Did MGS IV, GTA IV, SMG 2, Bayo 2 or TW 3 deserved 10 on GS?

For me,

MGSIV - Yes

GTAIV - No

Super Mario Galaxy 2 - No. It felt a bit stale to me. I thought the first one deserved 10.0

Haven't played the other two yet. I didn't like the first entry of each very much, but will give the latest ones a try.

Yes

out of all these only Witcher 3 deserved it

If you're looking at The Witcher 3 for merit in its combat to hold it in judgement of the whole game, your priorities are way off. It's there to serve a means to an end, which is the narrative.

OT, the only two game I think deserve 10s are SMG 2 and TW3. Not because they're perfect, but because they went towards perfection more, even though they're still flawed.

@MirkoS77:

If something is given the title of 'game' then the priority is just that.

Funny this is, no one can ever define to me what a game actually is. Or I suppose "gameplay" would be a better fit.

The witcher 3 8/on console/ and 9/on PC

All the rest 8s even if i have yet to play SMG2

Game: a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure

Videogame: a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.

Gameplay: the plot of a computer or video game or the way that it is played

I'm ducking any massive agree to disagree essay battle on the merits of that games combat, but when the primary thing in most of the quests come down to "go here, kill things" and the kill things part is boring, that's not a good game regardless of its technical achievement or its story. And that's without getting into the 'lolvideogamestory" territory. Not picking on The Witcher 3, but as a comparison, GTA 4 had a lot of things going for it in 2008. It had shitty shooting even in 2008, and almost all of its missions come down to go here, shoot shit. Which makes the primary source of enjoyment in said game fucking boring.

The Witcher 3 does a lot of things right, but saying people are turned off by the combat means they have poor priorities is a bit pious. Considering how much of the experience is built around stabbing shit, you better actually make the stabbing shit enjoyable.

Otherwise I wouldn't call The Witcher 3 poor, it's fun, but I'm in a similar camp with Heirren. This is an interactive medium, when the interactive aspects are the things I don't like, it's a bad game, or it's just a good one, or a good enough one. A great one? should actually be great in that department.

No game out there deserves a 10, no matter how good it is.

That's a stupid scale.

It is the greatest game I've ever played.

9/10.

Bayo 2 and SMG 2 deserved 10s fo sho. As much as I love it, GTA IV did not; has too many issues. MGS IV deserves an 8 at best.

Word.

"Let's have a scale that goes up to 10, but never use the 10."

Ridiculous.

"Essay battle". Lol, I can take a hint.

So TW3 would fit all those terms. Just to clarify, I didn't say people's priorities were poor in how they judged the game, but "way off". Meaning misguided. Just like you wouldn't play Mario for the story as I could claim the platforming could just as easily be viewed as boring and not a good game relevant to that goal. Some of the most meaningful gameplay I've ever had has been something that a 5 year old could grasp within a day, while some of the most meaningless took me weeks to master (DCS simulations). But at either end of both spectrums, I can't quantify or come to correlate the degree of mechanical implementation to gameplay value.

The developer should be the one to determine that value in accordance to the game's goal.

lol

TW3 and SMG2 are the only ones that deserve the 10/10. Bayo 2 deserve cheesy/10 or a 7/10 at most.

I would agree that simply dismissing the "gameplay" at just the core game feel of the combat would be selling the gameplay the witcher 3 short.

Like New Vegas there is immense satisfaction that your decisions have impact both small and large across the gameplay, likewise the nature of tracking things down, being lost in a gameworld and just doing all those quests has its own brand of satisfaction. Goal I think gets into this wishy/washy territory where a dev presents something, and then you can't knock them for being completely generic in a bunch of way or completely misfiring on a gameplay design because (well we wanted to tell a story).

Regardless as much as I don't think The Witcher 3 would stack up as a 10 for me, I can at least see the argument for it. GTA 4 and MGS 4 were like...okay what the **** is this nonsense? Some of this shit is completely devoid of an excuse.

It's all subjective, so if the reviewer felt that they deserve a 10, then they deserved a 10.

Would I give them a 10? Probably not. I haven't played Mario Galaxy 2 but 1 was a 10 for me.

Haven't finished Galaxy 2 but it was an amazing game. The first one deserved a 10 to me. Bayonetta 2? About to start so can't comment. GTAIV? HELL NO! Game just flat out sucked. Haven't played the rest.

Not really. If you have played the greatest game of all time at this moment, that doesn't mean you won't play a better game in your life.

There will always be better games. Always. That's why a "10" doesn't make sense.

MGS4 - No

GTA IV - lol

SUPER MARIO GALAXY 2 - Yes

BAYONETTA 2- no

THE WITCHER 3 - no way

In case it hasn't gone through your head yet, whether or not a game "deserves" a 10 is purely subjective.

They sure did.

GTA4, hell no. That game is pure trash. MGS4 is pretty good but not 10 worthy.

Who the hell are you and what have you done to silversix? O_O

They all seem like great games and do amazingly well within their respective genres. Of the games I've played in the list, they seem like the epitome of those genres, so a 10 seems fair (Mario Galaxy 2 and Bayonetta 2).

This is exactly what I'd say.

MGS IV was a 10 in terms of technology, but not in terms of fun factor.

GTA IV was a 10 for its time but it's probably a 7 right now.

SMG2 is a 10 and will always be a 10.

BAYO 2 looks fun but idk about 10.

10 doesn't mean perfect.

Only MGS4 deserved a perfect 10/10 score. GTA IV was utter garbage, easily the worst GTA game in the series. San Andreas is a 9.9/10 game for me, GTA3 and GTA V being 9.8/10 games and GTA:VC being a 9.7/10

GTAIV is more like a 5 or a 6.

Bayonetta 2 - not even as good as Devil May Cry 1 or God of War 1/2, why this scored higher than 7 is beyond me.

SMG 2 - sure it was pretty much perfect, for what it was. Then again SMB1 and SMB3 were also 100% perfect upon release. Tetris is technically perfect too. Doesn't mean they deserve a 10.

Only games I've ever considered to be a 10 would be MGS4 and The Last of Us. Maybe Half Life 1/2.

I can understand the 10 for GTA4. Like a lot of people I got bored of it really, really quickly, but I can see how reviewers, (who had to blaze through the game amid the prerelease hype), could fall for its, at the time, unprecedented production values.

I think Galaxy 2 deserves its 10. Can't say about the others; although I feel like Bayo 2 could deserve one based on how polished the gameplay was in 1.

MGS4 - 6/10

GTA IV - 8/10

SMG 2 - 7.5/10

Bayo 2 - 6/10

TW3 - 6/10 (so far, played it for a couple of hours and didn't care for it. Need to get back to it)

I thought they were all very overrated games. I think GTA V, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Demon's Souls, or XCOM were more deserving of 10s.

ITT: A bunch of stone trophy getting frauds.

That's dumb, let's have a scale where the maximum score is this mythical unachieveable thing because we want to pretend it's a standard, and not arbitrary bullshit. Critical scales don't work like school grades. School grades are based entirely around facts and whether or not a person got something wrong. A game, a piece of fiction or entertainment has layers of subjectivity to it, that 10 is just a reflection of the reviewer giving it their highest praise.

It's a benchmark for the genre and a bar they feel other games have to live up to. Not using your max score only tends to over inflate the value of said 10, and the 9 right below it. It would be no different than having a scale where someone doesn't bother to use 1-6 portion of it, because 1-6= bad game. It's a dumb way to do it.

Nope only bayonetta 2 and smg and oot did gta iv was lame as bell compared to San Andreas even saints row

People are way overthinking this. jg4xchamp explained this better than i would have, so i'm not gonna waste my time.

Anyway, of the ones i've played (GTA IV, MGSIV, SMG2) i wouldn't give any of them a 10. GTA IV was a ridiculous disappointment, a game which i think built upon GTA III rather than building on San Andreas. Thankfully GTA V happened. MGSIV had stupidly long cutscenes and a plot basically designed to be fan service.

And wile i absolutely love Super Mario Galaxy 2, i fucking hate the spring power up. If that power up (and the levels designed around it) didn't exist, then i would give the game a 10/10. Literally perfection in my eyes.