip a 45 minute video to the end just to see the overall breakdown of everything said.  Generally speaking, the consumer values convenience very highly, but number scores are a poor solution that create new problems, like the debate on what these silly number values actually mean at a closer inspection and what they mean on a reviewer by reviewer basis.

I wish we could all do away with review scores and find another solution, but since they're still a big part of reviewer culture, I might as well stay on topic.  I agree that a 10/10 shouldn't mean perfect, but pretty close to it.  I myself can already think of a few games that would get a 10 out of me, like Metal Gear Solid 3, which I could give a 10 to without flinching.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In number scaling, 10/10 has always meant perfect. People are just making up their own shit now.

That logic can be applied to simple data, i.e., if 10 criteria has to be met in something. That's not what we're talking about - we're talking about reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In number scaling, 10/10 has always meant perfect. People are just making up their own shit now.

No it has not. Getting an A or an A+ in school does not mean you wrote the "perfect" essay/whatever. It means what you delivered had so few errors and/or flaws that it didn't take away from the overall experience/work. This is exactly the same as a game getting a 10/10.

What if you use a 5 scale? Should no game ever get a 5/5? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why people think perfection is unachievable.  I don't think Mirror's Edge has any flaws, but I'd only give it an 8/10 because of subjective factors; it doesn't personally click with me enough that I want to go back and play it again.  I think it's possible for a less perfect game to be better than a more perfect one, simply because the high points transcend the flaws.  In fact that's the test with me for when I've found a truly great game, one that makes me replay it (and it isn't multiplayer), very few fames have done that.

I would never rate a game 10/10 unless it's impossible to imagine a better game of its class AND has no flaws that I can point to AND that appeals to me on a personal level to a degree that I want to revisit it.  I've never rated a game above a 9.5, even my favourites of all time.

I always scoff when I see a row of 10/10's for a video game, rather than intrigue me it makes the cynic in me assume that its fanboys gushing over something when they haven't the experience or frame of reference to know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why people think perfection is unachievable.  I don't think Mirror's Edge has any flaws, but I'd only give it an 8/10 because of subjective factors; it doesn't personally click with me enough that I want to go back and play it again.  I think it's possible for a less perfect game to be better than a more perfect one, simply because the high points transcend the flaws.  In fact that's the test with me for when I've found a truly great game, one that makes me replay it (and it isn't multiplayer), very few fames have done that.

I would never rate a game 10/10 unless it's impossible to imagine a better game of its class AND has no flaws that I can point to AND that appeals to me on a personal level to a degree that I want to revisit it.  I've never rated a game above a 9.5, even my favourites of all time.

I always scoff when I see a row of 10/10's for a video game, rather than intrigue me it makes the cynic in me assume that its fanboys gushing over something when they haven't the experience or frame of reference to know better.

Well, being flawless isn't quite the same thing as being perfect. I haven't played Mirror's Edge, so I can't really speak for that game specifically, but pretty much all of the games in the list I linked are fairly easy to find flaws in. Yet all of them are generally seen as being among the greatest games of all time. Flaws also are subjective to a degree (or at least some of them are). Additionally, I agree that it is entirely possible for a game with more obvious flaws to be better than one with less flaws (Deus Ex, anyone?).

Also, wouldn't a "a better game of its class" also mean getting rid of the flaws the game has? I doubt there is any game or even any piece of art ever where it's impossible to imagine any improvements which could be made, and if there is, it's probably also very simple. Subjectivity is also a huge factor once again.

(Something tells me this post was poorly structured. Apologies if it is.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 out of 10 = 100% which means perfect/complete via math.

It doesn't matter what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have turned THEIR ratings systems into over the past 50+ years. You can't beat math.

If anyone can logically prove to me that 100% doesn't mean perfect/complete/THE BEST then go for it, and if you do, I'm wrong.

If not, you can't disagree unless you literally want to rewrite mathematics for the purposes of reviews - which IS what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have been doing for some 50+ years for attention/drama/personal gain and NOT for the benefit of those who read their reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 out of 10 = 100% which means perfect/complete via math.

It doesn't matter what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have turned THEIR ratings systems into over the past 50+ years. You can't beat math.

If anyone can logically prove to me that 100% doesn't mean perfect/complete/THE BEST then go for it, and if you do, I'm wrong.

If not, you can't disagree unless you literally want to rewrite mathematics for the purposes of reviews - which IS what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have been doing for some 50+ years for attention/drama/personal gain and NOT for the benefit of those who read their reviews.

I'll prove it. By going to a 110%! Lol. JK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 out of 10 = 100% which means perfect/complete via math.

It doesn't matter what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have turned THEIR ratings systems into over the past 50+ years. You can't beat math.

If anyone can logically prove to me that 100% doesn't mean perfect/complete/THE BEST then go for it, and if you do, I'm wrong.

If not, you can't disagree unless you literally want to rewrite mathematics for the purposes of reviews - which IS what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have been doing for some 50+ years for attention/drama/personal gain and NOT for the benefit of those who read their reviews.

I believe that when a reviewer gives a game a 10/10, the reviewer isn't saying the game is flawless. The reviewer is probably saying "you should definitely play this game". A low score, i.e. 3/10, would have the message of "avoid this game". There will always be flaws to a game. Like people said, it is impossible to make a perfect game. Journalists realize this, so their reviews are simple suggestions as to whether it's worth buying the game. 

tl;dr 10/10 scores mean that gamers should play those games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that when a reviewer gives a game a 10/10, the reviewer isn't saying the game is flawless. The reviewer is probably saying "you should definitely play this game". A low score, i.e. 3/10, would have the message of "avoid this game". There will always be flaws to a game. Like people said, it is impossible to make a perfect game. Journalists realize this, so their reviews are simple suggestions as to whether it's worth buying the game. 

tl;dr 10/10 scores mean that gamers should play those games.

No, saying "you should play this game" means YOU SHOULD PLAY THIS GAME. Not 10 out of 10. Math does not lie.

One day there may be a game that is perfect. Just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it won't exist. But if you don't have a rating for perfect then the entire rating system is worthless, because you don't have an ideal to work towards. Giving an imperfect game a perfect score is dishonest, and frankly unprofessional.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might end up being a long one, so I apologize if it is. ><

10 out of 10 = 100% which means perfect/complete via math.

Yes, via maths. Which is data that can be quantified. An obvious example being a school quiz or something. You have, let's say, 10 questions, with simple correct/incorrect Boolean outcomes. Getting all 10 answers correct would mean 100%, of course.

So, with that in mind, try applying that to a review. A review of anything - a game, a book, an album, even a freaking restaurant. What data exists here that can be simply and objectively quantified to determine the overall quality of whatever it is? You could come up with a variety of criteria and judge whether it is or isn't the case, I suppose, but that's going to be completely limited in scope and very, very subjective. Let's say you did that, and then after that people started finding over perceived positive and negatives (which would also be incredibly subjective) after the fact. Then you'd start having to both add and deduct points after the fact.

The point is, the quality of an art work or product is not the sort of data that can be quantified, it is qualitative data, and as such, is far too complex and offers far too many factors to objectively apply to the same logic as quantitative data.

It doesn't matter what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have turned THEIR ratings systems into over the past 50+ years. You can't beat math.

It never turned into anything. Reviews have always been an analysis of an art work/product, and a final opinion of its quality and a recommendation based on the analysis. I'm not sure when review scores first started showing up, but it has never been possible to grade qualitative data in that way. However, it is much simpler to give a general impression of how much a person recommends something with a number than it is to say "This game is good but it has some flaws, so here's an arbitrary number rating.". The substance of reviews has always been within the text itself - reviews are an extension of criticism, essentially.

If anyone can logically prove to me that 100% doesn't mean perfect/complete/THE BEST then go for it, and if you do, I'm wrong.

Well, firstly, let's think up another simple analogy. Let's say you need 10 people to help you build some kind of construction project. You need 100% of what you need to be able to continue, which would mean a complete group in this case. So you get all of the people you need, but suddenly, two more people volunteer to help you. Now you have 120% of the amount you need. However, the two extra people allows you to complete it even quicker and more efficiently, which is, evidently, better.

Look, this is a really simple analogy, but I'm sure you get the point. Saying that 100% is always the best is far too simple. Sometimes it simply means the minimum that is necessary, for instance. Hell, let's imagine a "perfect game" gets made at some point, and everyone gives it 10/10. Then, imagine if they made some excellent and free DLC for it that made it even better. I realize that's kind of an awkward scenario, but I'm sure you get where I'm going with this.

In the context of reviews, 100% means that the reviewer couldn't recommend it highly above. That means, as it is, it's a must-buy game. Nobody can say that a game is objectively 100% perfect, as I highlighted above.

which IS what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have been doing for some 50+ years for attention/drama/personal gain and NOT for the benefit of those who read their reviews.

Attention, drama and personal gain? Well, okay, the last one has been proved in the past somewhat due to the paid reviews debacle in the past (MGSV allegedly being a recent example), but the former 2? Firstly, that's a complete generalization, secondly, it's kind of rich coming from you. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing a source that 10/10 review scores were given for the purpose of causing drama and attention, if you have one.

No, saying "you should play this game" means YOU SHOULD PLAY THIS GAME. Not 10 out of 10. Math does not lie.

I'm not going to say that review scores aren't flawed. I would agree with the assessment that they are still slightly arbitrary and that the main substance of the reviews is in the text itself. However, I still think scores serve an important purpose, simply because people tend to pay more attention to scores. Review scores being a scale of how much the reviewer recommends the game makes far more sense than your "objective" scale, because it separates the qualitative data from the ultimately arbitrary number scores.

One day there may be a game that is perfect. Just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it won't exist. But if you don't have a rating for perfect then the entire rating system is worthless, because you don't have an ideal to work towards.

No. A game that's perfect? As in, objectively? Yeah, I don't think so. There's far too many factors for that to be the case, possibly more so than any other medium.

Just as a simple example, let's talk about game length. Let's say, a game was about 15 hours long. Some would be satisfied, but there would also be some that would say it's too short. Now, imagine if it was about 50 hours long. Then you'd have plenty of people saying it drags on and gets boring, along with plenty of people who simply wouldn't be able to get the most out of it due to a lack of time. Throw that in the cauldron, along with an astronomical amount of other factors, and you don't have to look far to see why that is, at the very least, ridiculously unlikely.

The substance of reviews, and of criticism, has always been in the qualitative, not the quantitative (and I'm starting to sound way to pretentious saying those words so often >-<).

Giving an imperfect game a perfect score is dishonest, and frankly unprofessional.

How? Most if not all professional reviewers that I've seen have sections or videos explaining how their scale works and what each scores mean. If people jump to conclusions, that's not really the fault of the reviewer unless they don't make it clear what their score means.

Man, I hope I got my point across. =/

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that if time weren't an issue, reviews without scores would be preferable to ones with scores. I've tried assigning numbers to certain games, but often, I feel that the number does no justice to my view. For instance, I've played many games with excellent gameplay, but horrid stories and voice-acting. That doesn't mean I would give those games middle-of-the-road scores. The gameplay was such a delight that the half-baked story was no inconvenience, so I wouldn't want to mislead the reader with a score like a 6.

The more points you have on your review scale, the more I suspect that it doesn't make sense. The worst offenders are sites like IGN that have an 100-point scale, as if they can clearly differentiate the 8.8's from the 8.9's. IGN flat-out admitted that they reverted to this system so that fans could have an easier time comparing their games. In other words, they're pandering to the dick-measurers who would rather dispute the difference of one tenth instead of intelligently discussing the pros and cons of each game. 

That being said, I recognize that consumers value time-saving measures, so I must uneasily make space for numerical scores and review aggregates like Metacritic. I think the most acceptable rating systems are the minimalist ones. 4 and 5-point scales are fine. A 10-point scale is stretching it a little. You might try to justify it like so:

10 - This is a must-play if you're a fan of the genre. It's often considered ground-breaking and/or highly polished.

9-8 - This is a top-tier experience with slight flaws holding it back.

7-6 - The game is not shockingly bad but not exceptional either, it tends to play it safe.

5 - This game may have niche appeal for fans of the genre, but it comes with significant flaws. 

4-3 - The game may express a few interesting concepts, but the cons outweigh the pros. 

2-1 - This game is trash to be avoided. 

Notice that I'm stretching it by assigning two numbers to each description, with the exception of 10 and 5. Any scale more detailed than that starts getting suspect. There's no reasonable way that you can describe all the qualitative differences in the 100-point scale. 

10 out of 10 = 100% which means perfect/complete via math.

It doesn't matter what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have turned THEIR ratings systems into over the past 50+ years. You can't beat math.

If anyone can logically prove to me that 100% doesn't mean perfect/complete/THE BEST then go for it, and if you do, I'm wrong.

If not, you can't disagree unless you literally want to rewrite mathematics for the purposes of reviews - which IS what sensationalist/mainstream reviewers have been doing for some 50+ years for attention/drama/personal gain and NOT for the benefit of those who read their reviews.

First of all, game reviewers haven't warped the art of criticism by allowing games to achieve the highest score on their scale. This is an older practice in film criticism. Take Roger Ebert, for instance. When he gave a film four stars, he didn't mean there was no conceivable way the film could be improved, just that it was an outstanding film of its type. He had a simple system where the number of stars represented degrees on an approval/disapproval scale, not one where he was trying to be sensationalist with four-star reviews. 

As Spectre mentioned, it doesn't make much sense to equate your opinions of a game with perfect math. You should instead think of the numbers as stand-ins for broad descriptions of quality, as mentioned when I described a 10-point scale. So the numbers may be misleading. You can use any symbol you want: stars, guns, dildos, etc. 

Spectre also mentioned how game reviews aren't the same as school quizzes, and I agree with that comparison. With quizzes, you can afford to give precise scores because each question tests a little bit of your knowledge, and you can mark questions right or wrong in a more or less objective way. But game reviewing isn't the equivalent of marking a question wrong because it stated the wrong historical figure. You're assigning weight to various aspects of a game, such as music, story, graphics, gameplay, and lasting appeal. One problem should be immediately apparent: how much weight should you assign for each category? Is there a perfect formula for this, one that should be shared by all reviewers? What about games that excel brilliantly in some areas but are lackluster in others? I've already mentioned games that have excellent gameplay but a poor story. Would a grade of 7 do justice to the fact that this game has revolutionary, must-play combat but a poor story? 

For instance, one of my favorite games of all time is Devil May Cry 3. The combat system of that game is so intricate that players are still creating combo montages to this day, showing off novel tactics and discoveries. But I understand that not every player has a desire to get all S-ranks on Dante Must Die mode. Also, not every player appreciates difficulty. How do I be objective about this? Do I score lower based on what the average player would believe, or do I score high because I know the game is fantastically deep and rewarding for those willing to delve into the combat system? Do I strive for a middle ground between these two mindsets? If so, how do I know if that middle ground is a 7 or 8, much less a 7.5?

No matter how you slice it, difficulty is one of those grey areas of game reviewing. Whether or not you dock off points for difficulty may depend on how much of it you can tolerate, so it's not a completely objective calculation, you're making a value judgment. And such value judgments are everywhere in game reviewing. Spectre already mentioned the problem of campaign length--there can be disagreement about a campaign being too short, just right, or dragging on too long. Another grey area is music. Chrono Trigger has one of my favorite game soundtracks of all time. Should musical enjoyment factor into the final score? Many game critics would say yes, but I can't say that every gamer will objectively agree with my musical taste. Yet another grey area is a mechanic like regenerating health. Some critics would say that a modern shooting game that doesn't have this mechanic is behind the times. Other critics might say that its absence is a plus because too many shooting games rely on that crutch. This one forces you to plan out your tactics instead of rushing in gung-ho, and increases your tension and fear of being killed. Is one of these reviewers objectively wrong, or is it the mere expression of preference?

Still, I'm not saying that anything goes with game reviews. If the game has several game-breaking bugs, that's one fair reason to dock points off a game score. And you have to consider whether the game meets the goals of its genre. For instance, a stealth game with little tactical freedom goes against one of the strong points of the genre.  

No, saying "you should play this game" means YOU SHOULD PLAY THIS GAME. Not 10 out of 10. Math does not lie.

One day there may be a game that is perfect. Just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it won't exist. But if you don't have a rating for perfect then the entire rating system is worthless, because you don't have an ideal to work towards. Giving an imperfect game a perfect score is dishonest, and frankly unprofessional.

I've already described how a reviewer might justify a 10 above, and what might distinguish it from a 9.

You say that just because a perfect game doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it will never exist. To that I ask: if no game in the history of gaming has yet succeeded in being perfect, what would a game have to do to be considered perfect? Would it be a game where you could imagine absolutely no improvements? I highly doubt that such a game would be bug-free, as games these days are so complex that it's practically impossible for testers to catch everything. Name any current-gen game, and I'll bet you can find Youtube videos showing bugs in the final product. GTA5 is a prime example. That game had an enormous budget, but the testers were never going to be able to catch every bug. Asking for a bug-free sandbox game is like asking for a shooting game without projectiles. It comes with the territory, sandbox games are too complex to check for every anomaly. Many gamers even consider the bugs to be part of the fun. But does that mean a sandbox game will never be a 10 because its inherently flawed?

If you're waiting for a bug-free game that has perfect gameplay, you have to be prepared for the possibility that it may never appear. Critics realized this problem long ago, so instead of having a number on their scale that may never be used, many of them used 10's to symbolize their highest esteem, not perfection. 

The lack of a score that correlates to 100% or "flawlessness" is also a note of humility. It's well-documented in psychology that people demonstrate all sorts of unconscious biases, so asking for perfect objectivity in highly subjective experiences like game enjoyment is a pipe dream. I'd be suspicious of anyone who claims perfect objectivity in this area. 

Edited by KingBunghole
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×