Let me begin by stating that I am not challenging the perfect 10 awarded to GTAIV by various outlets. I don't own the game, so I can't evaluate for myself its worthiness of such a high mark.

However, what does a perfect 10 mean? More specifically, what does a perfect 10 mean for games coming in the [near] term? Has GTA's receipt of such a score cheapened the value of a 10?

Look at MGS4. I'm not a MGS fan. Didn't like MGS on the psone. During the lull of titles for the ps3 at the beginning of 06, I picked up MGS3:Subsistence. I made it through the opening cut scene(all 45 minutes of it), and partly through the first mission, over at a friend's house before I got home. I haven't played it since, mainly because I didn't want to pain myself with having to go through the beginning again. I honestly think the opening sequence for MGS3 offered the most juvenile dialog, horrible voice acting, and amateur dialog mechanics I've experienced in the past 5 years. It was actually worse than Lair. I mean, come on - I specifically remember characters repeating stories to Snake to fill in back story for the player, stories that Snake had experienced first-hand. I've read comics that were better written than MGS3's opening scene, and I've read damned few comics. Regardless of my opinions on MGS3, I picked it up because A) it was cheap, B) IGN gave it a 9.8, and C) there we no PS3 games I wanted at the time.

And despite my dislike of the MGS series, I have followed the hype of MGS4. The recent previews by the press that conducted full game playthroughs contain some of the highest praise I've ever seen printed for a video game. And I know that the MGO beta appears to not be the exact flavor for many FPS fans. However, considering the universal praise in the previews that MGS4 has thus far received, what kind of score should we expect? Excepting multiplayer, is it no less of an achievement than GTAIV? In size, breadth, technology, everything? Based on what we know so far, how can it not receive a 10?

And what about LBP? I'm personally as excited for this game as I've ever been; possibly moreso than even Halflife2 back in 2003/2004. If MediaMolecule delivers on all the promises, especially with all of the community features that have been described and depicted in various trailers, then will it be any less of an accomplishment? After all, LBP promises to be utterly revolutionary(assuming it fulfills those promises), doing things never seen before, much less implemented well. It may not be every one's cup of tea(but neither is MGS or GTA), but how can it not receive a 10 as well?

I understand that games more often than not do not live up to the hype. Its more than likely neither MGS4 or LBP will match the hype. But if they do, both deserve solid 10's IMO.

Having said all that, now that GTAIV has pretty much universally received 10's, can the same outlets that handed out that score not award 10s for products that are possibly even more deserving?

If MGS4/LBP don't receive the same marks as GTAIV, but deliver on everything promised, then I think the 10s awarded to GTAIV are meaningless. If, however, MGS4 and LBP receive 10's(one, the other, or both), then the value of a 10 itself is cheapened, what with 10s appearing so frequently within such a short timespan. Either way, I think Gamespot and IGN handing out a 10 to GTAIV puts them in an interesting position in the future.

I hope I've made sense.

The problem is that the relative nature of scores is so screwed up.

IGN really brought this on themselves by using this idiotic X.X rating system and not giving out a 10 in 8.5 years. GameSpot is the same way, they simplified their system but have not given out many 10s either, at all.

A much more reasonable system is the one that Next Gen used to use, a simple 5 star system. A five star game is simply outstanding and one of the best on the shelves. They gave out maybe 5-10 fives a year, and were obviously the games they felt were the year's best. GameSpy operates much the same way (they do half stars, though). Same with Roger Ebert - he gives out quite a lot **** ratings, simply saying its an outstanding, top-breed movie.

While I think GTA4 is an outstanding game, definitely worthy of a five star Next Gen or four star Roger Ebert score, do I think its the best game to be released in 9 years? Umm... I don't know. It's kind of impossible to say, considering how much gaming has changed in that time.

And therein lies the problem. Most people will agree that GTA4 is an excellent, top-shelf, AAA game all the way. But its tougher to say that its the best game released in the best decade of gaming history. But IGN forced that issue out there by giving it a score it so rarely gives. If IGN's scoring system was well-grounded and reasonable, they would have given many more games over the past decade a 10, and simply say that games in that class are just rare breeds.

It may seem weird for me to suggest these high scores should become more inclusive rather than less. But its simply because criticism is not a science. Its hard to compare a 9.8 game like Gran Turismo 3 to a 9.8 game like MGS3. Which is better? Depends! But its reasonable to say they are both superb, brilliant games which should be instant purchases if you enjoy the style of game.

I agree; reviewing any such material, be it games, books, movies, restaurants, is purely subjective. One could create some series of metrics that attempt to value a product in a quantifiable manner, but ultimately it all becomes subjective.

Car reviews have been like this for years. There are all kinds of hard metrics used to measure an automobile's performance, yet it's difficult to measure such things as the qualify of a car's headliner with a simple number.

I don't understand your logic comparing LBP and MGS4 to GTA4. Especially since you nor I have played LBP or MGS4 and in your case GTA4 either. If all 3 receive 10's it doesn't cheapen the rating of 10. And if they don't receive 10's it doesn't mean GTA4 was undeserving. They are 3 different games in 3 different genres. Each is independent in and of itself. If they all receive 10's it just confirms the fact they are great games. If they all receive 10's in the timespan of 6-7 months, it doesn't cheapen the rating of 10. It just means that we as gamers are in a very good time frame for games and there are a number of VERY good games coming out in the next 6 months.
Have there been games that have deserved a 10 since the last 10, I would say yes. But I think it just goes to show how great of a game GTA4 is and if LBP and MGS4 get 10's how great they are as well.

After putting in around 15+ hours I'd have to give GTA a 10. Not in any one specific category besides addictiveness. Its an epic game that DOES deserve it in my eyes. I have no scoring system to say yes its a ten, just simply how awesome I think the game is. :)

I give GTA a 10 also. This game F'ing rules.

I agree; reviewing any such material, be it games, books, movies, restaurants, is purely subjective. One could create some series of metrics that attempt to value a product in a quantifiable manner, but ultimately it all becomes subjective.



Having said that..Why would you put any faith or stock in the review scores for GTA4. If the score is purely subjective it depends the persons likes and dislikes. You dont like MGS so when MGS4 comes out it wont be worth a 10 to you. I personally cant see how anybody would play FF series, but more power to them.
At any rate trying to shoe horn all games into the same catergory and have them all judge by the standard or "series of metrics" that GTA-4 has set is a waste of time. How can you compare GTA-4 to COD4? One is a sandbox and the other a FPS. No way will they two be comparable as far as their scores.
I think the score of 10 or 5 out of 5 just simply states that GTA-4 is the best Sand box game out to date. It has set the bar for that genre. But it is not the be all end all of video games, and it's not going to be the new measuring stick for games outside of that genre.

http://www.squishedfrog.com/images/comicbookguy.gif
"Log in to my avsforum.com account.
Reply to post "GTA's perfect 10".
BEST VIDEO GAME EVER (exclamation point)
Your complaints about GTA4 have become more redundant
and annoying then the last three "Highlander" movies.
Click Submit Reply.
Log out of account.
Go back to playing GTA4." -Comic Book Guy

I've only played GTAIV for about 12 hours, and from what I've seen so far, I'm surprised it got a perfect 10.

Sure, it's a good game, but a 10? Not yet. Perhaps I have to play some more. Honestly, it hasn't hooked me yet. The only reason I'm continuing to play is because everyone says this is a 10, and I'm trying to figure out why.

Yes, there's a lot of dialog, a lot of story. Is it good? Meh.

The envirnoment is pretty impressive with it's detail and scope, but I've played some MMORPG's with some pretty big maps, so I'm less blown away by Liberty City.

The game is good, but with these scores, it should have easily been better than my other PS3 games (Uncharted, COD4, Ratchet, Oblivion, GT5P) and I don't think it is. At least not yet. I'm going to put some more time in and see if this 10 is justified. Right now I'd have to say "no".

I get what you're saying, but IMO, it's just an idea of how good the game is. We all get caught up on the "is it perfect," "should it get a 10," blah blah blah, but in reality, all the review needs to do is help people decide if they would like to buy the game.

Buy highly rated games, but be weary of low rated games, end of story. IMO, > 9 = probably could buy blindly (assuming it looked good to you to begin with), 8-9 = probably OK, maybe rent first, below 8 = should rent first. When trying to decide which game to buy, I can't ever see myself saying hmmm, well, it only got a 9.7 on IGN, not a 10 like GTA4, so I don't know about this game. IGN just looks at each of their criteria areas asks themselves if they can see any room for improvement in that area. Evidently, they did not see any way to realistically improve GTA4. It is definitely possible that MGS4 and LBP will receive scores greater than 9s, but not 10s, if there is perceived realistic room for improvement.

I've only played GTAIV for about 12 hours, and from what I've seen so far, I'm surprised it got a perfect 10.

Sure, it's a good game, but a 10? Not yet. Perhaps I have to play some more. Honestly, it hasn't hooked me yet. The only reason I'm continuing to play is because everyone says this is a 10, and I'm trying to figure out why.

Yes, there's a lot of dialog, a lot of story. Is it good? Meh.

The envirnoment is pretty impressive with it's detail and scope, but I've played some MMORPG's with some pretty bug maps, so I'm less blown away by Liberty City.

The game is good, but with these scores, it should have easily been better than my other PS3 games (Uncharted, COD4, Ratchet, Oblivion, GT5P) and I don't think it is. At least not yet. I'm going to put some more time in and see if this 10 is justified. Right now I'd have to say "no".

You could spend the rest of your life trying to figure out if it is a ten or not. I can save your life. :D Simply put it isn't a ten. :p Is it a great game, yes. Is it a ten, no.

I know, it is my opinion. :rolleyes: Meanwhile 90+% of people playing the game who absolutely love it are saying it ISN'T a ten. Poll time!

I give GTA a 10 also. This game F'ing rules.

faking yeah....like faking the whores...and all those xxxx porno things in there....like blow jabs and hands thingy going on there...where are Kyl and the Christian coalition when we need them dumbasses....

I'm embarrassed to say that I depend a lot on IGN.com's reviews and scores for video games. Any video game I'm interested in, the first place I look for opinions is IGN. Their opinions have been pretty spot on with my tastes, and their reviews have served me well, but lately, I've lost a bit of faith in their reviews, and the 10.0 that they gave GTA4 sealed the deal.

The problem with X.Y scores on video game reviews is that you're implying that you can rate a game so precise that you have 101 distinct possible scores that you can give a game. It implies that a 9.6 is overall "better" than a 9.5. Hell, they even have a X.Y score for each of the five categories that they judge with the game, and then say that the final score is not an average. That's six precise numbers that they come up with for each game. How they differentiate between 9.6 and 9.5, nobody really knows, probably including the reviewers themselves. The bottom line is, having precise X.Y or X% format for ratings is redundant and creates confusion among readers, especially those who over0analyze about review scores.

A reviewer's score shoud accomplish the following:
-Convey the reviewer's thoughts on the "calibre" of game. For example: a score should differentiate between "great games" and "must-own killer apps", as well as "a game that fans of the genre might enjoy" and "complete crap".
-Indicate whether a hype-machine was worth the wait, or did it disappoint. I'd like to hear what reviewers will say before Haze before I buy it. For example: Is it a Halo-killer, just another FPS, or a complete dud.
-Identify games that weren't highly-anticipated, hyped, or overly-marketed that are great titles (aka sleepers). For example: How many people wouldn't have given Folklore a second look, if not for word-of-mouth from their favorite video-game reviewers?

A 10-point scale is enough to accomplish these things. 10's are must-have titles for anyone who owns the system and likes good video games. 9's are other uber-titles that warrant countless hours of play and make systems worth buying. 7's and 8's are titles worth considering, especially if you like the genre/series. 0's to 6's are varying levels of suck.

Again, the fact that IGN gives 9.1's and 9.2's just creates confusion and controversy, and the difference between them is irrelevant, given the fact that video-game enjoyability is subjective.

On that note, I'd like to say that I don't think GTA4 deserved a 10.0, when equal-calibre games did not. It is an excellent game, but by no means leaps-and-bounds above all other X360 and PS3 games. If we're looking at a 10 point scale without the decimals, I'd say GTA deserves a 10, as does Uncharted and Call of Duty 4.

Again, the fact that IGN gives 9.1's and 9.2's just creates confusion and controversy, and the difference between them is irrelevant, given the fact that video-game enjoyability is subjective.This has all been said many times, but there's a very specific reason for those X.Y scores.

As average scores have gone up (now a de facto 7-10 scale), sites like IGN have realized that they still need to differentiate between titles. If pretty much every game receives a 7, 8, 9, or 10, that doesn't leave a lot of room for making distinctions. Hence the decimal points. So, it isn't really "101" possible scores. It's generally more a scale of "31" possible scores. Yes, it's stupid. But as IGN sees it, it's good business to have so many games with seemingly high scores. If they can convince readers/consumers that most games are good, it keeps the industry as a whole happy and healthy.

Anyhow, no, there's no way GTA IV deserves the outrageously high scores it's gotten. Yes, it's a good game, but there's not one single revolutionary, innovative, or new idea in it. Unlike it's predecessors, it's just rehashing everything the series has already done without adding anything substantial. It's just a collection of small tweaks, details, and enhancements.

GTA IV is an over-hyped upgrade. Nothing more.

Like most gamers, I'm guessing that these review sites already assumed it would be a top scoring game before they'd even played the final retail version.

I have no problem with the X.Y scoring system. If you truly think that a 9.5 game is supposed to be better than a 9.4 game, then you have the wrong idea about the scale. There is NO way to judge that - there are no hard set rules, goals or objectives. It's not like grading a test where you either got the answers right or wrong. It is a completely subjective evaluation of the game.

The reviewer takes off .Y points here and there for whatever he sees fit at the time. If he/she is a good reviwer, then their reviews will be fairly consistent. And if you trust the reviewer, then that is all that matters. I'm sure we can all relate on the 0-10 scale for girls. We all have a buddy who we never agree with his ratings, and we also all have a buddy who we tend to agree with 99% of the time. You need to find your 99% agree-with reviewer who you tend to agree with most of the time, and take their opinion for what it's worth - an opinion (that you usually agree with). For me, that does happen to be IGN. Do I think GTA4 is a 10, however? No, but their point was well taken and I agree with it - it's a good game that's worth buying, and I'm not sorry that I bought it.

If you are splitting hairs between games that differ by 0.1 points, you might just want to rent EVERY game and not even bother with reviews. The only reason for the decimals at all is so that games are not rated too high or too low. If everything in a category is great except a few minor details, should you give it a 10 in that category? Well it has flaws, so you shouldn't. If it's almost perfect, then it doesn't deserve a 9 either, so you use your best judgement based on the flaws to fit it somewhere in between. The slight differences in the tenths of points are what the ACTUAL review is for - that is, READ the actual text of the review and the reasoning behind every category's score.

In any event, you have to remember, all a review is, is another person's opinion.

A 10 doesn't mean the game is perfect.

The text of the review is what is important, not the number.

Grading video games is like grading a movie. Does a 5 star movie mean that the movie could never be improved upon and that it is perfect? No. Same for restaurants.

It isn't like grading a multiple choice test. A 100% on a multiple choice test means that every answer is unequivocally correct. You can't do that with a video game, essay, movie, book, or a restaurant.

The game reviewers are quite clear about this.

I don't see why everyone wants to boil video games down to just a single number. Maybe it is just the geeky nature of the medium.

There is no precedent set by giving this game a 10. It isn't a "perfect 10." It is just a 10. Read the review.

The problem is that the relative nature of scores is so screwed up.

IGN really brought this on themselves by using this idiotic X.X rating system and not giving out a 10 in 8.5 years. GameSpot is the same way, they simplified their system but have not given out many 10s either, at all.

A much more reasonable system is the one that Next Gen used to use, a simple 5 star system. A five star game is simply outstanding and one of the best on the shelves. They gave out maybe 5-10 fives a year, and were obviously the games they felt were the year's best. GameSpy operates much the same way (they do half stars, though). Same with Roger Ebert - he gives out quite a lot **** ratings, simply saying its an outstanding, top-breed movie.

While I think GTA4 is an outstanding game, definitely worthy of a five star Next Gen or four star Roger Ebert score, do I think its the best game to be released in 9 years? Umm... I don't know. It's kind of impossible to say, considering how much gaming has changed in that time.

And therein lies the problem. Most people will agree that GTA4 is an excellent, top-shelf, AAA game all the way. But its tougher to say that its the best game released in the best decade of gaming history. But IGN forced that issue out there by giving it a score it so rarely gives. If IGN's scoring system was well-grounded and reasonable, they would have given many more games over the past decade a 10, and simply say that games in that class are just rare breeds.

It may seem weird for me to suggest these high scores should become more inclusive rather than less. But its simply because criticism is not a science. Its hard to compare a 9.8 game like Gran Turismo 3 to a 9.8 game like MGS3. Which is better? Depends! But its reasonable to say they are both superb, brilliant games which should be instant purchases if you enjoy the style of game.

Absolutely agreed 110%..

Ive rented this game. I liked it, its obviously a good game, but seriously, these review sites hosed this one up and threw what little credibility they had out the window. Reading some of the reviews you would think the game is the best game to ever come out. Its not. For places like IGN to give the graphics a 10.0 even when they arent "perfect", thats instant credibility loss. Especially when you look at other graphically impressive games that get 9.6. Having this shifting rating system that is totally game dependent just doesnt work.

I agree with the 5 star approach. 1-5 stars, if the game is great, give it 5 stars, and write a meaningful review listing the Pro's and cons........Sure, a 10.0 doesnt have to mean perfect either, but when some games get 9.6, 9.9, 9.3, etc....thats exactly what people will use as a comparison. Ditch that system!

This game rules.

I pay too much attention to other peoples opinions most of the time. My character flaw, I guess. I also pay attention to reviews but will try games regardless. I cannot gauge the percentage, but I feel most of the time a game thats gotten generally good reviews are enjoyable while games with bad reviews are usually deserving of the ratings also. Doesnt mean I dont play games that are adversely rated in either category.

Ultimately, I think GTA IV is brilliant and deserving of its "perfect" 10. After nearly 20 hours of playing (and only about 30 percent completion), I still find myself interested in its activities and the outright enormous and detailed world the developers have created.

Maybe its because I lived in New York (Bohan, to be exact;)), but the art style and the world is captured so well, that its like visiting the city without leaving RI.

The scope, in my opinion, far surpasses anything Ive previously seen in a game. Because of this, and because I feel the majority of aspects are executed extremely well, I could care less who gave it a "10" or a "4". Its all subjective anyway, so why get worked up about it.

Its as close to being a perfect gaming experience for me. Hopefully, we'll all have many more in the future.

I pay too much attention to other peoples opinions most of the time. My character flaw, I guess. I also pay attention to reviews but will try games regardless. I cannot gauge the percentage, but I feel most of the time a game thats gotten generally good reviews are enjoyable while games with bad reviews are usually deserving of the ratings also. Doesnt mean I dont play games that are adversely rated in either category.

Ultimately, I think GTA IV is brilliant and deserving of its "perfect" 10. After nearly 20 hours of playing (and only about 30 percent completion), I still find myself interested in its activities and the outright enormous and detailed world the developers have created.

Maybe its because I lived in New York (Bohan, to be exact;)), but the art style and the world is captured so well, that its like visiting the city without leaving RI.

The scope, in my opinion, far surpasses anything Ive previously seen in a game. Because of this, and because I feel the majority of aspects are executed extremely well, I could care less who gave it a "10" or a "4". Its all subjective anyway, so why get worked up about it.

Its as close to being a perfect gaming experience for me. Hopefully, we'll all have many more in the future.


Your right at the same spot I am now, about 30.54% completion. I couldn't beleive I was only 30%! I thought I was easily 50% by now. The game just seems to get better the further you go. If I scored it after 5 hours of play I would have gave it a 7.5-8. After 10 hours maybe an 8.5. Now that I am where I am I can easily give it a 10.

Its simple, what compares to it? Nothing. There is no game that really compares to GTA IV, its the best of what the game is, shouldn't the best of the best get a 10 until something beats it?

A 10 doesn't mean the game is perfect.

The text of the review is what is important, not the number.

Grading video games is like grading a movie. Does a 5 star movie mean that the movie could never be improved upon and that it is perfect? No. Same for restaurants.

It isn't like grading a multiple choice test. A 100% on a multiple choice test means that every answer is unequivocally correct. You can't do that with a video game, essay, movie, book, or a restaurant.

The game reviewers are quite clear about this.

I don't see why everyone wants to boil video games down to just a single number. Maybe it is just the geeky nature of the medium.

There is no precedent set by giving this game a 10. It isn't a "perfect 10." It is just a 10. Read the review.


Exactly. I just means the game is so great its a 10. Not that every single aspect of it is flawless.

Exactly. I just means the game is so great its a 10. Not that every single aspect of it is flawless.

10 doesn't imply that it is perfect and flawless, but it does imply that it stands above the rest.

I think it is in the same calibre as Uncharted, Bioshock and Call of Duty 4.

"exclusive reviews" are always suspect. Yes, GTA IV is probably the best game I've played in the last few years but you've got to wonder how IGN got the exclusive review. Its basically scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Although this is a touchy subject, IGN will get a pass since the game is really really good. Do you think T2 would have given IGN the pre-release review if it was going to be less than a 10?

That aside, if this game isn't a 10, its pretty damn close IMO.

This has all been said many times, but there's a very specific reason for those X.Y scores.

Sorry.

As average scores have gone up (now a de facto 7-10 scale), sites like IGN have realized that they still need to differentiate between titles. If pretty much every game receives a 7, 8, 9, or 10, that doesn't leave a lot of room for making distinctions. Hence the decimal points. So, it isn't really "101" possible scores. It's generally more a scale of "31" possible scores.

Yes, I agree and that is the problem. How can anyone possibly distinguish between 9.1 and 9.2 with something that is so subjective. My point is, there is NO need to distinguish between a really great game and a really great game + 0.1, because it is impossible to do so. There is no story that is told with a 9.1 that isn't told with a 9.0. Just indicate what "tier" of great game it is, and the details can be discussed in the text portion of the review.

For sites like metacritic, it's fine because their ratings are nothing more than a compilation of other ratings, averaged out.

Yes, it's stupid. But as IGN sees it, it's good business to have so many games with seemingly high scores. If they can convince readers/consumers that most games are good, it keeps the industry as a whole happy and healthy.

I think it's naive of you to think that a reviewer's goal is to convince people that most games are good, for the purpose of increasing demand for games in order to keep the industry happy. I'm PRETTY sure their goal is to give reliable and comprehensible reviews so that people start to trust their opinions and frequently visit their sites for more reviews. Keeping the industry healthy is up to the manufacturers and developers to put great products on the shelves. Educating the consumers and helping them decide which products are best for them.

Sorry.



Yes, I agree and that is the problem. How can anyone possibly distinguish between 9.1 and 9.2 with something that is so subjective. My point is, there is NO need to distinguish between a really great game and a really great game + 0.1, because it is impossible to do so. There is no story that is told with a 9.1 that isn't told with a 9.0. Just indicate what "tier" of great game it is, and the details can be discussed in the text portion of the review.

For sites like metacritic, it's fine because their ratings are nothing more than a compilation of other ratings, averaged out.



I think it's naive of you to think that a reviewer's goal is to convince people that most games are good, for the purpose of increasing demand for games in order to keep the industry happy. I'm PRETTY sure their goal is to give reliable and comprehensible reviews so that people start to trust their opinions and frequently visit their sites for more reviews. Keeping the industry healthy is up to the manufacturers and developers to put great products on the shelves. Educating the consumers and helping them decide which products are best for them.I get your point now, and while I tend to agree to a point, I find that, especially in such a small used range (7-10), the decimal points help me to determine how much the reviewer felt that the minor flaws impacted the category. I think it's nice to have some idea of whether he felt it was appropriate to dock 0.2 or 0.3, rather than a full point or no mention at all because it would put into a generalized tier.

To each their own I guess.

I think Game Informer probably does the best reviews, especially since they revamped their system 5-10 years ago, when they went from never giving a game a 10 to doing it more like Ebert does, such that a few games every year get 10s. I tend to collate reviews from Gamespot, IGN and GI when looking at a game and I think that between all of them together, you can't really go wrong. GI does tend to get a little over-excited about some games, but it balances out in the context of GS and IGN.

I get your point now, and while I tend to agree to a point, I find that, especially in such a small used range (7-10), the decimal points help me to determine how much the reviewer felt that the minor flaws impacted the category. I think it's nice to have some idea of whether he felt it was appropriate to dock 0.2 or 0.3, rather than a full point or no mention at all because it would put into a generalized tier.

To each their own I guess.

Having a X.Y rating system allows you to dock or add 0.2 or 0.3 where you see fit, but at the same time, how can you determines the base score at which you are docking from? If you dock 0.3 from a 9.3 because of visual artifacts, or if you don't dock anything from a 9.0 because it doesn't suffer from visual artifacts, you end with the same result. Does it even matter?

I think that if a game has imperfections here and there, they should be mentioned in the review, for people to read. Numeric scores aren't supposed to tell the whole story for people who are too lazy to read the entire review. They are merely a very brief summary of the calibre of quality that the game belongs in. The 0.2's and 0.3's don't matter, and just confuse readers into drawing implications and trying to figure out what the reviewer is trying to convey. Does this 8.4 imply that it is a better game than the 8.3 that it gave last month, and not as good as the 8.5 from the month before?

If X.Y is that much better, should IGN add in another sig-dig and make it X.YZ?

If X.Y is that much better, should IGN add in another sig-dig and make it X.YZ?Game Informer already does that, but they don't use the whole spectrum, just quarters (7.25, 7.50, 7.75, etc.).

As far as "objectivity" goes, remember that even though reviews are "subjective," they are consistent. So that means that a single site (or single reviewer) will adhere to the same criteria. So a particular review might not be objective compared to other reviews, but it is quite objective when compared to other reviews from the same site.

So, yes, that does mean that an IGN score of 8.4 is better than a game they gave an 8.3 to. That's the whole point of their system. I don't agree with how they score things (I think a "5" should be average, otherwise why bother with a ten-point scale), but they are "objective" in the sense that they're consistent with themselves.

So, yes, the "10" they gave GTA IV means that it's better than every other game that got a score lower than that from their site.

I trust their ratings. Most games that score 9.0+, I enjoy. Most overhyped games that they give under 8.0, I don't enjoy.

Maybe games should be rated on a "percentile" basis. Like, the score is based on its relative score compared to other games on the same system or like-systems (PS3 & X360)

Not a 10 for me. COD4 is a hundred times better. I bought it with too high expectations I think.

All my friends came to see "the biggest game ever" and they left saying it looked like a wii game. My reply was " well, you have to give it at least one week".

Definately not a 10.

Let me begin by stating that I am not challenging the perfect 10 awarded to GTAIV by various outlets. I don't own the game, so I can't evaluate for myself its worthiness of such a high mark.

However, what does a perfect 10 mean? More specifically, what does a perfect 10 mean for games coming in the [near] term? Has GTA's receipt of such a score cheapened the value of a 10?

Look at MGS4. I'm not a MGS fan. Didn't like MGS on the psone. During the lull of titles for the ps3 at the beginning of 06, I picked up MGS3:Subsistence. I made it through the opening cut scene(all 45 minutes of it), and partly through the first mission, over at a friend's house before I got home. I haven't played it since, mainly because I didn't want to pain myself with having to go through the beginning again. I honestly think the opening sequence for MGS3 offered the most juvenile dialog, horrible voice acting, and amateur dialog mechanics I've experienced in the past 5 years. It was actually worse than Lair. I mean, come on - I specifically remember characters repeating stories to Snake to fill in back story for the player, stories that Snake had experienced first-hand. I've read comics that were better written than MGS3's opening scene, and I've read damned few comics. Regardless of my opinions on MGS3, I picked it up because A) it was cheap, B) IGN gave it a 9.8, and C) there we no PS3 games I wanted at the time.

And despite my dislike of the MGS series, I have followed the hype of MGS4. The recent previews by the press that conducted full game playthroughs contain some of the highest praise I've ever seen printed for a video game. And I know that the MGO beta appears to not be the exact flavor for many FPS fans. However, considering the universal praise in the previews that MGS4 has thus far received, what kind of score should we expect? Excepting multiplayer, is it no less of an achievement than GTAIV? In size, breadth, technology, everything? Based on what we know so far, how can it not receive a 10?

And what about LBP? I'm personally as excited for this game as I've ever been; possibly moreso than even Halflife2 back in 2003/2004. If MediaMolecule delivers on all the promises, especially with all of the community features that have been described and depicted in various trailers, then will it be any less of an accomplishment? After all, LBP promises to be utterly revolutionary(assuming it fulfills those promises), doing things never seen before, much less implemented well. It may not be every one's cup of tea(but neither is MGS or GTA), but how can it not receive a 10 as well?

I understand that games more often than not do not live up to the hype. Its more than likely neither MGS4 or LBP will match the hype. But if they do, both deserve solid 10's IMO.

Having said all that, now that GTAIV has pretty much universally received 10's, can the same outlets that handed out that score not award 10s for products that are possibly even more deserving?

If MGS4/LBP don't receive the same marks as GTAIV, but deliver on everything promised, then I think the 10s awarded to GTAIV are meaningless. If, however, MGS4 and LBP receive 10's(one, the other, or both), then the value of a 10 itself is cheapened, what with 10s appearing so frequently within such a short timespan. Either way, I think Gamespot and IGN handing out a 10 to GTAIV puts them in an interesting position in the future.

I hope I've made sense.
what it comes down to is that the score is based on the ONE person's experience from the game. Not everyone is the same, so reviewed games will obtain various scores from different people. I do own GTA4 and believe it is an entertaining game, but not worth a 10. Momentum will deff need to be gained
if the industry is to release more grade A titles. It also comes down to the devs alienating their own audience by disregarding splitscreen multiplayer altogether. Motorstorm 2 devs have stated it will support 4 player splitscreen and hopefully more will follow the trend. Just because we have online doesn't mean we don't want to play with people in the same room. Consoles support 4 controllers when split screen is nearly whipped out why?

Not a 10 for me. COD4 is a hundred times better. I bought it with too high expectations I think.

All my friends came to see "the biggest game ever" and they left saying it looked like a wii game. My reply was " well, you have to give it at least one week".

Definately not a 10.

If your friends thought it looked like a Wii game, either:

A) They've never played a Wii game

or

B) They're blind, in which case most games do sound alike.