PC Editors Have High Standards Confirmed

http://pc.ign.com/articles/882/882503p1.html

They discuss this at around 43 minutes.

In the new Command Prompt Podcast(PC IGN), they have a whole discussion about the couple of 10's that were given out at IGN. In their opinion, no game should be a 10/10, even if the scoring standard says that a 10 is Masterful, not Perfect. They even go over their thoughts when scoring a game, and Ocampo says that he the highest he has given a game ever was a 9.5, and that was partially because of the scoring System here at Gamespot at the time. Before that, he had only given a 9.3

Then, the Charles Onyett from IGN PC commented, that when he gave a game a 9.4 he really questioned, is this game REALLY that good?

Ocampo also commented that he doesn't think GTA 4 or MGS4 should have been a 10. He says that they were fantastic games but not a 10.

They argue that because every new Gen doesn't have a backcatalog of games, there is less of a feeling of questioning with them asking, "well... is this game better than ?"

If a scale goes to ten, games exist that deserve a ten.supercubedude64

not really. 10 is like a pie in the sky, it is an idea, not something that could be reached.

[QUOTE="supercubedude64"]If a scale goes to ten, games exist that deserve a ten.horrowhip

not really. 10 is like a pie in the sky, it is an idea, not something that could be reached.

A 10 shouldn't represent some unattainable concept of "perfection",because no game is EVER perfect and that would make a 10 as a score redundant,and wheres the fun in that? :P

A 10 is awarded not because a particular game is perfect,or at least it shouldn't be because no game is perfect.But because that game is as good as it can be at that particular moment in time,it ticks all the right boxes and provides a gaming experience that is superior to the competition.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="supercubedude64"]If a scale goes to ten, games exist that deserve a ten.stvee101

not really. 10 is like a pie in the sky, it is an idea, not something that could be reached.

A 10 shouldn't represent some unattainable concept of "perfection",because no game is EVER perfect and that would make a 10 as a score redundant,and wheres the fun in that? :P

A 10 is awarded not because a particular game is perfect,or at least it shouldn't be because no game is perfect.But because that game is as good as it can be at that particular moment in time,it ticks all the right boxes and provides a gaming experience that is superior to the competition.

that still isn't possible though.

There are ALWAYS things that can be improved upon. A 10 should NOT be attainable. Doesn't matter if it is fun or not, because how the heck else are you supposed to have a "scale" where 10 represents something abstract that all games are trying to reach, but never can.

Giving a 10 makes it so that all games compare to a single game, not a concept like the score should be.

it's over and done with now, gta4 and mgs4 got 10s time to move on and just enjoy the games

10 should always be reachable it doesnt mean perfect just bloody brilliant

Mass Effect on pc getting AAA on gamespot shows pc's have lower standards

it's over and done with now, gta4 and mgs4 got 10s time to move on and just enjoy the games

10 should always be reachable it doesnt mean perfect just bloody brilliant

bigLLL

no, 10 should NOT be attainable.

on a 10/10 scale, if a game gets a 10, all future games are no longer striving to REACH that 10, they are striving to match that 10. And that isn't how it should work.

I am perfectly fine with the scores given to GTA 4 and MGS 4. I have accepted them. That doesn't mean I think they are right.

Mass Effect on pc getting AAA on gamespot shows pc's have lower standards

mingo123

really? because a game that fixes much that was wrong with the 360 version doesn't deserve a higher score?

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

Mass Effect on pc getting AAA on gamespot shows pc's have lower standards

horrowhip

really? because a game that fixes everything that was wrong with the first one doesn't deserve a higher score?

it has minor improvements that somehow shot a century old low standard console game to 9.0 :P

Giving a 10 makes it so that all games compare to a single game, not a concept like the score should be.

horrowhip

Mass Effect on pc getting AAA on gamespot shows pc's have lower standards

mingo123

Your implications are incorrect. Very much so.

Mass Effect on pc getting AAA on gamespot shows pc's have higher standards, Metal Gear Solid 4 getting AAA shows consoles have low standards.

mingo123

Corrected! ;)

it has minor improvements that somehow shot a century old low standard console game to 9.0 :P

mingo123

minor improvements? The technical issues crippled the 360 version. They were fixed in the PC version.

And century old? It was 6 months old. Stop trolling mingo.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

Mass Effect on pc getting AAA on gamespot shows pc's have lower standards

mingo123

really? because a game that fixes everything that was wrong with the first one doesn't deserve a higher score?

it has minor improvements that somehow shot a century old low standard console game to 9.0 :P

Minor improvements? The devs said it felt like a whole new game. :|

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="supercubedude64"]If a scale goes to ten, games exist that deserve a ten.stvee101

not really. 10 is like a pie in the sky, it is an idea, not something that could be reached.

A 10 shouldn't represent some unattainable concept of "perfection",because no game is EVER perfect and that would make a 10 as a score redundant,and wheres the fun in that? :P

A 10 is awarded not because a particular game is perfect,or at least it shouldn't be because no game is perfect.But because that game is as good as it can be at that particular moment in time,it ticks all the right boxes and provides a gaming experience that is superior to the competition.

QFT

The problem is that people don't always agree on what a 10 represents.

That is a good point. I don't think 10's should be given out like they recently have been. By even Gamespot's review standards a 10 means prime, not perfect. Prime stands for "the best a game could possibly be at the time of release." When you think of it like that, there are always flaws in games like GTAIV or MGS4 that are easily noticeable, which could dock it from a 10. Then again, the games probably deserve something above a 9.5 but not a 10, and that's where the new system falters. Give them a 9.5 and compare them to games like Halo 3 and other 9.5 games, or give them a 10 to show they're in their own ****by themselves. I don't think either of those games would've gotten a 10 if the old review system was still in place.Saturos3091

they should feel confident enough in their own writing to not need to give a 10 to justify how good a game is.

Give a game a 9.5 but let your actual WORDS reflect the quality of that 9.5

I think much of the reasoning behind giving MGS4 a 10 was because it was better than GTA 4, so why give it a lower score? I think most people on this board agree that GTA 4 shouldn't have been a 10. Great game, give it a 9.5 but then reflect how good it was in your review. Don't give it a 10. Same applies to MGS4.

stop putting the **** on a pedestal, your reading into the whole 10 out of 10 concept a bit to much, a 10 should always be possible

[QUOTE="stvee101"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="supercubedude64"]If a scale goes to ten, games exist that deserve a ten.horrowhip

not really. 10 is like a pie in the sky, it is an idea, not something that could be reached.

A 10 shouldn't represent some unattainable concept of "perfection",because no game is EVER perfect and that would make a 10 as a score redundant,and wheres the fun in that? :P

A 10 is awarded not because a particular game is perfect,or at least it shouldn't be because no game is perfect.But because that game is as good as it can be at that particular moment in time,it ticks all the right boxes and provides a gaming experience that is superior to the competition.

that still isn't possible though.

There are ALWAYS things that can be improved upon. A 10 should NOT be attainable. Doesn't matter if it is fun or not, because how the heck else are you supposed to have a "scale" where 10 represents something abstract that all games are trying to reach, but never can.

Giving a 10 makes it so that all games compare to a single game, not a concept like the score should be.

stop putting the **** on a pedestal, your reading into the whole 10 out of 10 concept a bit to much, a 10 should always be possible bigLLL

explain to me the point of a scale if the top of the scale is able to be reached? What is the point of comparing something against a scale when you can reach the top of that scale?

[QUOTE="stvee101"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="supercubedude64"]If a scale goes to ten, games exist that deserve a ten.horrowhip

not really. 10 is like a pie in the sky, it is an idea, not something that could be reached.

A 10 shouldn't represent some unattainable concept of "perfection",because no game is EVER perfect and that would make a 10 as a score redundant,and wheres the fun in that? :P

A 10 is awarded not because a particular game is perfect,or at least it shouldn't be because no game is perfect.But because that game is as good as it can be at that particular moment in time,it ticks all the right boxes and provides a gaming experience that is superior to the competition.

that still isn't possible though.

There are ALWAYS things that can be improved upon. A 10 should NOT be attainable. Doesn't matter if it is fun or not, because how the heck else are you supposed to have a "scale" where 10 represents something abstract that all games are trying to reach, but never can.

Giving a 10 makes it so that all games compare to a single game, not a concept like the score should be.

You're reading to much into the score imo.

Some games are that good that they deserve a 10.They become Benchmarks in that particular genre so that similar games are compared to them,they dictate what other games will score.These benchmark games deserve the 10/10.

Yeah theres always things that can be improved ,but as someone earlier said stop putting a 10/10 on a pedestal,its a score not the Victoria cross.

You're reading to much into the score imo.

Some games are that good that they deserve a 10.They become Benchmarks in that particular genre so that similar games are compared to them,they dictate what other games will score.These benchmark games deserve the 10/10.

Yeah theres always things that can be improved ,but as someone earlier said stop putting a 10/10 on a pedestal,its a score not the Victoria cross.

stvee101

.... those games deserve a 9.5 and a glowing written review that explains the game's significance. Sad thing is, they no hardly anyone reads their reviews so they are justifying games by giving them 10's.

Also, I am obviously not the only one who feels that way about 10/10. The IGN PC guys basically said the EXACT same thing. And almost all PC Gaming publications also say the exact same thing. Which proves my point, PC Gamers have higher standards.

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]

That is a good point. I don't think 10's should be given out like they recently have been. By even Gamespot's review standards a 10 means prime, not perfect. Prime stands for "the best a game could possibly be at the time of release." When you think of it like that, there are always flaws in games like GTAIV or MGS4 that are easily noticeable, which could dock it from a 10. Then again, the games probably deserve something above a 9.5 but not a 10, and that's where the new system falters. Give them a 9.5 and compare them to games like Halo 3 and other 9.5 games, or give them a 10 to show they're in their own ****by themselves. I don't think either of those games would've gotten a 10 if the old review system was still in place.horrowhip

they should feel confident enough in their own writing to not need to give a 10 to justify how good a game is.

Give a game a 9.5 but let your actual WORDS reflect the quality of that 9.5

I think much of the reasoning behind giving MGS4 a 10 was because it was better than GTA 4, so why give it a lower score? I think most people on this board agree that GTA 4 shouldn't have been a 10. Great game, give it a 9.5 but then reflect how good it was in your review. Don't give it a 10. Same applies to MGS4.

you cant just give a game a 9.5 because you think maybe in 2 years time there might possibly be a game in the same genre that is better than it, it has to be at that point in time it deserved a 10. otherwise ud have to be continually underating games because of what the future might hold bigLLL

you fail to understand my point.

There are always things wrong with a game. ALWAYS. There are always things that could have been improved. A game is never everything that it could have been.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]You're reading to much into the score imo.

Some games are that good that they deserve a 10.They become Benchmarks in that particular genre so that similar games are compared to them,they dictate what other games will score.These benchmark games deserve the 10/10.

Yeah theres always things that can be improved ,but as someone earlier said stop putting a 10/10 on a pedestal,its a score not the Victoria cross.

horrowhip

.... those games deserve a 9.5 and a glowing written review that explains the game's significance. Sad thing is, they no hardly anyone reads their reviews so they are justifying games by giving them 10's.

Also, I am obviously not the only one who feels that way about 10/10. The IGN PC guys basically said the EXACT same thing. And almost all PC Gaming publications also say the exact same thing. Which proves my point, PC Gamers have higher standards.

I'm a PC gamer,but alot of PC gamers are quite elitist and look down their noses at consoles from my experience.

And of course they have higher standards,there would be something seriously wrong if they didn't,what with the tech some of these guys game with nowadays,its a generation ahead of consoles almost.

There is no point of a 1-10 scale if 10 can never be reached. What's the point of having a 10 there at all? Games will always be able to improve in some way, but standards change over time. GTA4 was released this year and it was an amazing game. When the next GTA4 expansion is released it will be rated using the standards that GTA4 set. If it does happen to get a 10.0, that 10.0 will be more valuable than the one that GTA4 received, becase standards have been raised since it was released.

The problem arises because you can't "future-proof" video game ratings. Ocarina of Time's 10.0 definitely wouldn't stand today, but does it matter? Reviews should be taken seriously only on the game's release. Updates, expansions, and changes in standards really cause reviews to be unreliable after a year or so.

[QUOTE="bigLLL"]

stop putting the **** on a pedestal, your reading into the whole 10 out of 10 concept a bit to much, a 10 should always be possible horrowhip

explain to me the point of a scale if the top of the scale is able to be reached? What is the point of comparing something against a scale when you can reach the top of that scale?

Explain to me the point of a grading scale where part of it can't be reached?

What purpose does the 10 serve if it is an unreachable concept? 10 doesn't mean 'perfect', any more than a five-star movie means 'perfect'. It means that it is exceptional, so far beyond any of its contemporaries that it defines a new standard.

If you're going to muddy all the top-tier games together at 9.5, when some are better than others, and force the writing to work out the differences, then you're not using the scoring system as its meant to be used. I'd rather that readers had confidence in the reviewer's writing such that they didn't demand that everything get a numerical score. But if scores are supposed to be there, then scores are supposed to separate things. And the 10 is the pinnacle, for the best of the best.

An unachieveable 10 may as well not exist. Games that score 10s do not prevent other games from striving to surpass them.

stop looking at it as some kind of mathematical scale, uve just blown it out of proportion

first off go to ign look at what a 10 mean, it doesnt say perfect, it says masterful, then you move onto the 9s and it says incredible so a 9.5 means it's a incredible piece of work and a 10 means it's a masterful piece of work, does a 10 say perfect in everyway can never be topped??? no it doesnt

[QUOTE="bigLLL"]

stop putting the **** on a pedestal, your reading into the whole 10 out of 10 concept a bit to much, a 10 should always be possible horrowhip

explain to me the point of a scale if the top of the scale is able to be reached? What is the point of comparing something against a scale when you can reach the top of that scale?

stop looking at it as some kind of mathematical scale, uve just blown it out of proportion

first off go to ign look at what a 10 mean, it doesnt say perfect, it says masterful, then you move onto the 9s and it says incredible so a 9.5 means it's a incredible piece of work and a 10 means it's a masterful piece of work, does a 10 say perfect in everyway can never be topped??? no it doesnt bigLLL

you still aren't understanding my point but fine. My original point of this thread stands.

they should feel confident enough in their own writing to not need to give a 10 to justify how good a game is.

Give a game a 9.5 but let your actual WORDS reflect the quality of that 9.5

I think much of the reasoning behind giving MGS4 a 10 was because it was better than GTA 4, so why give it a lower score? I think most people on this board agree that GTA 4 shouldn't have been a 10. Great game, give it a 9.5 but then reflect how good it was in your review. Don't give it a 10. Same applies to MGS4.

horrowhip

I'm a PC gamer,but alot of PC gamers are quite elitist and look down their noses at consoles from my experience.

And of course they have higher standards,there would be something seriously wrong if they didn't,what with the tech some of these guys game with nowadays,its a generation ahead of consoles almost.

stvee101

I just think that the console editors at lots of publications have low standards compared to many PC publications. Do me a favor and listen to the actual discussion in the podcast.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]I'm a PC gamer,but alot of PC gamers are quite elitist and look down their noses at consoles from my experience.

And of course they have higher standards,there would be something seriously wrong if they didn't,what with the tech some of these guys game with nowadays,its a generation ahead of consoles almost.

horrowhip

I am not elitist, I just think that the console editors at lots of publications have low standards compared to many PC publications. Do me a favor and listen to the actual discussion in the podcast.

I feel with most console games more emphasis is made on what score to give the game rather than how to express the games greatness in words.

I dont read much GS reviews anymore though, ever since i read the army of two review i decided i wont be coming here for reviews. (not saying i disagree with the score i was just appalled that a reviewer would use his own political stand-point as a negative in a review)