Using the perfect 10 in video game reviews

An interesting phenomenon occurs when a game, or any form of media really, is awarded a 10/10 score. There’s always a contingent of people that go beyond typical dissenters, haters if you would, ready to spitefully bash any game awarded said 10/10, possibly because they see it as an act of rebellion that will make them cooler in the eyes of their peers, or for some other deeply rooted psychological reason. They’re not the weird ones though, they’re just jerks The weird ones are the people that try to nonchalantly dismiss every 10/10 score because “it’s impossible to have a perfect game.”

[toddybad]

I prefer scores out of 100 as they allow reviewers to differentiate between games of similar quality that might score the same out of 10. Going back 20 years, a score of 80+ meant a game that was quality, 85+ was a game to buy, 90+ was an incredible game. Back then true classics scored about 93/100 and I had never seen a game above 95. Times were simpler though and you had very few places to get reviews and they were scored with love for the art.

Nowadays you have all sorts of reviews including some that are fanboys and others haters. These skew scores, as well as the industry being involved with reviews. Scores are hard to judge. You could use metacritic but if Horizon only scores 89% then I have no idea how a game scores above 90. BOTW - a game I haven't played only seen - seems to have scored virtually perfect scores everywhere but this is just ridiculous hyperbole. I'm sure it's good but come on!

Some reviewers score out of 4 FFS - how on earth can you discern between titles with a whole number score out of 4?

There are too many reviewers, not enough quality control of reviews and no real way for a gamer to discern whether a game is good or not until they find one or two reviewers that think like them. The industry has done everything to pervert reviewing by offering incentives and stopping reviews being released before the games.

I probably yearn for a simpler time that can't come back but gamers need a way to tell if a game is good or not, using a sensible scoring system, with no bias.

[PlebeGamer]

I used to believe in a 100 point scale, then one of my colleagues asked me to explain to him what makes the difference between a 96 and a 97, and asked if I could consistently make that call. I decided to use a 10 point system lol.

By using a 10 point system and a ranking, which orders games depending on your personal rank throughout the year, you can paint a better picture than arbitrarily doling out 1% differences.

[Rebel_Scum]

It's even worse when the differences get into 0.1 margins (which some people on this site have defended :/ )

A 100 point scale is pretty pointless and outdated tbh. A 10 point scale is ok, but if its out of 10 why not just make it out of 5? You don't really need more margin in a review score. All you really need to know is, is the game great, good, meh or absolute trash.

[PlebeGamer]

5 point scales are awkward because you have to go into half numbers to get to "average" scores, whether you use a 50% or 75% to indicate average. If you're going to offer half points, why not just use whole points on a 10 point scale instead?

[The 10th Rider]

As someone who judges at some sports tournaments, the extra points do make a difference. Oftentimes the first score you give out is a 'baseline' score and you use scores as a reference when scoring other performances. If you score Performance A a 85/100 and Performance B is slightly better, than you use your previous scores as a reference and Performance B may get a 87/100 or so. When dealing with even whole point 1-10 scale, there's no subtle nuance that allows you to show such a difference.

That's not to say everyone uses it that way, but that's the way a 1-100 scale should be used.

It's like when people ask if we even need reviewers anymore. Both reviewers and 1-100 point scales have their uses. Reviewers should be doing their best to provide the least subjective look at the positives and negatives of a game that they possibly can. If reviewers are doing that, then reviews can be helpful. However since the internet allows everyone to be a critic and post their thoughts online, reviews are plagued by opinion and often blinded by hype and fanboyism. Even most 'professional' gaming website don't actually have critics with related degrees or experience.

[thorstein]

Then let's use a 100,000 pt scale to delineate between them.lol

[The 10th Rider]

@thorstein,

Why? That's just needless.

Here's an example: If I'm using a five point scale and I think Persona 5 is a fantastic game, but not perfect, I'd give it an 4/5. On the flipside, Little Nightmares is a great game, but isn't quite perfect so I give it a 4/5. However I, and I'm sure most others, don't think Little Nightmares is as good of a game as Persona 5. Using a 1-10 scale gives a bit more room in differentiating, 1-100 gives even more. Anything above that really is needless. If 1-100 is too much they should at least be going for a scale that's 1/1.5/2/2.5/3/3.5 . . . 9.5/10.

I'm actually in favor of two separate "scores" being given. A reviewer could rate how much they enjoyed a game (hated it/didn't enjoy it/meh/liked it/loved it) and rate the technical aspects, such as graphics, frame rate, bugs, controls, gameplay systems, camera, game length, story, menu navigation, etc (unplayable/playable, but serious issues/issues, but none game-breaking/minor issues/flawless). These two scores could then be added together and the third digit could be based on reviewer discretion.

For example, the end of a Star Fox Zero review may say the reviewer liked the game (4/5 in enjoyability) and that it was playable, but had serious issues (2/5 for technical aspects), so the final score might be 72, with the 2 being awarded at the reviewer's discretion. Both Zelda and Horizon would fall under "loved it" (5/5) and "minor issues" (4/5) and the final points would be awarded at the reviewer's discretion. All three scores would be shown at the end of the review, too.

I think that would help separate a reviewer's subjective opinion of the game from the objective qualities when reviewing games.

[thorstein]

@10th

Lol. it is right there at the end of my post. The problem of review scores is how they are taken.

A 4/5 is not the same as an 8/10 nor an 80/100. But that is how metacritic scores it.

As for critics and reviewers, they really mean nothing and gamers, movie makers, anyone who creates art have shown they really don't matter. Neither do their scores.

Scores make no sense...at all. You can't put a score on art because it is subjective. I would even say scores detract from a critique.

I mean, you wouldn't say the Mona Lisa is a 9 but The Scream is only and 8. It doesn't make sense.

[Glak18]

@Rebel_Scum

Actually agree with what you are saying.

Reviews are getting more and more complicated. While also getting more and more bias. Basic review scores with a side of opinion, not the other way around.

5 - MUST play, full price purchase
4 - Enjoyable play, worth full price better with discount
3 - Play during a game drought, half off discount
2 - Play at your own risk, super high discount
1 - Avoid, save time and money

[thorstein]

Nice article. Well written and thought out.

[Dan_scruggs]

N4G rules for the perfect 10

If a Sony game like Uncharted 4 or the Last of us gets a perfect 10 its because its an amazing game that fully deserves it.

If Nintendo releases a game and it gets a perfect 10 its because they paid people off or they were blinded by nostalgia.

In a Microsoft game gets a perfect 10 I walk to the window to watch the pigs fly by.

[Gemmol]

Lol

[harikaerif]

Wow you only got 1 downvote. I'm... surprised.

[Sono421]

If you think Breath of the Wild is a perfect 10 it is either the first Zelda game you played or the first game you've ever played period. Even take away the fact that it doesn't measure up to other Zelda games it still isn't a perfect 10 with it's many flaws, such as frame rate drops/freezes in docked mode, the short load distance (Making the zoom in feature with your tablet useless as you try to zoom in to decide which route you want to take and look for what seems most interesting but a multitude of things you might look for don't load in until you are but 10 feet away even though you would expect them to load in while looking through your tablet but they don't) or the fact that no real challenge presents itself throughout the entire game, the only real "challenge" is trying not to be frustrated by the amount of times your weapon breaks mid combat, or you going and wasting perfectly good weapons to fight through 6-8 enemies for the chest that's behind them to simply give you opal or 5 arrows. Or to mention that they introduce all of these food variations but due to you receiving

[Sono421]

Please ignore this comment accidentally posted in mid sentence.

[Sono421]

If you think Breath of the Wild is a perfect 10 it is either the first Zelda game you played or the first game you've ever played period. Even take away the fact that it doesn't measure up to other Zelda games it still isn't a perfect 10 with it's many flaws, such as frame rate drops/freezes in docked mode, the short load distance (Making the zoom in feature with your tablet useless as you try to zoom in to decide which route you want to take and look for what seems most interesting but a multitude of things you might look for don't load in until you are but 10 feet away even though you would expect them to load in while looking through your tablet but they don't) or the fact that no real challenge presents itself throughout the entire game, the only real "challenge" is trying not to be frustrated by the amount of times your weapon breaks mid combat, or you going and wasting perfectly good weapons to fight through 6-8 enemies for the chest that's behind them to simply give you opal or 5 arrows. Or to mention that they introduce all of these food variations but due to you receiving gear almost immediately that helps you deal with all climates you now only care about half of the food variations and the rest are useless. (ie heat/ resistant) Then even the ones you should care about (Combat boost and defense boost) You end up not caring about because the game is just so easy. The entire game feels like it was made so literally anyone could beat it with little to no effort, same goes for the shrines and divine beasts all very simplistic easy to figure out puzzles no real challenge or critical thinking involved. The game offers no real pay off, at least in the old Zelda's you got equipment which was always nice as it could let you go to previous areas and do something you couldn't do before, there is none of that in this game.. the only real unlocks you get are the powers from the divine beasts.. and only two of them are actually interesting but still don't offer nearly as much of a pay off as equipment. The gale you get that thrusts you into the air is the best one, as it helps you avoid climbing alot, second is the electricity, as it helps give you a better sense that you are actually stronger than when you started, but the 3 free defense blocks from the gorons and mipha's grace.. are just pitiful handicaps. They offer nothing other than to make the game even easier than it already is, obviously the same can be said for the electricity power you get but at least that offers a sense of power, these simply just give you some freebies. The main useful thing in this game is inventory increase and that is the most pain in the a** thing to do, the amount of korok seeds you need to increase your inventory grows so fast it is ridiculous, which is the one thing that should come easy as you need to horde as many weapons as you can to make the game a little less irritating. Not to mention your horse almost becomes entirely useless once you get to all of the towers.. you simply fast travel... everywhere.. I completely abandoned my horse less than half way through the game.. it is a bigger pain to go and track down your horse or go to a stable than to just fast travel to the closest spot of where you want to go. I would actually love for people to explain thoroughly what this game does right that makes it so great.. tell me what should make this game even be above a 75. This game is so average and I feel like it is simply getting the Nintendo pass because of nostalgia goggles. Now don't even try to just label me a hater like you try to do all other criticism because I am a Nintendo fan, but I am not a blind fanboy.

[PlebeGamer]

BotW gets a 10/10 because it has the most interactive open world ever created. Everyone thought Nintendo would finally join the big boys in open world game design, but Nintendo ended up creating a world that's two generations ahead of anything Western AAA devs will produce in the next few years.

It's the least forgiving Zelda by far.

The physics based puzzles actually let players solve puzzles that are more complex than "SHOOT THIS SUPER OBVIOUS EYE SHAPED MARK WITH YOUR POINTY BOW AND ARROWS!!!1!!!" Instead of game logic, the game runs on common sense. If you need a metal object to close an electrical circuit, you can just skip the puzzle by smartly using a metal chest to conduct the electricity. That never would have worked in any other game ever, because game logic says chests are a baked in part of the landscape.

You're not supposed to horde weapons, you're supposed to use what's available to you and constantly be on the prowl for new resources.

The Hero powers can be turned off, unless you need them. It's not the game's fault you play in easy mode.

The different foods and equipments can be mixed and matched to great effect. If you have good armor augments, why wouldn't you use a resistance food? Some sets have up to +80% damage for certain weapon types when wearing all 3 upgraded pieces.

Finally, exploring the world itself is just fun.

[Sono421]

@PlebeGamer Please stop with the hype words and use actual instances (Like I did) to back up your claims. What makes this world so interactive? The NPC's? The Shrines? The enemies? The quests? What is it? Because nothing about this open world is anything new.. unless you think wind blowing stuff is new.. unless you think setting fire to grass is new. You go on about phyisics in shrines but that has been done in many games before including other Zelda games.. so you are either uneducated or blind. Also none of the puzzles are complex.. if you find them complex than well.. okay. I just find it ironic you use "SHOOT THIS SUPER OBVIOUS EYE SHAPED MARK WITH YOUR POINTY BOW AND ARROWS!!!1!!!" even though they do this in this game.. oh the irony.

Also why not horde your weapons? Maybe you found the game to be challenging because you didn't make smart moves like hording your weapons.. obviously you save your strong weapons for stronger enemies and use all of your weak pointless weapons on the pointless enemies.. which in turn give you pointless rewards.. so in all reality you might as well just avoid them all together.

Lastly obviously you can mix and match? I feel like that goes without saying? What point are you proving? That you can make the game even easier yet? Also yes I know you can do more damage with certain sets? I am complaining that the game is already too easy and yet you bring up another thing to make it even easier? Are you just trying to help me prove my point?

One last thing... you say the world is fun to explore.. but what do you discover when you explore? Please do tell... what do you discover that isn't just more of the same? The most interesting thing in my opinion that you can discover is the house you can buy but that basically only serves as a place to store 3 swords, 3 shields, and 3 bows.. very lackluster. You can't even fast travel to it let alone have something on the map that says it's your house.. you can put a stamp on it.. but that's it.

People like you try to make Zelda Breath of the Wild seem like some revolutionary game with all these hype words but have no actual instances or examples to back up these claims.. but please.. give a rebuttal.

[PlebeGamer]

@Sono421 Since you kindly sent me a message begging to respond to your rude comment, I will do so.

What makes the world more interactive than any other is the fact it's more interactive than any other. That's not a "hype word," it's a word. Find a dictionary if you need to look it up. I'll do my best to break it down for you though: There's an endless list of possibilities when it comes to how players can approach each encounter.

Here's one common situation, and tons of ways to handle it differently:

Upon finding an enemy camp plays can:

1) Run in swinging.
2) Sneak in, steal the enemy's weapons, then murder them with their own weapons.
3) Set up camp, wait for the enemies to fall asleep, sneak in, and assassinate them in their sleep.
4) Ignite explosive barrels and blow them to kingdom come.
5) Disguise Link as one of them, distract them with gifts of food, and murder them while they're distracted.
6) Set fire to the area and burn enemies to death.
7) Cut down, stop time, hit it repeatedly with a hammer, and launch it into their base as a projectile.
8) Use Octorok balloons and a korok leaf to make elementally charged ChuChu Jellies float into their base, shoot the chu chu jellies to ravage all present.
9) Construct a catapult with a sheet of metal and a spare treasure chest, Launch link into the air by using magnesis to drop something heavy onto the other side, rain bowmbs and arrows from the skies like a vengeful hylian angel of wrath.
10) Lure the enemies into the woods, disguise Link as one of their own kind, create a pile of food and fire type chu chu jelly, and cut down a tree so that it falls on the enemies and chuchu jelly, causing an explosion that also sets fire to the forest and burns any survivors

The list is endless. And that's just combat, it doesn't take into consideration the little touches, like ice weapons cooling you in the heat, or apples falling from trees when you hit them with a hammer, making projectiles out of apples, enemies being distracted by animals, etc.

You don't have to horde weapons, if you're good you'll eventually build up an arsenal that's constantly overstocked just from casual playing. Going out of your way to horde is just sad,especially once you can find amazing weapons at will.

As for the mix and match thing, don't try and change the subject to build another argument, just admit you were wrong and take that L with dignity. We all saw you try and say climate resist food was useless because you didn't know it was possible and/or better to use climate food and good armor.

One game doesn't have to appeal to every person, and this is why you don't enjoy the exploration. Many of use like discovering hidden areas and treasure, even if the treasure itself is no longer as useful as it once was. The act of exploration and discovery is the reward itself, not what's in the treasure chest. If that doesn't appeal to you that's fine, but you not liking exploration doesn't cheapen the experience at all for those of us that do..

[KimikoGaming]

I prefer scales along the line of "buy it, wait for a sale, try it, don't touch it, etc." Sure, it doesn't have a "definitive" score, but it allows things like personal preference to affect the review score in a more constructive way.

I personally don't like numeric scales. It can be extremely difficult for a reviewer to consistently distinguish between small increments such as 90 and 91, 9.0 and 9.1, or 4.5 and 4.6. Also it results in a lot of backlash from the community. In today's day and age, people consider anything below an 8 as "bad" when in reality, scores in the 6-8 range generally mean the game is pretty decent as long as you are into that type of game. Numeric scales also mean that a 10/10 is defined as "perfect" when in reality, no game is perfect and all games have various things that can be improved.

Also, reviewers who give lower scores to games that have a higher average score end up getting a ton of undeserved flack from the community that can hurt them as a reviewer (such as Jimquisition giving Zelda: Breath of the Wild an 8 and dropping its average score. I'm not sorry for saying this, but Breath of the Wild DOES NOT deserve the 10's it is getting. It is an 8 at best). Not to mention you have various game companies who pay reviewers to give higher scores. I feel feel that would all be mostly avoided if most reviewers avoided the numerical scale.

[Glak18]

Never played a perfect 10 game in my life, that includes every single console exclusive ever made and thousands of PC games.

The problem is people go by different rules to judge games. A casual gamer will give a game a 10 because they enjoyed it. A Loyal Branding Warrior will give a game a 10 because they need their opinion validated, whereas the opposite can happen giving a game a low score.

Genre makes a big difference in scoring. People will always have their own specific preference and score accordingly. Personally I am not a fan of most Japanese inspired games, so my score will differ from someone who loves them.

Genre themes make another impact. Fantasy will always outscore Sci-Fi. Zelda is one of the most beloved series of all time, but it's story backdrop has always been as generic and bland as they come (Save princess and stop evil).

Zelda: Breath of the Wild is proof of a broken system. Is the game great and enjoyable? Well I enjoyed playing it and would recommend it. Is the game a 10 and/or one of the best games of all time? Not even close. There is no single aspect of the game that is unique, groundbreaking, perfect or industry changing.

Graphics: Obviously doesn't use modern tech, instead uses cel shading and soft shading for its art style. Not a new technique and is used to help performance of rendering.

Sound: Really good soundtrack, but game sounds are lacking a lot. Voice acting is far from bad, but could be much better.

Performance: Head scratcher [see graphics]. Incredibly disappointing, even after updated patch. 2017 and frame drops below 30 (Wii U and Switch). Sadly this occurs with a game that's not even graphically intensive. Could easily blame hardware, but good developers find ways to utilize the hardware they have available to them. All other games get hit hard on reviews because of this, Zelda gets a pass.

Story: Fantasy adventure. Very basic, absolutely been done over and over through out time.

Gameplay: Very good controls, most of the time. Open world, new for Nintendo and nothing new for everyone else, with a nice map size. Many collectibles, like most games nowadays. Lacks many basic RPG features compared to the standard modern games. Shops, crafting and inventory management which are entry level. Enjoyable dungeon puzzles and basic quests.

If Zelda: Breath of the Wild was renamed, changed recognizable aspects like names of characters and outfits and was sold on PC and other consoles...would it still be a 10?

Personally it wouldn't be rated a 10 five years ago, let alone a 10 this year.

EDIT:
Read article.
"10/10 games aren’t perfect, they’re just exceptionally awesome"
Zelda does't do one single thing exceptional.
Witcher 3 does a lot of exceptional things and I still wouldn't give that game a 10.

[rando]

all sony exclusives are 10/10 as far as i'm concerned.

[BrettAwesome]

Why not simply have a 5-10 scale? That's how it is anyway. 5 is horrible, 6 is shit, 7 might be ok, 8 is suddenly pretty good, 9 is awesome and 10 is Zelda. Everything below 5 is a fucking joke

[nitus10]

A 0-10 scale is still better with 5 being a mediocre game with anything less than 5 progressively worse and anything above 5 progressively good. The problem you have is that many critics score a mediocre game as 7 and that unfortunately skews the ratings.

When Zelda Breath of the Wild was being reviewed most critics gave the game 10/10 even though some pointed out some glaring issues which if the game or similar game had been on the other consoles or PC would have probably got an 7 to 9 out of 10 which if the critic's ratings were not skewed would still make for a recommended good game. Also comparing Zelda Breath of the Wild to Horizon Zero Dawn was a fanboy apple to oranges comparison.

[PlebeGamer]

A 5 used to be an average score, but games got better over time. Anyone can make a good game these day, but for can make a great game. Good has become average these days, but we haven't adjusted the numbers to account for that. We can't at this point, and we honestly shouldn't: Gamers have already made that move in their minds. Changing the system now just create more trouble than it's worth.