Topic: What is a 10/10 to you?

While this conversation extends to art in general, I'll stick within the realm of games here. I'm not necessarily asking for your personal 10/10 picks (though feel free to use them to substantiate your views!), rather what 10/10 as a score means to you. What would your rating system be if you started your own game review website? What aspects of games would be deserving of a stronger weighting? Is 10/10 perfection, or an indicator of an elusive classic status? Would you even use a rating system in the first place? Do you treat a 10/10 more economically, searching for games that offer the biggest bang for the smallest buck?

There's a lot of discourse on NL regarding what we should deem worthy of a 10/10 so I am very curious to see what people's thoughts on the matter are in a more confined space.

To kick it off, here are my own thoughts.

I've never been a fan of the concept outside of technical product reviews (e.g. reviewing cameras or computers or things that have direct quality comparison points in almost every area) or personal archival use as I find numerical scores attached to professional review content can create some unnecessarily heated discourse. That said, if I were to use a rating system, it'd be the 10 point system and each score would have an assigned one-word descriptor, much like the NL system. No joys/cons section, just a number and a word. I'd want it as simple as possible, with the 10 in question being assigned the term "classic". I think it allows deeply flawed titles the ability to hit the bullseye on other merits (revolutionising the gaming landscape, having an element that completely compensates for any shortcomings, etc) without having to act as too much of a buffer for unicorn games that just nail everything they set out to do. I don't believe in perfection as much as I believe in a mean average of highs and if the open world exploration element can absolve Breath of the Wild of all its dungeon/puzzle/combat sins (as it so clearly does), it's worthy of a "10/10" in my book.

A numeric score really means nothing to me as it's very subjective. Especially in the case of 10/10, since 10/10 indicates absolutely flawless, which no game is; like when a reviewer says a game has a couple minute flaws, but forgives them because he likes everything else so much and gives it a perfect score....but it wasn't perfect, the flaws were just "forgiven".
The Joy/Con system this site uses now is much more helpful and informative of the good and flaws in a game with less subjective bias.

@Cotillion What about the case of a game that is technically flawless, but doesn't do any one thing exceptionally? I don't think anyone would call a game like Black Ops 2 a 10/10, but thinking back on it, the game has incredibly refined gameplay, a solid score, great audio design, solid graphical fidelity (for the time and given the silky smooth performance), solid AI, an entertaining campaign, a fully fleshed out Zombies mode, a colourful and uniform aesthetic, a plethora of weapons and customisation options, etc, etc, etc. I can't fault it really anywhere, yet it isn't a groundbreaking experience in any way. The audience reception at launch was abysmal. Critics praised it and players slammed it on aggregate sites. This is why if I used a numerical system I'd have given descriptors used to indicate intent.

Keeping in mind I completely agree that numerical scores are meaningless, just playing the devil's advocate regarding your specific terminology there. Also, what purpose do you find the Joy/Con system serves? NL reviews have a concluding paragraph, as well as a denoted "Conclusion" paragraph that comes after it. Doesn't it seem like just an extra reason to not read the whole review? I do like their addition, though I often wonder what purpose they serve aside from giving early commenters yet another TL;DR on top of the concluding paragraph, the conclusion, and the score.

Well, if anything, I'd call a 10/10 a game that I can pick up in 20 years and still be incredibly satisfied to play. Something like Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Metroid Prime, A Link to the Past, Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver, Majora's Mask, Bayonetta etc. If it's a game that you could play over and over again and defies feeling aged or uninteresting, that's what I'd rank there.

For me a 10/10 is a game that excels in every major area and has no serious flaws. And is judged relative to the platform it was originally released for.

The most important factor is gameplay. Is it fun to play? Are the controls intuitive and well done? Does the game balance variety and consistency well?

After gameplay is the flavor or story. Not every game needs to be story heavy - but the flavor, or the setting or however you want to term it, this needs to be interesting. Even if only as a vague excuse for why you are doing X, Y, and Z. Is the world colorful?(and I don't just mean literal colors) Are the characters interesting? Does the setting work well?

Next is functionality. While I put this as 3rd most important, it can kill a game. This is where we talk about glitches, crashes and the like. As well as user interface, text size, save functionality, etc. Game breaking bugs or frequent crashes are unacceptable in a finished product. Abnormally long load times, tiny difficult to read text, outdated inconvenient saving mechanics are all potential crippling issues. While I generally am very lenient on frame rates, this is also where I would consider frame rate relative to how smooth a game is. "choppiness" is very annoying.

After all of the above, then I look at graphics. Resolution doesn't matter to me unless if drops very low. I'm more interested in visual design. Are things interesting or generic? Is the art style consistent or do some characters/creatures look like they come from different sources? Do animations look natural or awkward and stiff?

Finally all things considered, even if a game has a handful of issues, I would still be willing to give it a 10/10 if it has areas where it absolutely excels so much that it overshadows the drawbacks.

There are very few games I would give a perfect 10/10 to. Many I would give 9s and 9.5 but very few perfect 10s. Xenoblade Chronicles and its sequel. Legend of Zelda Breathe of the Wild. Advance Wars Dual Strike. Fire Emblem (Fire Emblem: the Blazing Blade in Japan) Pokemon: Heart Gold and Soul Silver, and perhaps a few more if I really thought about it. But that's probably it.

The list of 9-9.5 games however would be far longer. There are a lot of games that are outstanding, but still have a serious issue here or there.

I think quite simply, it is a game that after any amount of time, you still just find the greatest joy in playing.

Any imperfections that exist in the game really don't matter, because you want to spend more and more time in that game's world.

Super Metroid hits that spot for me, but surprisingly, Samus Returns comes really close as well. For me, that game feels SO GOOD to play, and all of the little things that immerse me more in that universe just help. Is that game technically perfect? Nope, but it grabs me so much that none of the flaws matter.

@Heavyarms55 I love your response soooo much. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

@Guitar_bard Thank you, that's nice of you to say.

Dance Dance Revolution games (DDR A20 Arcade is the newest) are simply my 10/10 or 100/100.

I gave it 100 from 100 because i have been playing DDR Arcade for 16 years religiously every weekend and still active playing DDR until today. I'm 35 years old and have trained myself to build my stamina, footwork and sight reading until 600 BPM.

For me, the gameplay would have to be something either timeless or refined to the point where I can't find fault in it without making unfair nitpicks (i.e. complaining that the game doesn't have a billion-hour long campaign). It has to either constantly fill me with joy or have well-designed set-ups/low points with phenomenal pay-offs.

In addition, all other artistic aspects of the game such as music, visuals, and story, have to perfectly synchronize with the core game and be so engaging where these aspects could be considered masterpieces by themselves.

In the case of games that could be deemed "classics" such as Pac-Man or Final Fantasy 7, I believe that it is probably important to take into account of topics like technological limitations. Their influence or impact should be examined and not how poorly they have aged. So while those games may not be as fun or full of depth compared to the games in the present, I don't think modern evaluations of these titles should act as the definitive assessments.

@RedderRugfish
DDR Mario Mix was a 65 from 100 due to Too Easy stepcharts even on Super Hard (The hardest was like level 12 with DDR X scale) and All the songs were not used for Arcade.

The Best DDR Home Console for me were DDR Extreme Japan PS2 (9/10), DDR Extreme 2 USA PS2 (8.5/10), DDR MAX 2 USA PS2 (8.5/10). For Arcade, i really like DDR A20 Arcade.

@RedderRugfish
DDR Mario Mix is the best Mario game just because of it's inclusion of Waluigi and his masculine physique as a villain.

I give it an 11/10 for that alone.

Just want to share the comparison between the Hardest song on DDR mario Mix and the Hardest song on DDR A arcade.

To me a 10/10 is one of the greatest games I have ever experienced, that I completely adored, and even if it has some flaw, it is negligible compared to what it is and what I got out of it.

I'd say only my top 20 games I'd give a 10, and that's arguable. And a lot of that list is biased towards nostalgia and because of that and my lack of playing new games in recent years, I'd probably only give 2 games this decade a 10. Xenoblade Chronicles and Shovel Knight. There's a few more I could change my mind on and give a 10 if I played it enough, but that's it for now.

A superb, masterful, genre or generation defining experience without flaws significant enough to detract from the experience for me.

Although the presence of excellence is far more important to me than the absence of flaws. Most of the best games I've ever played have been deeply flawed in certain ways. I think it just goes along with bold game design philosophies.

To me a 10/10 just has to be a game that's fun, memorable and something i never tire of nomatter how many times I've played it. Some games you play once then shelve for who knows how long or just toss aside completely never wanting to go through it all again. Others you play over and over after a good while away. Open world games typically have a tendency to be exausting with how much content and side activities that you can do and as a completionist myself i tire of them rather quickly.

I rarely would award an open world game a perfect 10 because it has that one problem of I'd likely never get around to doing everything the game has to offer therefore it would always be an incomplete experience. Now something Like Link to the past, the mega man games or any sidescrolling platformer you could think of has the likelyhood of being a more focused playthrough with a set ammount of stages and bosses, those can be completed fully within a good week or two give or take.

Also for a game to be a pefect 10 to me it doesn't even have to be technically flawless as almost none are. If the framerate dips a little or the resolution isn't perfect I'm like hey as long as I'm having a good time who cares? Not me. I was playing Atari in the infancy of gaming. The flaws are part of their charm.

@cryptologous Interesting topic. For me I think the 10/10 is either: the standard bearer, trendsetter of a genre or a game that that provides an unforgettable experience that you often reflect on later.

I don’t think the ideal of “perfection” really makes a game a 10, since that is hardly attainable unless your working in utter simplicity (Tetris). In fact sometimes the “flaws” of a game, actually work in its favor since it can capture the randomness and imperfections of the game world, just as the outside world is sometimes random and unpredictable.

Reviews have always needed to be cranked out for publication, but I don’t find a scoring system irrelevant overall. It’s just critics need to decide in haste what number to put on a game. In reality, it may take months or years to really evaluate the quality of certain games as an experience. All games creates images and visions that exist just as much in the memory of the viewer, as they do on the screen that you play them.

Added: I also think BOTW is a 10/10 game, that is in many ways deeply flawed. Initially I would have given it a 9, but I’ve grown to love the game. The physics system never gets old to play around with, and certain small moments (like hearing Kass play the accordion in the distance, seeing the dragons floating in the sky with the musical que, and encountering the forest congregation for the first time) are truly beautiful and inspired. I’d put it up there with the best Zelda games, now that I let the whole thing sink in.

I also tend to shy away from numbered scoring systems as some supposedly 10/10 games to me were just okay or complete rubbish. There's also quite a few that sites like IGN like to give harshly low scores because the reviewer doesn't even like the particular Genre. Double Dragon Neon anyone? I personally adored that one but try telling them that.

The review scoring system should go Not fun, okay, fun, funnest and Joyous! Putting numbers on them just makes people focus on the number and if it's not above a 7 they won't touch it. No matter how enjoyable it may actually be.

That's a great answer. I wasn't sure how I'd answer this question until I read your response. Looking back at the games that I would personally rate 10/10 (such as Paper Mario, the Pokemon games on DS, Breath of the Wild), they're all games that I thought about constantly when I wasn't playing them. They're not perfect but I enjoyed them so much that the flaws hardly matter. (Mario Kart 8 is another game that I felt that way about when it came out, but the lacklustre battle mode holds it back from being a 10. MK8 Deluxe makes up for it though, I honestly can't think of a single flaw with that game.)