sNeaksieGarrett on 21/10/2009 at 18:29
I don't exactly follow you, but you've got a point I suppose.
However, a strait 10, at least to me, implies that it's "perfect." Which is nearly impossible for any game to get. When it does get a 10 by reviewers, it comes under skepticism. However, a game can be considered a masterpiece, and still be rated a 9.0, IMO. Which is why I disagree that 10 should be labeled as such.
I'm going to take the time to add to my post that I can be wrong, and it ultimately boils down to the rating systems being different on each review site, and as such I really shouldn't be making a big deal about it. However, it does appear that each review site that uses a 1-10 point scale would agree that "10" is the best, and 1 is the worst.
Edit:
Well, I took the time to read the explanations on GameSpot and IGN, both of which use 1 to 10 scales. Neither of them say that a ten is straight up "perfect," only that they are very close to perfection, and nothing significant can be improved. So, I take back what I said earlier about a 10 being perfect. I should have been more open minded about it. A 10 doesn't have to mean " perfect" - I guess I had a preconceived notion that a 10 had to mean no flaws.
One last note: I still however disagree with the descriptors, and so this affected my score, in case you wanted to know how I voted. ;)
sNeaksieGarrett on 21/10/2009 at 19:17
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Ratings are rankings, which means comparison, and it's hard for any other game to "do it better" when you're practically inventing a subgenre.
I disagree, unless you're talking about just sequels. I was talking in general.
I don't know where you're getting 1-100. Their websites clearly state decimal point ratings. If you also take a look at their reasonings, they show a 1-10 point scale, not 1-100. Metacritic on the other hand, does a 100 scale.
Chade on 21/10/2009 at 21:40
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
A 10 doesn't have to mean " perfect" - I guess I had a preconceived notion that a 10 had to mean no flaws.
Sorry, this is a little pet peeve of mine ...
What does it mean for a game to be "perfect"?
Is there a finite amount of improvements that can be made to a game, such that it potentially possible to exhaust them? This is obviously false.
Is there an arbitrary checklist of requirements which a game must meet before being declared perfect, such that no improvement beyond those requirements is beneficial (the "no bugs" school of thought)? This places game criticism in a straight jacket.
To me, the idea of a "perfect game" just seems nonsensical ...
Unless, of course, the word is used as a metaphor for "really amazingly awesome", in which case I'm all for it. :thumb:
Briareos H on 22/10/2009 at 06:58
I like the way the old Eurogamer used to put it most:
Quote:
A score of ten reflects a game that, within the reviewer's estimation, is something you must buy: this is the message we're trying to convey. On a basic level it's almost certainly the best quality game ever seen within the context of its genre, and that's why Eurogamer doesn't dish them out very often. A score of 10 usually applies to less than a trio of games in any given year.
But all 10s are not born equal. For starters, you might consider that a ten in the RPG genre still isn't as appealing as an FPS that we scored an eight, or be mystified how we could score a football management game a nine when we only gave that survival-horror game you loved an eight. The best rule is to simply rate like with like, and use your own personal taste barometer to gauge whether the genre is of interest to you. Even so, if you're new to a particular genre then something scoring a ten is a very safe bet indeed. As a starting point, the message is you can't get a better game of this type.
Let us make absolutely clear that a 10 is not and probably never will be "the perfect game". There's always something criticisable about a game, however small.
A 10 will inspire the reviewer because it gets so many things correct. It will be something truly groundbreaking and aesthetically successful, be consistently enjoyable, get the balance right in difficulty terms, be technically very impressive, and be polished to a shine. It will leave the player in no doubt that they're playing something special right from the word go and will continue to inspire and amaze throughout. As we've said, this doesn't mean it's perfect, and we'll be sure to say where it goes wrong too, but maybe those niggles are just so minor that you can let it off. Look at anything under a microscope for long enough and you'll see the flaws. But would you kick a supermodel out of bed for farting?
Anyway, TMA is a brilliant game and the best Thief game to me.
Captain Spandex on 22/10/2009 at 23:35
Even just rating it as a game, it's been highly placed on how many Greatest Games of All Time lists, now?
10 for me, easily.
JC_Denton on 25/10/2009 at 12:04
i have said it before and i will say it again: TMA is a soulless game with no atmosphere and weak level design. robots in medieval setting, even tho its a pseudo medieval one, look STUPID. hence 5/10 from me.
Platinumoxicity on 25/10/2009 at 17:56
Quote Posted by JC_Denton
i have said it before and i will say it again: TMA is a soulless game with no atmosphere and weak level design. robots in medieval setting, even tho its a pseudo medieval one, look STUPID. hence 5/10 from me.
Troll much? Here,
have some food for thought. :ebil:
It's not a medieval setting. It's a Thiefy setting. It's an entirely different world that you'll hate if you don't understand it at all.
JC_Denton on 27/10/2009 at 21:04
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
It's not a medieval setting. It's a Thiefy setting. It's an entirely different world that you'll hate if you don't understand it at all.
excuse me sir, i did mention that it's a PSEUDO medieval setting, which it is. and what there is to understand? robots that work on steam? yes, that's very deep. i would understand if you asked that about T1. btw, i gave T1 10/10 in the other thread, and obviously i dig T1 better than you T2 fanboys. i just hate T2 for spoiling everything, it was a big big disappointment for me.
inselaffe on 28/10/2009 at 15:05
Dunno how you can say thief 2 had bad level design - ones i played (still not finished :o) were much more detailed, sprawling and carefully created than thief 1. That's not to say thief one levels are bad, on the contrary they are really nice too, they just have a lot less depth and detail. Secret passages in framed are really nice :)
