Support NeoGAF

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

GTA V got a perfect score from multiple critic reviews.

I personally thought it was a 7/10. I am also a longtime fan of the series.

Sleeping Dogs didn't get a single perfect score from any critic reviewers. AngryJoe, one of those "real reviewers" because he isn't IGN or Kotaku or whatever, gave it a 6/10.

I personally thought it was a 9/10, damn near a 10/10. I completed it to 100% and also completed the DLC episodes.

Whatever you think of a game, that's what should matter to you. Not what these other guys with all of their followers and connections who might say they're being objective but are just as much prone to their own bias as the rest of us.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Never let an individual influence you, make your own judgements.

Never! Honestly over the years I've enjoyed plenty of games that rated pretty meh, but I don't regret giving them my time. I actually didn't even bother to look them up until when I was done with the game.

I've had quite a few friends over the years that would allow reviews to control their perspective SO HARD that it was frustrating. Even in moments where I played the game and talked highly about it, they would reply with, "But what were/are the reviews looking like?" As if the reviews are coming straight from the mouth of the creator of the universe. Or, "What do you think about those reviews, eh?" when they're not even bad per se as if I'm going to say "OH MAN, SCREW THAT GAME!" Lmao.

 

[Vawn]

I find it laughable the number of people who completely disagree with review scores of games they have yet to play.

Remember when Nintendo fans were ready to burn down GameSpot and take to rioting in the streets over that "horrible" 8.8 score for Twilight Princess?

Now, people get pissed when an exclusive gets a high score if it's on the console they consider to be "the enemy".

10/10 has never meant "perfect", by the way.

 

[D3SCHA1N]

I completely ignore not only perfect reviews, but reviews in general...

 

[Bigrx1]

I think people don't always realize that giving a game a perfect 100 is an incentive for review outlets because it gets them near the top of the list on review sites. It's not just super low scores that are "clickbait" to get attention, the same works oftentimes with perfect scores. Even if they know the game isn't perfect, it increases the visibility of the review literally just by being near the top. And I think the sites that are genuinely interested in giving an honest review are much lower in number than the ones just looking for views unfortunately.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I never take a perfect score as the game is perfect, just the reviewer really loved it and the flaws are minor enough to not be a bother.

 

[Kadayi]

GTA V got a perfect score from multiple critic reviews.

I personally thought it was a 7/10. I am also a longtime fan of the series.

Sleeping Dogs didn't get a single perfect score from any critic reviewers. AngryJoe, one of those "real reviewers" because he isn't IGN or Kotaku or whatever, gave it a 6/10.

I personally thought it was a 9/10, damn near a 10/10. I completed it to 100% and also completed the DLC episodes.

Whatever you think of a game, that's what should matter to you. Not what these other guys with all of their followers and connections who might say they're being objective but are just as much prone to their own bias as the rest of us.

The absurdly high scores for both GTA IV and ME3 have really left me suspicious of the gaming press. GTA IV, in particular, was massively overrated. Extremely impressive on a technical level (R* can be counted on for that for sure) but the actual story itself left a lot to be desired and the plotting was leaden to the extreme. With ME3, the near-flawless reviews despite the paucity of the ending (and other aspects) were a clear sign of a deep division between audience expectation and critical assessment. A situation not helped by certain factions of the press deciding that their audience was wrong.

 

[Danjin44]

I never take a perfect score as the game is perfect, just the reviewer really loved it and the flaws are minor enough to not be a bother.

Exactly! Scores it just the overall feeling of the reviewer towards the game. there is no calculation in most reviews, some games might have bunch of little flaws but it get high score because those flaws didn't get in the way of the enjoyment or a game barely has any flaws but it still got low score because the reviewer personally didn't like overall experience. Its that simple.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

Now, people get pissed when an exclusive gets a high score if it's on the console they consider to be "the enemy".

This isn't a new thing with console fanboys.

 

[Iggzy]

"Yes, you're a special little snowflake" is the answer for all questions that start with "Am I the only one..."?

 

[Doom85]

Final Fantasy IX is a 10 for me. I still think Steiner and Freya didn't get much character development after disc 2.

Nier Automata is a 10 for me. Route B is great but not quite on par with the other routes.

This isn't limited to video games either. Lord of the Rings: ROTK is a 10 for me, but the dead army looked fake in the battle. (I won't mention the ending, because having read the book managing to reduce that all to 20 minutes is impressive. Also, it's a 20 minute epilogue to a 9+ hour story, that's hardly unreasonable)

Generally, you should be able to find flaws in even things you absolutely love. (or the opposite, find at least something positive even in something generally bad. Unless we're talking Steam Early Access rip-off scams or movies that cared so little they wound up on Mystery Science Theater 3000, I mean there are limits)

 

[Vawn]

This isn't a new thing with console fanboys.

You're probably right, but before this generation I don't recall hearing so much of there being a massive conspiracy that reviewers all around the world were just giving out high scores because a game was on PlayStation and not on Xbox.

 

[Fbh]

Nah, I don't think most sites use it to say the game is perfect in every way so I don't think they should be ignored. With that said, I do think a 10/10 should represented a really amazing game, an absolute must play that represents the best gaming has to offer at the time. Generally if I see a site or publication handing them out like candy I just ignore their reviews

Which is why some of the Death Stranding reviews are a joke. The push square one is like "you spend most of this 60 hours long game doing deliveries but it's only really fun for the first 10 hours....................10/10 goty candidate"

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

The absurdly high scores for both GTA IV and ME3 have really left me suspicious of the gaming press. GTA IV, in particular, was massively overrated. Extremely impressive on a technical level (R* can be counted on for that for sure) but the actual story itself left a lot to be desired and the plotting was leaden to the extreme. With ME3, the near-flawless reviews despite the paucity of the ending (and other aspects) were a clear sign of a deep division between audience expectation and critical assessment. A situation not helped by certain factions of the press deciding that their audience was wrong.

I feel like there's a lot of hype that dictates most critic reviews giving a perfect review for games in popular well-established franchises. I already know GTA VI will be yet another game to receive perfect scores because "living, breathing world" and "there's so much to do". Every new IP in its genre has to compete with a more popular, legendary franchise like GTA, Final Fantasy, or Call of Duty and it's not fair. I've missed out on several JRPG franchises growing up because of the constant praise Square Enix gets for their incredible production values and how their games are the ones to play. I'll tell you what though, I bought Tales of Symphonia earlier this year and even though it's still in my backlog I'm going to play it and I'll probably enjoy it too.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

I ignore all review scores tbh

Nowadays we get enough direct information, gameplay and story footage, the need for reviews isn’t that large.

It’s not like the 90s when the most you could hope for was usually a static photograph and you had to imagine what the game was like. Nowadays a consumer can witness full gameplay of entire games for free often before they game is officially released. Reviews aren’t a necessity.

 

[Tiamat2san]

I am more in favor of the pros and cons in a review.
I always read a lot of reviews and if available opposite reviews.

but it’s hard to mesure objectively fun.

i really didn’t like breath of the wild.
I found it boring , hollow and ugly.
It was praised almost by everyone.

no opinion is better than your own.

 

[Insane Metal]

Am I the only one that completely ignores perfect review scores?

Yes. I for one need dat perfect score specially from IGN.

 

[synchronicity]

Yes, I understand your mentality op. I'm similar in that if I'm unsure about any purchase, I tend to read across the spectrum of reviews from hate to love and from both critics and laypersons. Without having experienced something, I like to form an opinion which is shaped from as broad a window as possible.

I don't tend to give more credence to any particular point on the scale though. I just keep reading until a find a few reviews (or excerpts) that resonate particularly strongly with me and use those connections to inform my decision.

 

[Portugeezer]

It's just a number, the content of the review still matters.

 

[Wolfgang Jr]

No game is perfect...granted, but I believe there are games who deserve a 10 out of 10, or 5/5 stars...what have you.

Looking at metacritic I tend to peruse the reviews and look for articles within the 75 to 85 range. I do this because my feeling is perfect review scores aren't going to tell you the whole story. With Death Stranding being the flavor of the month, along with COD and Outer Worlds I want to know the good and the bad, and want to be surprised by the awesome.

After checking a few Death Stranding reviews, I feel this game would be a game that I would buy just to have it for those really weird nights where I don't wanna play any of my mainstay games. It's feels like I'm going to have to be in the mood to play Death Stranding.

It's strange because I'm still pretty hyped about it, but it's not the same kind of hype. It's really strange...and I like it. Ive gamed for a long time. To still be able to feel something new is a testament to Kojima's brilliance. I've never been excited to be bored.

Wait, you think you're the only person in 8 BILLION humans that have this view on metacritic review scores?

 

[nbcjr]

they got the 10/10 right for ocarina of time

 

[FMXVII]

I trust that a score of 10 means the reviewer who gave said 10 thought it was a really good game.

 

[Futaleufu]

100s or even 90s are circle jerks by the usual shills of the Industry. I understand that they have to kiss arse and what have you, but a perfect score is very fake and artificial.

After shitting on Konami, Metal Gear Survive and #fuckonami, they have to justify themselves they didn't pick the wrong side.

 

[Macapala]

Some reviewers are idiots who argue a 10/10 score isn't actually a perfect score. A 10/10 game can still have flaws. Which begs the question, why don't they just give the game a 9.8 or 9.9 out of 10?

Yeah, I don't get it either.

 

[MagnesG]

A metacritic score is just a factor, which I wouldn't either absolutely ignore nor bet on.

Though, I wish we could stop using "Am I the only one" tropes though, seriously that's just bullshit thinking.

 

[Kumomeme]

there no proper solid measurement system for stuff like videogames and film as this stuff can be subjective and each people had their own taste..not to mention certain things are tackled depend on the creater vision

so...dont trust these rating score...read people review instead.....

 

[Pallas]

The only time i ever listened to prefect 10/10 review scores, was in the old EDGE days. they are very harsh with review scores, and hardly every gave out 9's, nevermind 10's. I think the first 10/10 game i saw was Mario 64, Zelda Ocarina of Time, and Halo CE. All landmark games, and deserving of that kind of score.

As long as those tough reviews had a better synopsis then this.

 

[hariseldon]

As long as those tough reviews had a better synopsis then this.

I never knew that’s where the talk to the monsters thing came from!

On topic, I used to take notice as a kid, and to be fair ST Format rarely steered me wrong (and £25 per game for a kid in the early 90s meant I had to make good decisions), but even they had dodgy moments, such as Magic Fly getting format gold when it just happened that one of their staff worked on the game) but the game didn’t look my type of thing so I didn’t get suckered. Thinking about it, even back then, I had enough critical awareness to rule out games that just weren’t for me, and even to rule in games that got mediocre scores but looked fun.

These days I have no trust in reviews, given they are politically influenced or bought and paid for (or both). These days I’ll hear about a game here and look into it, YouTube etc, gameplay videos generally give me a good idea of whether it’s for me.

 

[Helios]

I think numbered scoring isn’t the best system, specifically because 0 and 100 scores are conceptually ludicrous.

0 scores are ridiculous because everything that exists deserves some sort of credit. Even if a game is a Unity game where you press up to make a gray untextured cube move two meters in a gray untextured plane before displaying text of “Youre Winnner!” in comic sans, that still deserves at least a 1 or 2 out of 100.

100s are ridiculous because in giving something a 100 you are saying it can’t be improved and that everything about it is the best it could possibly be.

I think a better system would one that is not numeric but can still accurately gauge the reviewer’s enthusiasm.

Here’s an example of a simple system like this:

• Would very much NOT recommend.
• Would NOT recommend.
• Use your own judgement.
• Would recommend.
• Would very much recommend.

The above is already how some people use the 5-point system (Dunkey immediately comes to mind), but again attaching a number to it implies things that the reviewer doesn’t intend (which is why people give Dunkey shit for giving games 3/5 even though he considers that a neutral-positive score).

It also avoids the confusing problem that reviews have where 10 is perfect, 8-9 are great, 7 is meh, 6 is shit, 5 is absolutely putrid, and 1-4 don’t exist.

That's why I like ACG's "Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent, Never Touch" system. With the only caveat that renting is not really a thing on PC but I still understand what he means by it.

 

[Kadayi]

I feel like there's a lot of hype that dictates most critic reviews giving a perfect review for games in popular well-established franchises. I already know GTA VI will be yet another game to receive perfect scores because "living, breathing world" and "there's so much to do". Every new IP in its genre has to compete with a more popular, legendary franchise like GTA, Final Fantasy, or Call of Duty and it's not fair. I've missed out on several JRPG franchises growing up because of the constant praise Square Enix gets for their incredible production values and how their games are the ones to play. I'll tell you what though, I bought Tales of Symphonia earlier this year and even though it's still in my backlog I'm going to play it and I'll probably enjoy it too.

Well, I think in large part a lot of it comes down to the long-standing traditional overweighting of Gameplay and Graphics over Story and possibly something that is almost universally overlooked and that's a sense of coherence between all 3 elements (which ties in a bit with robust world-building). I think when assessing a game its first important to understand what sort of a game it is and what its emphasis will be in that equation and assess accordingly. The inherent problem with a universal rule, especially when it comes to games, is that they're a little bit too elusive to subscribe to fixed criteria. The main issue with the AAA space is on the whole production values are for the most part top-notch, so that generally means that bar some performance issues they're generally already in the positive when it comes to reviews scores by default out of the blocks which is why the 7 -10 score meme is so popular.

 

[Gargus]

I don't trust reviews period.

There are plenty of people just on neogaf I don't agree with, what's the chances I'll agree with one reviewer out of over 7 billion? Pretty damn slim. Just because one person has an opinion that can't be qualified doesn't mean everyone else has the same opinion.

Then you have to factor in reviewers get paid to do their job, and who pays their bills? Advertisers who put ads in their magazines and banners on their website. I don't trust someone who reviews products and are being paid by the people who make those same products.

Then you have to factor in no one is really unbiased. If someone doesn't like say a games director for some reason are they really going to be fair in reviewing their game? We also know people can be contrarians so if something is popular they would dislike it just because a lot of people do like it. The human factor ruins reviews.

And it's all just opinion anyway. No reviewer has to go to school and be a certified reviewer, they have no code of ethics, no guidelines. Anyone can be a reviewer. Some kid working in McDonalds running the fry machine is just as much of a reviewer as a 45 year old guy who does it for a living they because they are both random nobodies.

People put too much stock in reviewers. Personally I'll watch a trailer, read a bit about it and decide if I want to play it or not.

The only time I look at reviews is for a overall score. Like if I am curious about a game and I see metacritic and Amazon have a ton of negative reviews then I'll wait because I know it's going to be cheaper soon but if I am curious I will play it. So I use overall scores as a tool to decide if I want to pay more now, or pay less and wait a little bit, but it won't change my mind on if I want to play it at all.

 

[mcjmetroid]

Not necessarily a perfect score that would put me off but you have to be carefuk with certain games and franchises.A have a few things with reviews I tend to be careful of.

1: I'm very sceptical on Nintendo first party games especially Mario + Zelda. Also for instance these WIIU ports getting rereleases for full price with no enhancements getting amazing scores. There needs to be an element of value to a review score. I know a lot of the time like Tropical Freeze the game is still fantastic but it wasn't worth full price and the reviews should reflect this.

I also don't believe many scores from many Nintendo specific websites such as Nintendolife. You can pretty much take a 2 away from most of their scores to get the proper score.

I would recommend YouTube channels like Switchwatch though who break games down nicely and rate every aspect of the game fairly including value.

Also I'm sorry but Links awakening should have been held to the fire for the poor performance and lack of new content. I played the original but haven't played the remake but it was getting 9s.....

2: All Rockstar games. More does not automatically equal better. RDR2 is a game I really disliked because it fails at the core parts of being a game. Your mileage will vary if you can get used to bad controls, input lag, bad mission design, cumbersome gaming systems. I couldn't.

 

[Platinumstorm]

I'm really wary of all AAA reviews. I've felt they've misaligned with my opinions too many times. I don't mind if something gets a 10/10, and I occasionally give my own 10/10s.

 

[cireza]

I completely ignore professional reviews, does this count ?

 

[SpiceRacz]

I think in some cases, a perfect score does not mean a perfect game. It means they're giving it the highest recommendation possible.

 

[Rayderism]

I never read the highest rated reviews. I always read the lowest scores because I believe they tend to point out the flaws in a game.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm a harsh critic of games and cynical too.

I'd rather start from the bottom and read a game's 5/10 scores than read 10/10s.

 

[01011001]

these days, if a game has an above 90% rating I'm actually more concerned about it's quality than if it had only a 70%

and that's because nowadays game "reviewers" often rate a game based on how cinematic and polished the presentation is, and barely rate game design (because they're most of the time not even qualified to do so) or gameplay.

you can tell by how high games like Uncharted 4 are rated, a game that's at best a solid 7/10, if even that, gets rated as a masterpiece.

the God of War reboot, a game that has a so-so fighting system, awfully dull boss fights, mediocre leveldesign, pointless RPG mechanics and so-so puzzle elements, gets also praised to the high heavens because of how cinematic its presentation is and for no other good reason.

Spider-Man also, it's pretty mediocre if you really look at it.
the fighting is ok but nothing special, the stealth mechanics are tze most basic arcady stealth mechanics imaginable, the boss fights range from bad to above average and the web swinging is fun but extremely dumbed down.

and I actually liked God of War and Spider-Man (hate Uncharted tho... like all of them) but these games are solid 7/10 gamss at best, and that's not bad I might add, a 7/10 is a good game, but these games and similar releases are constantly overrated into oblivion and are the reasons I don't read reviews at all anymore

it's not about "no game is perfect" for me when it comes to these ratings (for one because most rating Systems actually say that a 10/10 or 5/5 aren't to be seen as perfect scores but simply as the highest possible that come close to perfection)
for me these ratings are just highly suspicious because of what I've come to expect from gaming outlets.

as I said, I don't read reviews anymore whatsoever.
and the reason for this is that I basically disagree with 99% of reviewers on even the most basic values of gamedesign.
the last person that I actually listened to when it came to game critiques and impressions was Totalbiscuit, even when I disagreed with him I could still see his point of view because he didn't just say "oh this is a bad mechanic", he recognised when something was well made even when he didn't like it.
many reviewers lack this ability it seems... looking at a mechanic and even tho you dislike the mechanic you get what the developer wanted to do and you can evaluate if it is well implemented/thought out.

 

[Zaffo]

7.5 is my perfect score, i like that stuff that some people love while others hate.

 

[TeamGhobad]

same here. i always read the worst scores and make a decision then. to me those are the most honest, and a clear indicator if it's a game I would enjoy or not.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I don't.

If someone feels so strongly to give it a 10/10 it gives me reason to check it out.

I don't put any stock into publishers buying reviewers off. When Jeff Gerstmann gives something 5 stars, I believe that he genuinely likes that game. When he gives it 1 star, I genuinely believe that he disliked the game.

To be fair, I only have that feeling about Jeff Gerstmann. My tastes in games many times don't align with his, but I feel confident when he posts a review or talks about it on the Giant Bomb podcast, he is giving to you straight about how he feels about a game.

 

[ROMhack]

Related point: one thing I did notice a while back is that it's more useful to concentrate on the colour of metacritic scores rather than the overall number.

 

[PanzerAzel]

I tend not to look at scores as best I can for games I'm looking forward to. But I'll be completely honest, when it is a game I'm very looking forward to and have been waiting a long time for, if I do break down and read reviews, I'll only read the ones that align with the opinion that validates my expectations. Then after I've played the game and've formed my own opinions on it, I'll begin to read the lower ones as well. Reading varying scores before I play it doesn't ultimately affect my opinion of a game once I have, but I can't say it doesn't affect the enjoyment of the hype going into it, which is why I tend towards confirmation bias until I've been able to experience it myself, at which point scores hold no impact towards my own judgement.

 

[01011001]

same here. i always read the worst scores and make a decision then. to me those are the most honest, and a clear indicator if it's a game I would enjoy or not.

I wouldn't say that lower scores are more "honest"
sometimes a low score is the result of the reviewer misunderstanding basic mechanics or of them being not skilled enough in the genre to fully get the game.

one of these examples is Sonic Lost World,
I would describe myself as a "realist Sonic fan", which means I love Sonic but I am also totally aware that many core Sonic games, including Sonic Adventure, are pretty bad.

So I was stunned to see how bad Lost World was rated by many reviewers.

and then I got why... they literally didn't understand how it's played and how one of the base movement mechanics work.
none of the reviewers seemed to understand how the spin-dash worked. which in this game is a fully fledged third movement mode.
Walking/Sprinting/Dashing

you walk by simply moving the stick, you Sprint by holding down Sprint (Y) and you go into spin-dash by holding Dash to charge it, releasing it to start it and then holding it again to stay in this mode.
and noone who reviewed the game knew how this movement mode worked, which lead to reviews claiming the game was way too slow.

another mechanic many reviewers seemed to not understand is the wallrunning. you can dash around corners and many seemed to not know this.

admittedly, the game only teached you these things through brief popup messages, any it would be a valid criticism that the game did an awful job teaching you its mechanics, but it's still telling on how thoroughly these games get testet... meaning not at all thoroughly but only surface level.

so that's how the IMO best 3D Sonic ever is one of the worst rated Sonic games...
the only 3D Sonic game without camera issues or dodgy controls... the only 3D Sonic that isn't just rollercoaster rides with occasional way too fastly approaching obstacles to the point where you have to know the level to even react in time...

and yet, apparently worse than Sonic Adventure which is a buggy mess with absolutely atrocious controls, and worse than Sonic Generations on console which is almost a guessing game on what to press next because of the high speed and low framerate making it impossible to actually react to anything.

A Sonic game with crisp controls, 60fps refresh on console and an almost perfect camera... is apparently a 60% and worse according to many outlets

 

[Smaller than Atom]

Nope

 

[PhilipDoesMatter]

They actually get my attention.

 

[JimmyJones]

Bioshock Infinite killed game reviews for me. BOTW pissed on the corpse.

The majority of reviews are bought, movies and games. They are not to be trusted.

 

[LittleBusters]

Inside is 10/10.

 

[Hypereides]

I've grown more distrustful of perfect scores over the past decade. They're being almost mindlessly thrown around like nothing. A perfect 10 used to be very rare. It was indicative of a truly exceptional game. Now, it seems like the most anticipated, hyped AAA games get them despite the overall content in written reviews contradicting the final verdict. The correlation is weird and it bothers me.

 

[Herr Edgy]

Bioshock Infinite killed game reviews for me. BOTW pissed on the corpse.

The majority of reviews are bought, movies and games. They are not to be trusted.

They aren't bought, it's just that many people are sheep and their perspective is primarily shaped by their surroundings. They gotta belong to the club, and if the club says A you say A.

You can notice this across many indie devs and game journalists. They act like the industry is one big family, a family by choice. Which should tell you enough honestly, because that is absurd.

My guess is it is because they hope to succeed more easily due to (superficial) connections rather than on merit of their work, and performing actions that someone might perceive as 'negative' - such as giving BotW a score of 82, being critical of your peers etc. Will lower your options. It's a huge farce.