Do You Believe Critics Should Award Perfect Scores For Games?
Grand Theft Auto V is grabbing perfect scores all over the place, at a similar rate to Naughty Dog's The Last Of Us earlier this year.
When evaluating such obvious masterpieces, I often find myself facing the same quandary: "What the hell does a perfect 10 mean, anyway?" It can't possibly imply perfection because of course, no game is perfect. Therefore, what's the definition of "perfect?"
A 10 means the reviewer really couldn't find anything wrong with the game, right? Or does it simply mean that anything he or she did find isn't worth noticing, and the combination of those slight flaws isn't even worth a .5 deduction? Maybe for some, it's simpler. Maybe it just means that the game is better than 99% of all other games available for sale, and thus, it deserves the perfect score. There are lots of titles released these days, and it's fair to say that TLoU and GTAV are better than 99% of the available games on store shelves. So, if that's the requirement, then a perfect score makes sense.
But are we setting too high a standard? Are the consumer's expectations just too damn high? I mean, if the average consumer sees all these perfect scores, aren't they going to be disappointed at the slightest drawback when playing the game? Aren't they expecting to be blown away every ten minutes? Plus, when reading reviews where the score is perfect, the reviewer often points out those tiny flaws, which often go unnoticed. And how tiny must those flaws be in order not to be reflected in the score? Then again, maybe all of this is irrelevant; anything scoring that high must be played, I would think.
9/18/2013 9:46:24 PM Ben Dutka