What Defines a Perfect 10?

[Scarlet]

So after looking at a thread elsewhere on the forum, I've been discussing with a few others on Discord exactly what kind of game should deserve a perfect 10 (or 100, or 5/5) when reviewed.

I'm of the frame of mind a game should be a genre defining moment; flawlessly executed in order to ascertain the perfect score. It should go beyond expectations; a revolution of the times. An easy example to give would be Super Mario 64. It was a defining moment for the Mario series, for the N64, for the platforming genre. Paired with great execution, it's a game I believe deserved a 10 at the time.

On the other hand, others may believe a game that is simply without flaw should deserve a 10. This makes sense also; a game without flaw should be considered perfect surely? While I don't disagree with this, I have yet to find a game truly without fault.

So I'll open the floor to you guys; how would you score a 10? Which games current or past do you believe deserved the score?

 

[smileyhead]

I don't really rate games, but when I finish an anime, I usually give it a 10/10 (on MAL) if I find it really enjoyable and might revisit again.
I guess you could say the same about games and replayability?

 

[Hells Malice]

Not all games strive to define genres, some just want to make an incredibly solid game. If they execute their vision flawlessly I don't see why it shouldn't be a 10. If a game has no real objective flaws I would definitely call that a 10.

Tis why the number rating system is entirely arbitrary and meaningless at the end of the day.

 

[Chary]

It's a tough thing to answer. There's plenty of different viewpoints on the matter, and really, most of them make good cases on each perspective.

Personally, I think a 10 isn't something to be given out. I look at Metacritic's aggregate scores and I see things like GTAIV with scores above 96, and many 10/10s from reviewers, and wonder. OOT and Mario 64 pioneered 3D gaming, and really changed the industry. So did the original Super Mario. But then, those games are kind of dated in this day and age. Do we account for if a game will stand the test of time and always be relevant, as well? Or do we just measure by other games, and compare them to each other.

So many factors to consider. In the end, I don't even prefer using number rankings for reviews, and would personally forgo them if given the opportunity. Too many people focus on the numbers, and not the words and reasonings themselves.

 

[DarthDub]

Things to factor in, is it playable? Is it fun? Does it have appealing visuals? Overall, does it make you feel good to play it? All things are subjective (or is it objective?) to personal opinion. The game you love might not be for everyone. People have different tastes in games. BTW, OP already had good points that I agree with.

 

[The Catboy]

Silent Hill 2
End of thread

 

[Scarlet]

Silent Hill 2
End of thread

Not exactly a contribution to the discussion lol.
What makes it so good in your eyes? What sets it apart from a 9? Or is it just nostalgia jading your vision?

 

[WeedZ]

I wouldn't call Mario 64 a redefining game. But Ocarina of Time certainly would be.

 

[DarthDub]

I wouldn't call Mario 64 a redefining game. But Ocarina of Time certainly would be.

Why? It introduced a 3D controllable camera. It inspired every 3D platformer from then on.

 

[BlackWizzard17]

What defines a perfect 10?

Is it The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?
|------------------------------------------------|
No-----------------------------------------------Yes
|-----------------------------------------------------|
it is not a 10------------------------------------------It is a 10

 

[WeedZ]

Why? It introduced a 3D controllable camera. It inspired every 3D platformer from then on.

I found myself often frustrated with mario's camera. Besides, playstation did the 3d platformers before nintendo, and did it better. But now that I think about it, I would have to say Goldeneye. It fathered the 3d shooter deathmatch and the achievement system. Im pretty sure an entire generation of shooter games were at least partly inspired by it.

 

[FAST6191]

A perfect game is considered impossible, unless we are all presently playing inside of it and forgotten reality.

To that end you will never see me seriously issue a 10.

On mario 64 then no. Too many obvious improvements I thought of at the time (the camera for one), many of which were made by Rare in their later efforts on that platform. Certainly does not hold up terribly well today and if it does it is only because there are not so many games like it these days. Similarly Turok was fairly well liked at the time, almost unplayable today. Perfect Dark actually still has things to teach from where I sit but the N64 version is almost unplayable to me today (thankfully the XBLA version exists).

I figure if I am reviewing a game I want to be finding something for someone that is worth playing. That however is my personal reviewing style; I am quite happy for any number of other styles to be employed up to and including expounding upon everything wrong with a game.

That said I don't like scores and would happily not give them on any review I do, and tend to ignore them entirely when out looking at things in the world. The only redeeming factor is when idiots think 7/10 is a bad score for a game and whine up a storm.

 

[The Catboy]

Not exactly a contribution to the discussion lol.
What makes it so good in your eyes? What sets it apart from a 9? Or is it just nostalgia jading your vision?

All jokes aside, Silent Hill 2 was the perfect example of how to make a sequel and a perfect example of a psychological horror game. Not only did it completely improve upon the bases to which Silent Hill created, but it also created a game that could standalone without having to experience the first game. Coupled with a great atmosphere, extremely unsettling music/sound effects, decent enough graphics for the time (something that still looks better than most games from the same era,) and basically just a solid horror game that accomplished being a horror game with extremely minimal cheap scares.
I actually didn't play it much as a kid and only really played through the game as adult. As a kid I didn't quite understand what the game was getting it and found the whole setup to be clunky and weird. It wasn't until much later that I actually picked up the game again and realized what I had been missing out on the whole time.
The one reason why I can't give it a 9 and could easily give it a 10, is that it doesn't resort to cheap scares. The game keeps you going with it's unsettling and unnerving atmosphere and it doesn't use jump scares to freak you out. It simply uses the unknown to create uneasy as you venture through the game. That's an experience that you so rarely find, especially in modern "horror" games. Which quite honestly I find use gore and jump scares as cheap and short lived scares.
Arguably it's not a perfect 10/10 compared to some games, but stacked up to most horror games it's definitely a notch above the rest.

 

[ThoD]

What defines a perfect 10? The simple fact that no such thing exists! Every game has flaws no matter how you look at things, there's no perfect game. Sure you can find almost perfect ones, but not perfect. Also, nowadays most stuff just gets a 9+ score most of the time because people think that a game is amazing simply because they enjoyed it. Little reminder here, games are SUPPOSED to be enjoyable! Don't praise games for being fun or enjoyable, but instead oppose games that aren't.

 

[smilodon]

I made a thing.

 

[DinohScene]

Okami 11/10
It's such a perfect game, it'd be an insult to give it a 10.

Oh and Red Dead Redemption, solid 10/10.
Landscape, aesthetics, story, weathersystem.
That game is the best open world game of the 7th gen.

 

[Taleweaver]

Meh... The problem with scored reviews is that one attempts to rate something that can only be rated to a certain degree. There's the technical and execution aspect, which is probably the easiest to rate. How stable is the game, how well does it run, what's the control setup? Then you get on a slippery slope with things like level design, aesthetics and difficulty. You can often quickly tell when things are off, but when the are no clear flaws, it becomes a matter of taste. And finally: the meta game. Metacritic showcases this pretty well in some instances: some games have become cult classics or notorious long after release, thus 'upgrading' the perception of the game (you usually see this when a sequel changes a mechanic: done will suddenly praise the first game for more than it was worth). @robingilh showcases this well, by the way: we mark things down for reasons while our guts tell pretty much the opposite.

So in that aspect, I'm glad that steam both reduces reviews to thumbs up/down as well as improve upon it by letting people tell their 'why'. It frees people from the backwarded thinking that games can somehow add up rational plusses to a hypothetical perfect games. Likewise, games one considers perfect shouldn't be considered less so because "perfection can't be achieved".

I could name some games, but I've got to be honest: they are just my favorite games. UT2004 is one of em, even though the movement both brings a far to high learning curve as well as caused levels to be created in a weird way. And Rocksmith 2014 as well, even though it sometimes just crashes on me.