Gamespot 10/10 generosity

After only giving seven 10/10s in 16 years they have given four of them out in the past 10 months.

It's a pretty big change in philosophy on how they handle their scores. Maybe this is how they slowly move to a 5/5 system.

The implication there is that some of those four games that got 10/10 didn't deserve it. Which of those four do you think deserved a lower score, and how much lower?

Personally, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of a game or what scores they give it. I barely even read reviews anymore anyway, it's all subjective.

Maybe games are just really good lately.

Maybe not that they "didn't deserve it" but I think it does reinforce what they've talked about many times - that in the past 10/10 had the tagline "Perfect" and they were held to the standards of what a perfect game would be, and that's not the case as much anymore.

Or maybe these four games all would have gotten 10/10s a decade ago too. Who knows. Scores are arbitrary.

@nime: Hence the word "Essential." Lots of games can fit in that umbrella, when you compare it to Perfect.

Guess what...Persona 5 is coming out this year.

@aegon: ATLUS keep saying that... but man do I not believe them.

Them changing the way they score is totally fine, but they also don't get to play 10s up as a big deal anymore. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Seven minus four is three. 10 months is about 3/4s of a year. Take .75 and times by 16, which is 12 months (or a year give or take). Half Life 3 confirmed for next year.

Edit: made a mathematical error, it should be 12 years NOT months. Sorry about that Half Life fans.

Look, GB has given out ALOT of 5/5 scores. I don't see the difference between a 5 out of 5 on GB versus a 10 out of 10 at GS. If they used to act like it was some godlike game achievement for a game to be 10/10 then that's super lame. No way in hell can you prove to me that any of their 10 out of 10's before this year were "Perfect" that's bullshit, no game is perfect.

Like on GB, a gamespot 10/10 is meant to represent games that play exceptionally well and are super well executed, nothing else. I cannot possibly see how they can go around calling any game "perfect". Good riddance to the old system if that's what it meant.

They're rather adamant about it!

While I think the witcher 3's issues probably should have kicked it down a notch, I also don't really care all that much. How much difference is there in a 9.8, 9.9 and 10 really?

Exactly. This was what Jeff was trying to steer GS towards when he was still on that end. 10 was "prime" and not "perfect".

I would surmise that the reviewers giving these games 10 out of 10 do so because they believe the games deserve that score. Just because a game that came out two months ago got a 10 out of 10 does not mean that that score should, in any way, factor into the score of the game they are reviewing.

They don't give out 9.5 anymore. There, that's litterally the whole reason. You make those old 9.5 scores into 10's and they've given way more 'perfect' scores.

The entire point the OP is making is that a 10/10 from gamespot did not use to mean that and nothing more, hence the phrase "change in philosophy". Changing what the score represents has allowed them to use it much more willingly. This wasn't a qualitative judgement on whether games "deserve" the scores or not.

Not directed towards you specifically, but the defensive posture which some in this thread seem to be jumping to is bizarre.

I was just thinking about this, actually. A lot of the big releases recently have gotten 10's, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Reviews there are becoming more subjective and personal, so more games are getting 10's. It also helps that 10 isn't "perfect" anymore, it's just a really good score.

It is pretty goofy that they keep acting like those 10's are a big deal, however; pointing it out every time it happens when it now happens pretty frequently is silly.

They've gone to solid numbers? Woah. I remember them going from a 100 point scale to a twenty point, but had no idea they went to a ten point scale. Definitely makes sense that they are giving out more tens when their grading rubric is less granular.

I believe that games have just been of a high quality lately. None of those scores seem undeserved. Also it is important not to forget a score attached to a review is such an abstract thing that it has far less importance than the text of the review.

I just looked up the games:

• Journey (PS4, I guess the PS3 version didn't get 10/10?)
• Witcher 3
• Bayonetta 2
• GTAIV
• Soul Caliber
• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Tony Hawk 3
• Chrono Cross
• MGS4
• Zelda OoT

All I know is, if I were to make a top ten of the past two decades, it probably wouldn't look anything like this list. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Metal Gear fan who thinks that 4 is better than 3, and the latter only got 8.7/10 (*gasp*)

But, opinions and assholes and all that...

@sinusoidal:

Metal Gear Solid 4 is better than Metal Gear Solid 3.

@mechakirby: Yes, yes, yes a thousand times yes!

Metal Gear Solid 4 is better than 3. Like, objectively and stuff.

@civid: I will not sand for these people changing their minds 7 years later. MGS4 was unanimously the raddest shit in 2008 and I won't let anyone say otherwise

Metal Gear Solid 4 is better than Metal Gear Solid 3.

Heck, I'll take it further. Metal Gear Solid 3 is the worst Metal Gear Solid game.

Scores for video game reviews are beginning to matter less and less, as are written reviews entirely. 10/10's don't represent what they used to represent, because they don't need to. I get a better understanding of whether I should buy a game from a quick look than I ever have from a written review. Written reviews have their place, but in the realm of interactive media I think they are becoming obsolete. They are better suited for things like movies, music, books, TV, etc. For games you really need to see it in action alongside indepth criticism to get a good idea of how it will suit your tastes.

They're like the American Famitsu

LMAO there's no such thing as objectivity in video game critique outside of like resolution and frame rate stuff. If we're going to throw that word around I'm gonna say the last three fifths of MGS4 are objectively terrible.

It's silly to compare review scores so it really doesn't matter how many 10s they give out. Different games are reviewed by different people using different criteria.

@sargus: Chrono Cross is the real headscratcher in there.

@mikemcn: On a base mathematical level, there's no difference between 5/5 and 10/10 and 1 billion / 1 billion - they're all 100%. In actuality, there are different connotations depending on how many possible scores there are.

I don't think either 'essential' or 'perfect' are good words to describe 10/10. Obviously, calling a game perfect is ridiculous; 'essential' isn't much better - essential for what, exactly? Are they the essence of gaming? Are you not a real 'gamer' unless you play them?

I think 'exemplary' would be a better choice of word for 10/10.

Good god, some of you guys are insane. The story in MGS4 is a pile of steaming hot garbage, but I'm not going to continue to derail the thread.

The OP's point is that, barring some statistical anomaly, the evidence suggests that, for whatever reason, Gamespot is more likely to post 10s now than it had been in the past. There could be any number of reasons for that-- perhaps staff turnover, perhaps editorial pressure, or perhaps games are just better now than they're even been (I don't agree with that if it's their opinion).

Many of you seem oddly defensive about this, which I think is silly. OP simply said that there has been a change in philosophy. He didn't say (or even imply) that the change was a bad thing. Nor did he say that any of the new 10s were undeserving (on the contrary, his position could very well be that Gamespot should have been posting more 10s in the past).

I AM OUTRAGED ! Games are just getting better , imo .

@rongalaxy: Attaching numbers to movie, music, and book reviews is just as silly as it is attaching numbers to game reviews.

I'll throw my hat in the camp that says its in large part due to moving to a 10 point scale.

@hunkulese: I agree. In my original comment I said that written reviews are better suited to those mediums, not that those mediums are better suited to being numerically scored.

I'm here as a Metal Gear fan who thinks four is better than three. Although, two is better than four. Also they're all great.

Yeah, it's only funny because of how they were treating getting a 10 out of 10 like it was a big deal not that long ago.

Review scores don't really matter. If it was a 9.9 or 9.5 what would be the difference? Also a review is the opinion of one person that is peer edited. So again all that matters is that experience with the game and if that will match up with what you like and how you play.

Yep, you'll notice they haven't put up that article about how rare 10/10s are this time around...

@johntunoku: Jeff has told a story about that a couple times, don't recall where, but that one was a freelancer, I think. Maybe someone else will remember the bombcast he talked about it on.

"Oh, I didn't say it was perfect!"

"Motherfucker!"

To be honest, 2015 had a lot riding on its metaphorical shoulders. Its just delivering. As a guy that reviews games, I tend to weigh my scores down. 10 needs to be earned. I think the only one we've given is to that full-on Resogun package.

people putting way too much importance in a number not enough importance to the actual review.

Oy.

Review scores mattered back when you got your buying info on games from a magazine. Now you can get that info in much more useful forms like quicklooks and that sort of thing.

I'm really surprised at the number of people who popped up saying MGS4 is better than 3. I can't see it, but yeah, opinions are opinions.

There is no objectivity in art, all opinions are subjective. There are only two exceptions: pro wrestling is terrible, and MGS4 is WAAAAAY better than MGS3. If you hold an opinion contrary to either of these two statements, you're objectively wrong!

I concur.

Guys, I think this has just been a really exceptional year for games. In many places Bayonetta 2, The Witcher 3 & Metal Gear Solid 5 has/will got/get fantastic review scores. Batman as well, I'm still waiting on the PC patch but I heard its good when it works. And you know what, with Fallout 4 and Just Cause 3 coming this year too I think we may see some more exceptional reviews.

I don't really remember how good 2007 was for games cos' I was only 13 but to me now at 20 (21 next month), this has been the best year in video games.

I only think it's weird because of how much emphasis they've been putting on the fact that they haven't given out a lot of 10 in the past. It seems that as of late they really talk it up a bunch which makes the number of 10's given out this past year seem somehow cheaper in comparison.