Perfect Game Scores - Where to next?

tehNihilist

tehNihilist

New member
So yeah, I have been noticing for a long time now, rating scores for many games are creeping higher and higher. It has finally gotten to a point that I wonder: Where to from the perfect score?

Will reviewers start rating games over their rating systems? 120%!! -- 12/10!!! Will they make new rating system?
 
I think the only solution to the perfect scoring system thing is that games are reviewed and dated, ie 9/10 Q2 2010
At least that way you know that in Q2 it was reviewed and performed well, but it might not be as great when rated a year later in Q2 2010
 
OmegaFenix22 said:
Did you read: The Perfect Score Myth

I have often wondered the same thing.
Click to expand...

After reading that I am 100% (hah!) in agreement.

Lately seeing all these insanely high scores is just freaking me out some! I am just wondering where do they go to from here? Will they suddenly give a large portion of games 100% (which will quickly mean nothing)? Or will they suddenly go higher in jest, then it becomes the norm?

To me it seem that high production values and hype are driving those numbers ever higher. Not to mention perhaps some 'nudging' from certain publishers to look favourably on titles.
 
Last edited:
Yes, see the thing is obviously publishers want their games to be rated well, games that are reviewd and get mediocre scores simply do not do as well.
What confuses users though is the fact that there are literally 100 titles taht each scores 98% or higher.
I think the Timestamp mechanism is the only real way to still be able to rate games as highly and still remain informative enough for buyers to use as a guideline for purchasing games.
Otherwise, and this has happened before, buyers simply buy a game that rated 100% two years ago, whcih while in essence stil lmight be a very good game, can't really be compared to the latest titles
 
Personally, I think it's just bad journalism really. I mean granted everyone's taste differs and that's what make life so interesting. And yes, some games are truly epic and deserve high marks, but when reviewers/journo's start giving everything high marks, it is either bad journalism or something shady going on... I wouldn't put it past developers/publishers etc to be involved in giving handouts for favorable reviews in order to generate more sales.

I refuse to believe though that every game coming out these days is deservant of the high scores, even the titles expected to be so. Just because it is a film written by say George Lucas, directed by Steven Speilberg and has A-list Hollywood actors etc etc, doesn't automatically make it great. This has happened in many movies before and also in gaming, but people get swept up in the emotion etc and gush.

I also think a game when just released should be reviewed and then reviewed a month later so the reviewer has calmed down and can get a realistic look at the game. To notice all the small irritations that were overlooked in the hype and excitement in the new game.

I also think the rating systems of games should be reviewed. Yes graphics, sound, playability, controls are all important, but what about things like long loading times, or patches 23 seconds after release or glitchy menu systems etc? I think too many reviewers skip over these things in the haste to be the first out with a review.
 
I think the problem lies not only with those reviewing it but more with those reading the reviews. Too many consumers simply look at the score and expect to be enlightened as to whether or not the game is any good, skipping though most of the written word where the true details of the game lie. Read most good reviews and without looking at the score and you will be able to tell if the game is any good or not.
 
I will also say this, that even though a game doesn't deserve a 100% reward, it can still be perfect to an individual despite it's flaws.
 
I am enjoying what people are saying on this topic immensely so far. I like the idea maybe of time-stamping Xero, but most reviews have a date next to them so I am not sure what the point would be.

I mentioned, and I see no one has given a solid answer to this - We are seeing more scores rise and rise, so what will happen? Will we start seeing game scores over 100% sooner than later ? Do they then lose their impact? "Pfft 100% again!? Wateva..." or "Gawd, not another 10/10. Sigh"

DenSweeP said:
I will also say this, that even though a game doesn't deserve a 100% reward, it can still be perfect to an individual despite it's flaws.
Click to expand...

Yup I was thinking the same thing. Maybe games need a technical score which encompasses it as a product, and then a personal score. These should be kept very separate I think.
 
So nobody's mentioned that as quickly as people get all up in their bitch about 10/10 scores, they're just as quick to do so over 6/10 scores? I'll mention it.

Back back to the perfect scores thing, I do think there's some relativity here. I mean, Hypothetical Reviewer plays X, loves it, awards it 9/10. Then some months later, Hypothetical Reviewer plays Y, and it's even better than X. Where to from 9? It's not that X is, by comparison, any poorer than previously, but that Y is simply superior in some way.
 
Xerowing said:
I think the only solution to the perfect scoring system thing is that games are reviewed and dated, ie 9/10 Q2 2010
At least that way you know that in Q2 it was reviewed and performed well, but it might not be as great when rated a year later in Q2 2010
Click to expand...

I think that quarters may be a bit extreme, but it does pose an interesting question, are games getting better over time? Do SUPER HD GAMES TM deserve better scores than older games?
 
With all these crazy scores popping out all over the place I am rapidly losing trust in reviewing.

These days I find myself having to trudge through forums, trying to get a better idea of a game. That however is not without its issues... shudder... But I am working out a system:

Skip short posts, skip posts with horrendous spelling / grammar/ punctuation / numerous LOL's, smiley faces and exclamation marks, and then any fanboy / hating posts - these examples constitutes the vast majority sadly.

Also I do not think the technical aspects of a product (game) should be too relative. While there are certainly elements within gaming that are, I think there are watermarks to judge things by. These standards will shift over time, but they are there. Once reviewer X and Y think more and more games are 9/10 worthy for whatever reasons, then where does that leave the consumer? Sure the reviewers may feel that way, but it is a flawed system. The system needs a reboot!

I agree with you Tarryn people seem to moan no matter what, but most of it is lacking in critical thought and are very base reactions. They will moan for 6/10 just as for 10/10, but the industry needs to try and listen to the segment (usually informed minority) that has put some real thinking into it and are not just simple consumers. But perhaps that is a contradiction to their business model hmm...

I am just getting worried maybe that gaming has gotten too big. I know there are certainly benefits, but the downsides are getting me down something wicked recently. It's like the industry is heading towards a collapse and reset.

Once we get to a point where we see high scores all the time then what? I know I am seeing tons of them more often, and I am find it hard to decide on the worth of a game based off them.
 
Last edited:
For whatever it's worth, I've a new policy of knocking 10 off all my scores. I'm aware of having gradually inflated scores myself over time, for no other apparent reason than keeping up with a general upward trend. THIS WILL NOT DO ANYMORE.

But just wait and see - it's only a matter of time until a bunch of angry people throw rocks at me for giving 80 or 85 to a ZOMGPERFECT game. *Cough* At least I don't review PS3 games, so I avoid most of that. *Cough*

:P
 
Read Dead Redemption is another of these titles at which's feet are being thrown near perfect scores of 96 or 98. From what I've seen I wouldn't have scored it higher than say 90. There is an obscene amount of bugs in it. AI not switching to active, or rapidly switching between Active and In-active. Getting stuck in terrain. If this had come from say.... GSC Gameworlds (STALKER) reviewers would be flaming it for its bugs, yet here it is all forgiven. Dont get me wrong the game is awesome but you dont give something a perfect score which clearly is NOT perfect.
 
Well Azimuth mentioned the upwards trend in reviewing, I think this has a rather large impact on reviewers as well
If everyone is reviewing a title at 98%, being the odd one out scoring it at 76% for instance is risky, not only for the reviewer in terms of reputation, but also for the publication the reviewer is writing for.
 
In my mind, There still hasn't been a perfect game, a game that truly deserved a 100/100 rating. Gears of war came close I must admit.
When buying games I don't check up on what the game scored during reviews, I tend to listen to what people are saying on here and see whether it draws my attention. Besides I think we all have games we are looking forward to, whether it scores well or not will not change your mind about the purchase of the game n question.
 
I tend to focus more on the content of the review rather than the review score. This way I can make a much more informed decision about whether the game is good enough to buy or not. I've learned to almost ignore review scores at this point since they are almost meaningless.
 
I try to stick to word of mouth or common sense in most cases but then I eventually get pulled into the fact that it has some cool feature that sounds like it might be fun, jetpack, lazer pistol that repeat fires, enemies that dive ontop of nades, motion blur when cornering etc
I'm a junkie, hard to admit but it is the truth
I impulse buy 90% of the time, ooooh wait , Impulse cannons, goes out to search for Star Trek game
 
After reading all of this it would defiantly indicate something is very wrong with the scoring system and reviewing culture behind it. This here may just be a drop in the ocean, but I am convinced it is the tip of an very large and growing iceberg. Fewer people are trusting the system put in place to be largely objective and informative, and are now seeking other means for some uninfluenced information on their games.
 
Back in the day, if a game scored over 85% chances are that I would go out and buy it. Now, however, I'm sceptical even if it receives a score of 95%. This all happened recently when I decided to dive back into my PS2 and engage in some good, classic games like Final Fantasy X, Person 4, GTA San Andreas, ICO and so forth and realised what kind of games are coming out today that would receive far lower scores if released on the PS2 or an older console with older graphics. I'm not saying that graphics seem to be playing around with review scores, although I think they still do, I think reviews just get a bit caught up in the "production values" of a game (Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 anyone?) rather than the depth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top