Perfect reviews

[DarthGohan1]

IGN just reviewed Uncharted 3 and gave it a 10/10. It's not necessarily "uncommon" for a big title to get a perfect score from one of the big review sites/magazines, but makes you think, is there really a perfect game? Others argue that a perfect score just means a game is the best of the best, but see nothing wrong with it.

What do you think about games getting rated "perfectly"? Do you disagree and think it should be reserved for only the best game or 2 of each generation (or no games at all)? Or is it something that just says this is a great game, but only half a point better than a 9.5, not a whole different level?


(Also, no comment on Gamepro's plethora of 100s they've given out: http://www.metacritic.com/publication/gamepro?filter=games)

 

[Bacon Boy]

Kirby Return to Dreamland got a perfect score. Maybe their reviewer fell in love and is so happy, he's giving out tens to every game he sees? What's that? I'm wrong? Nohohoho.

 

[DarthGohan1]

Kirby Return to Dreamland got a perfect score. Maybe their reviewer fell in love and is so happy, he's giving out tens to every game he sees? What's that? I'm wrong? Nohohoho.

Kirby only got a 7.5 from ign. That means that Sony must have paid IGN more than Nintendo Uncharted must surely be a significantly better game.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Kirby only got a 7.5 from ign. That means that Sony must have paid IGN more than Nintendo Uncharted must surely be a significantly better game.

Not from IGN. Sorry, I meant to say that.

 

[Sporge27]

I don't know about IGN anymore. Really it all depends on whether you find a reviewer who seems to have your tastes or not. A site like IGN feels kinda biased to me for some reason. Not saying Uncharted 3 doesn't deserve it, I am sure it is pretty great, but there are many games that seem to have a higher ranking there than I would ever rate, and some with a lesser score than I think it deserves.

Example reading the review of the kirby game I find the following problems.

1. The reviewer clearly wasn't he target audience, and he has the gall to assume all his readers are like him. Because you know the children, kids, nieces, and nephews he speaks of clearly can't use google.... o wait....

and his score is as follows

6.5 Presentation
Pretty basic stuff here, but the extra modes and games are a plus.
7.0 Graphics
This is actually a GameCube game. Seldom impressive, though Super Abilities are cool.
6.5 Sound
Again, nothing exceptional.
8.0 Gameplay
Tried and true, though there's nothing wrong with that. Great with friends, kids.
9.0 Lasting Appeal
New and extra modes - there's plenty to unlock, plus multiplayer fun.

First off I hate using graphics as a score. Aesthetics are more appropriate in most scenarios nowadays. I have yet to see a nintendo game I would actually call visually displeasing. I really don't know what is meant by presentation... what is that? Sound... I don't know how it got that low, I guess I haven't heard it but I normally enjoy kirby music

From the rest of the review I figured gameplay and lasting appeal would have been the places the game takes a hit, but apparently they were the good parts? oookk.....

that all being said just numbering a game really tells very little about it.... and sometimes differs from what is actually said about the game lol

 

[DarthGohan1]

I don't know about IGN anymore. Really it all depends on whether you find a reviewer who seems to have your tastes or not. A site like IGN feels kinda biased to me for some reason. Not saying Uncharted 3 doesn't deserve it, I am sure it is pretty great, but there are many games that seem to have a higher ranking there than I would ever rate, and some with a lesser score than I think it deserves.

Example reading the review of the kirby game I find the following problems.

1. The reviewer clearly wasn't he target audience, and he has the gall to assume all his readers are like him. Because you know the children, kids, nieces, and nephews he speaks of clearly can't use google.... o wait....

and his score is as follows



First off I hate using graphics as a score. Aesthetics are more appropriate in most scenarios nowadays. I have yet to see a nintendo game I would actually call visually displeasing. I really don't know what is meant by presentation... what is that? Sound... I don't know how it got that low, I guess I haven't heard it but I normally enjoy kirby music

From the rest of the review I figured gameplay and lasting appeal would have been the places the game takes a hit, but apparently they were the good parts? oookk.....

that all being said just numbering a game really tells very little about it.... and sometimes differs from what is actually said about the game lol

I agree with you (on more than one part).

1. Never been a big fan of IGN, probably never will. Can't say I've read a lot of content on their site in the last year or two, but a couple years back their writers were always really annoying and always thought their opinions were fact and everyone else was wrong. Plus I believe it's owned by news corp. Anyway...

2. On the topic of numbers - they can be convenient, but also not be fair to a game. I remember when Bul used to review games he didn't use numbers, which made people actually read the review. And especially for "graphics" - why does every game need to be the next best thing when it comes to having amazing HD graphics? Most (if not all) of Nintendo's games aren't aiming for this... and the enjoyability of the game doesn't depend on it... so why even rate it with some random non-objective number (like 6.5)?

 

[Trent the Paladin]

I didn't realize the Wii could handle HD. But yeah, some of IGN's scores are iffy(they're fused at the hip with their Xbox), which is exactly why I don't read them. I either go to the User Reviews if I'm really on the fence with that game and decide from there after reading some of them.

I don't mind perfect scores as they signify that you need/should to play them at some point so long as they give good reasons for giving the game the score.