Every single gaming editorial publication is asked this at least once in their lifetime. Why did you give a perfect score to to a game with flaws? I was recently asked this question in my latest review for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D. It's a fair question and, in order to answer it, I need to get a little bit technical and philosophical at the same time.

A perfect game is not a flawless game. Negative World, like some other sites, has a review scale that goes from 0-10. If there is a game that is so terrible with absolutely no redeeming qualities (not even one), then I think it should deserve a big fat zero. However, if there is a game out there that does absolutely everything right, with maybe one or two meaningless wrinkles that are wholly overshadowed by the rest of the positives, then I don't see why I should deny the rarely given and elusive "Perfect Score." Like Anthony Burch once wrote (yes THAT Anthony Burch), "Perfection is an ideal, never to be practically reached by any art form at any time. That's just the way it works. With that in mind, why would you waste an entire point on the 1-10 grading scale by devoting it to something that can, by definition, never truly exist? Instead of calling 10/10 "perfect," why not just call it "will cure cancer"? They're both equally likely to happen within our lifetimes. To hold the 10/10 score back as an ideal for the perfect game, just in case it ever exists, is to degrade the entire 1-10 system into a 1-9.9 scale."

I feel that a "Perfect" game comes out maybe 1-2 times per system (sometimes 3 if we are lucky) , if that system has a lifetime of 4+ years. Let me list how many "perfect" scores there are per system, in my opinion.

NES: 1
Game Boy: 0
Game Boy Color: 0 For now. There are 4 games I want to play before making my final judgment.
Game Boy Advance: 1
SNES: 5 I find that the SNES constitutes the Golden Era of gaming.
N64: 2 And you already know one of them.
Game Cube: 1 and it's not Wind Waker or Super Mario Sunshine
DS: 2 and they are both remakes.
Wii: 1 I have to finish another game to see if it is worthy of a 10, but I'm not playing it soon.
3DS: 1 for now.

Game Gear: 0
Genesis: 0

PS1: 2
PS2: 0
PS3: 3
PSP: 0

XBOX: 0
XBOX 360: 2

If you look at other sites, you will see that, even though they have perfect scores in their review scales, they all agree that there is no such thing as a perfect game. I leave you with some examples:

Gamespot:
10.0: PrimeThis exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.

Nintendo World Report:
10 - We don't believe any game can actually be "perfect." But some can get pretty close. We give our highest grade to games which are the best of the best. Games that aren't necessarily "generation-defining" can still be given top marks for this reason; if a game is all it can be and stands out among those like it, it can get high marks, too.

Game Informer:
Outstanding: A truly elite title that is nearly perfect in every way. The score is given out rarely and and indicates a game that cannot be missed.

And my favorite definition of a "Perfect Game" goes to IGN:

IGN:
10.0 - Masterpiece
The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected.

Example: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

I would like to conclude the same way I began, just to hammer the point. A perfect game is not a flawless game.

URL to share (right click and copy)

@Xbob42

If thats all you're worried about, I'm pretty sure anything over an 8.5 will be safe for ya. How big is your scale though?

Like, I have a Serd-load of games. And I like to play ALL kinds of games, NOT just good ones (I even choked Metroid Prime 2!!, yech...). Like, I like Pipe Dream a lot, but I give it a 7.1. Would I like you to play it? Sure. How would I even additionally score that? Of course I'm going to tell you as much as I can to tell you to get it, it'd be a 10 every time. Unless its Warzone, and then I'd be like "...ehhhh, you can probably pass on that one.."


Back to everyome:
Do people [here] really use the scores [here] as a means of "what to buy next?"
Is anyone still shopping for Gamecube games? Early Wii games? Dare I say, N64 and beyond?

Posted by

Mr_Mustache

on: 07/22/11, 13:45

@Mr_Mustache I've actually been buying a lot of older games lately. Mostly portable stuff (GB/GBC/GBA), but that's just because my tastes tend to skew that way. But I'm sure people still buy GC and N64 games. I would if I had the time to play them. Been eyeing a couple of N64 gems I missed out on...

Posted by

rebonack

on: 07/22/11, 14:48

Mr_Mustache said:

@Xbob42

If thats all you're worried about, I'm pretty sure anything over an 8.5 will be safe for ya.

Right, but some games score much lower because they're technically inferior or maybe a reviewer thinks they need to score it lower because it tries something unusual. As it stands, I have to go as low as 6.5 to find games I could potentially like, because reviewers focus so much on scoring it like an Olympic committee. I'd like to be able to comfortable go as low as 7 or 7.5 and feel totally comfortable just going off of that. How I get a lot of my games that aren't well-known is by going through review after review, but I'd prefer to be able to use scores as an accurate measurement of whether a game is recommended.

I don't want to have to read every review to get a feel for the game, because reviews are long. I'd like scores to represent an experience moreso than the 'gameyness' of a game. Most of my collection isn't super-triple AAA titles scoring 8.5+ because I have a high tolerance for certain things that people knock points off for.

Posted by

Xbob42

on: 07/22/11, 15:18

Tl;dr but my thoughts are, what's the point of having a scoring system if a game can never get the top score? A 10/10 doesn't mean that the game has absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it just exemplifies that it is the cream of the crop, better than any game comparable to it, and likely will be for some time.

Posted by

PogueSquadron

on: 07/22/11, 19:27

I knew this topic would be a hotbed of activity. This board loves talkin' about scores.

A lot of games are 10s in my book. Basically, any super-solid game that I had a ton of fun and good memories with. Totally subjective. That's how I roll. Especially for older games that exist only in nostalgia-colored memories.

When I review games for NW, though, I try to consider the flaws and temper the 'gut reaction' thing a bit. But if the game is the top of its class, sure. 10. Why not? All of my favorite games are 10s in my book.

Can you guys think of any games that don't any flaws (as perceived by you)?

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/22/11, 19:54

Good question, Anand. There aren't many.

I think the basic design of Tetris is flawless. Most people would probably agree with that. It's hard to not give every well-done iteration of that game a 10.

EDIT: I can't think of any flaws in Super Mario Bros 3, unless "Moar Shoe!" counts as legitimate criticism.

Posted by

kriswright

on: 07/22/11, 20:03

Edited:

07/22/11, 20:14

Anand said:

I knew this topic would be a hotbed of activity. This board loves talkin' about scores.

Oh, Anand, you are wise beyond your years.

Which is impressive, considering!

Posted by

Guillaume

on: 07/22/11, 20:05

Srsly. But, mentally, I really haven't changed in any way since I was 8 years old. I used to be hella precocious. Now I'm just kinda creepy.

@kriswright
Tetris is pretty hard to argue with. Because it's so good AND it's so simple. How could they fuck up?

The Tetris Company found a way!

But, yeah, I do feel that smaller, more modest games almost belong in a different category.

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/22/11, 23:11

@Xbob42 I don't think most people here think they have to score games higher because of budget. This isn't um... the rest of the review industry.

@Anand Just as I don't think "flaws" should automatically pull a score down, I don't think lack of flaws should automatically prop it up. I tend to save my best scores for games that have a huge scope, as opposed to tight little packages that are fun and all but don't really reach far. And when I say huge scope I don't mean "epic" or story or whatever, just... like a Super Mario game has a huge scope next to a BIT.TRIP game.

Posted by

Zero

on: 07/22/11, 23:20

Edited:

07/22/11, 23:23

So a perfectly-formed game with a small scope doesn't deserve a perfect score? The scores from those two levels of gaming probably shouldn't be compared, but I don't think money or scope should enter into a score. If you want to have an extra 'value' function, then include that.

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/22/11, 23:27

In theory a small scope game may come along that can touch something like Link to the Past or Super Mario Brothers 3, but I really doubt it. Those are like... life-changing games. And they are such because they reached far beyond what they should have, and still hit the mark anyway. A game with a small scope often has the advantage of being so tight that larger scope games can't match it. But then, some larger scope games do match it, and those tend to become the lifelong classics.

Money matters too, it has to. Otherwise how could you reasonably score a short $10 WiiWare platformer next to a NSMBW or a DKCR?

Posted by

Zero

on: 07/22/11, 23:38

Edited:

07/22/11, 23:38

Ooo, I don't like where you're going with this at all. I think a game should be evaluated on its merits (for the time), with value as a separate consideration. I mean, are you going to change the score when it hits bargain bins?

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/22/11, 23:42

@rebonack

Is one of them Ogre Battle 64? BUY [on Virtual Console for 50 dollars less..].

@Xbob42

I, too, am tolerant, so I hear ya.

As for flaws vs. perfection, the "fun"/playability of the game is one of the biggest factors that goes into my score.
It can be technically sound in every department, but if its like pulling teeth (OR having your teeth pulled), who the H wants to play that?

Unless, of course, we're not talking about Dentist Mama.

Posted by

Mr_Mustache

on: 07/22/11, 23:45

@Anand Well, I think in more generalized terms really. I don't have a dollar to score calculation, but there is a big difference to me when a game releases at $50 versus $10. I think the platform and perceived value on a platform are maybe more important than the specific price. Like a WiiWare game has to be scored as a WiiWare game and not versus a full disk Wii game, and a huge part of that is that WiiWare games tend to be shorter and cheaper. If they costed the same amount of money, no way on earth could I recommend some of them as much as I can when they're $10 downloadable games.

The bargain bin doesn't really matter, because most people read scores knowing that the game is being scored next to its "peers" so to speak, whether or not one or many of them end up in the bargain bin right away.

Posted by

Zero

on: 07/22/11, 23:46

Edited:

07/22/11, 23:47

@Mr_Mustache
Haha, I would totally get Dentist Mama. Wait, we WERE supposed to get it. That Wii launch video lied to us! Actually, did Wario Ware have dentistry?

@Zero
But what if the review is like "Not worth $60!", and then the game drops to $30 two weeks after release? I agree that games should be scored in comparison to similar games on the same platform (or comparable platforms), as well as historical games in the same genre. But money shouldn't directly factor in to the score. Like I said, have a separate 'Value' or 'Worth it?' category. One site did something interesting. It gave a specific amount of money the game would be worth buying for. I'm not sure if that was THE score or an ancillary rating, though.

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/23/11, 00:07

Edited:

07/23/11, 00:08

But if you're scoring based on an understanding that a game is scored versus its peers, it doesn't really matter if it drops in price or not. Because people look at the score, then they look at the price, and then they say "well the game scored an X, but it just dropped $30, so..." and mentally adjust the score for me. Basically people are already going to bump the value of a game in their mind from a price drop (that's the whole point of a price drop, no?)

Anyway like I said I don't really break it down into set dollar values or anything, I'm probably not going to look at a $40 game much differently than a $50 game, but if a 5 hour game releases at $60 that's going to affect the way I score it versus a 5 hour game that releases at $10, sure. And I think most people who are following the $60 game would be shocked if it scored super well and then they got it home and it was the length of a short digital download.

Ideally they are reading the review text anyway, but yeah.

Posted by

Zero

on: 07/23/11, 00:23

Edited:

07/23/11, 00:24

Separate value rating. Just like in Sound & Vision!

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/23/11, 00:25

Anand said:

A lot of games are 10s in my book. Basically, any super-solid game that I had a ton of fun and good memories with. Totally subjective. That's how I roll. Especially for older games that exist only in nostalgia-colored memories.

This is easily the best thing said thus far that matches almost exactly, however scarily so, to my feelings on the matter. In fact, I often thought if I were to ever to be a part of a podcast here, nostalgia and gaming would be my topic. It's just too powerful a force to sway the tens away sometimes even as the years pass and gaming evolves. Even current games that are fun-filed gaming feasts are worthy of a ten if one makes that special gaming connection with a particular game even if said game is not without flaws. Scores are nice to glance at when looking at games that haven't been on one's radar or for games that one wants to be worthwhile, but knows that this game or that game might be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I've never been fond of traditional scoring systems myself - one of the reasons I've yet to officially write up a review of a game here. I like the simpler approach of two thumbs up, or something to that effect.

Posted by

NoName

on: 07/23/11, 00:26

@Anand That's kind of silly to me though. Because then you can ask... what about people who don't care about graphics? Separate graphics rating. Sound? Separate sound rating. Multiplayer? Separate multiplayer rating. Yada yada. Next thing you know, you have like 10 scores for the game.

Basically, there is already a separate rating. It's called the review text. If people aren't reading it, it's their fault. But I really think that if they're not reading the text, more people than not would expect value to be worked into the score, especially in extreme cases. If a $60 disk game was getting GOTY scores and you just ran out and bought it without actually reading text and found out it was single player only, 3-4 hours, no replay... wouldn't you be kind of shocked?

Posted by

Zero

on: 07/23/11, 00:30

Me, personally? I imagine I would know before buying it.

Anyway, people DO have 10 scores for a game. What if you gave the separate scores, and then each user defined his tastes - Graphics - 5%, Music - 20%, Single-Player Gameplay - 40%, etc., and then every user got his own customized list? I kind of wanted to do something like that before, but with a health-oriented website. Ooo, or a MetaCritic-type site could generate you your own weighted list, based upon reviewers that you've historically agreed/disagreed with!

I honestly believe that MetaCritic could be crushed in so many ways, functionality-wise.

@NoName
You could score the games either 10 or 0.

Go on the podcast! Nostalgia is a good topic, especially for a Nintendo-focused podcast.

Posted by

Anand

on: 07/23/11, 00:30

Edited:

07/23/11, 00:34