This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I can't think of any no. I would say Dark Souls is closest based on its simplicity and how well it plays with a surprisingly deep story that isn't in your face - but the reality is parts of the game were unfinished on release and even today after a rerelease and expansion those unfinished sections of the game are still present and unfinished.
Flawlessness is too stringent of a criteria for a game to be given a perfect score imo. That's not to say I think perfect scores should be handed out like candy, but I think the idea that perfect scores should only be given out once a decade or not even given out at all is ridiculous. If a game does something new or refreshing, has a very interesting story, and has very fun/great gameplay, I don't think it should be doomed to a 9/10 at best because it's menu is clunky or something like that.
I agree with Portal 2 being really close for what it is it has very few flaws. I think Half-life is much closer than Half-life 2. KOTOR was a great game but a lot of the mechanics were not polished even a little. Another close one is Morrowind imo, but even though its fun factor is through the roof and is the deepest open world rpg on consoles to date it still has a lot of flaws.
9/10 shouldnt be considered doom, it should be elevated above all of the 6s and 7s that are misscounted as 9s and 9.5s with the current system.
I'm not trying to say anything about how reviewing sources are currently counting games (as I agree many websites start their scores at 7/10 and only work up), I'm talking about how I think reviews should be scored. I think every value of a score should be attainable, from 1/10 to 10/10. That's one reason why I like Adam Sessler, he marks on a 5 star scale with no half stars, and he's more than willing to give a 1/2 star score just as he is a 5 star score. And for those who dislike review sources who's average score is an 8+/10, Sessler's most common score is probably 3/5, which obviously equates to just 6/10.
I don't think a 10 means "flawless," at least not to me. If we did an Ofdee scale for video games, a 10 would be one the very best games of its generation and among the best games of all time.
Exactly, its attainable but only by the absolute best.It makes the 9/10 essentially a 10 and a 10/10 an 11.Comes down to whether you want to elevate the field and lower the absolute best as a result or if you want to elevate the absolute best to their own level.I would much rather have an accurate scale where the best of the best truly are in their own category.
Such a subjective thing. See I liked uncharted 2 but itd be about an 8 for me. Story and dialogue are great but the gameplay got boring. You kill a lot of people for just an average treasure hunter.To me half life 1 and 2 when they came out were perfect 10s. Perfect balance of gameplay, story and immersion. But I'm sure there are some who think otherwise.
Stardock's Galactic Civilization is pretty highly-regarded, as was it's sequel GCII. Most of those space ones are more RTS.
See while I like all of these games only Bioshock would get the perfect 10 from Me. It had almost no flaws from gameplay, story and presentation. Every other game has flaws. Some of them dramatic flaws.
Forgot about that one somehow, that game was tremendous, especially since it's such a unique setting at least for video games.
Cool link, thanks. Enjoyed that review. Definitely intrigued again after seeing it.
I guess I am easy to please.I play the top 2 year round season after season after season, with classic rosters, current rosters etc. those games will end up being played for hundreds and hundreds of hours. I have played through both Batmans twice and will again some day. I will replay Dead Space as a trilogy again and probably a third time. I am on my second play through of ME2 and 3 now that I have the original. Skyrim I have logged over 250 hours on my first character and still going. And DAO is another one I will play through several times with different character builds.While there are some minor flaws.....I found nothing remotely game breaking. Anyway it is subjective
cool, iwas good with eithet a or b
actually its not platformy like a. Looks like a mix of uncharted and dead spacecool, iwas good with eithet a or b
I just described it to my son as Resident Evil, only made by the same guys who made Uncharted.
good enough
Arkham asylum might get a 10 from me as well. Mass effect is my favorite series of all time but each game has flaws that keep it from being perfect.
This is an interesting exercise. If I'm going to go for my personal Top 10, it would probably look like this, in alphabetical order:
R and KZ2 and BF:BC is highly idiosyncratic, but I sunk well over 200 hours into each of those so there's no way not to put them on my "Favorite of this Gen" list. Still I'm kind of appalled that I can't find room for Dark Souls and Uncharted there.
I haven't played any that came after, but the original Call of Juarez was horrific. I don't know how that particular franchise survived its first outing, but I hope they improved.
Yes I remember many late night sessions of BFBC2 with you and Kilgore. I was the smoke master.That sounds bizarre. Lol.This is an interesting exercise. If I'm going to go for my personal Top 10, it would probably look like this, in alphabetical order: Battlefield Bad Company 2BioshockDead SpaceDemon's SoulsKillzone 2Metal Gear Solid 4Motorstorm: Pacific RiftRed Dead RedemptionUncharted 2Uncharted 3 Honorable mention would go the following, each of which I really wanted to put in my top 10 if I had room: Batman: Arkham CityDark SoulsDishonoredMass Effect 2Uncharted 1 Obviously my love for MS
Are the servers still up?
I'm sure they probably still are. We should fire this up sometime. (Tonight doesn't work unfortunately -- Mrs IK is expecting some action of her own this evening).
Planescape: TormentSkyrimThat's the list.
Adam Sessler doesn't believe in rating games at all. He only did it because G4 required it. He is 100% against how games are rated today and how much stock the publishers put into that.
Uncharted 1 was like a rough draft for a great game. UC2 was definitely deserving of a 10 - it might rank much lower on my personal list because he wasn't all that long and didn't have much replay value, but for what it was, it was perfectly executed. KOTOR - I don't know how anyone could reasonably find any flaws of substance. I also see the arguments for ME2, RDR. Rome:Total War.Obviously my love for MS
Adam Sessler doesn't believe in rating games at all. He only did it because G4 required it. He is 100% against how games are rated today and how much stock the publishers put into that. Many companies base their rate of pay, raises, promotions, demotions, firings, etc. all on how a score looks on Metacritic. And Metacritic's system is completely flawed. Of course, they take the rating that each of the major game critic sites give and average them out for the Metacritic score. But the problem with that is not every site uses a 1-10 scale. If a game rates a 3/5, that rates a 6 on Metacritic, because they use the 10-point scale. There's a huge difference with scoring a game a 3/5 and a 6/10.
Rome is the perfect example of a game that I'd say would rate a 9 in general, bit would be a 10 in my book. Perfect game imo.Uncharted 1 was like a rough draft for a great game. UC2 was definitely deserving of a 10 - it might rank much lower on my personal list because he wasn't all that long and didn't have much replay value, but for what it was, it was perfectly executed. KOTOR - I don't know how anyone could reasonably find any flaws of substance. I also see the arguments for ME2, RDR. Rome:Total War.Obviously my love for MS
I don't think that the video you posted necessarily means that he has changed his views. He seemed to be explaining that Rev3 is moving to a rating system and what those ratings mean to him. I think he feels that ratings are a little important when reviewing a game, but it's not as important as what we have become accustom to. I think that reading the review or watching the full review to see why it got the numerical rating a game receives is much more important than the final score that people look for. That's how Sessler has said he feels before also. Unfortunately, there are many who simply look at a score and will base their buying decision explicitly on that score. Or also you get fans of the game look at a score and see that it's not the 10 or 9.5 that they feel that it deserves and then goes into total hate mode.
I completely agree with the first bolded part.
In theory, there shouldn't be a difference. But when you check out the ratings on a site like Giant Bomb, who uses 5 star ratings and compare those games to games rated around 6 on IGN, you'll find that you like more of the 3 star rated games.
My friends rave about the X3 series. Though it is more of a space simulation than a true strategy game.
