What does “10/10” mean to you?

[Prolepro]

To me, it means that the flaws of a game are so minimal as to have no detractive effect on the overall experience that the game imparts on me as a player (regardless of its "authorial intent").

For example, Deadly Premonition to me is a 10/10 game just as much as Ocarina of Time is but coming from completely opposite directions.

 

[JCHandsom]

I think people get caught up in the micro of 10s too much. It's why I always preferred the typical 5 point scale. It becomes very obvious on that scale:

1 - Bad. Don't play it.
2 - Below Average with some potentially redeeming/interesting qualities to specific people.
3 - Average. Nothing special, but very serviceable.
4 - Above Average. Still has considerable flaws, but edges out its contemporaries with extra polish or novelty.
5 - Outstanding. The game is something to remember in the context of its release and possibly beyond. Play it.

10 or even 100 point scales are ridiculous. People will scrutinize every point (or in the case IGN, 0.1) to an embarrassing degree. My suggestion is to always keep your scoring system very broad, if you have to have one. Anything else just dilutes the consumption of the actual review, which I feel VERY few people either read or watch anymore. They would rather just accept critical aggregates like metacritic as gospel.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this, in fact I would prefer it if everyone took the time to read a critic's thoughts in full and come to their own conclusions, I think that would be ideal in fact. That having been said, in today's world shorthand is a necessity and numeric scores are an effective means of accomplishing that. Given that a 10 scale is by far the most ubiquitous that's what I'm framing the discussion around.

 

[Edgar]

It means nothing

 

[Prolepro]

That the intent of the game is completely fulfilled at a high level of enjoyability and any detractors are extremely minor.

Click to shrink...

You see, I almost included your idea of "intent" in my definition but ultimately decided the creators' intent should have no bearing on enjoyment, as player created fun through unintended gameplay/exploitation of systems has been historically seen throughout gaming.

 

[Knight in Shining Armani]

I'll think of less of you if you don't love it too.

 

[wbloop]

10/10 does not mean "flawless" to me. It's rather a game/movie/album/anime that deeply impressed or affected me and makes me remember it for the years to come. God of War was a recent example of that for me.

 

[Deleted member 8561]

Calling hot take police and baby proofing this thread for the sharp edges.

10/10 is very simple. It indicates a master-class piece in its respective genre and/or medium. It doesn't mean it's going to have some lasting impact or cultural influence. District 9 was a 10/10 film but it didn't revolutionize the sci-fi genre.

This is also why the 5/5 system is far, far better than a 10 or 100 point scale system.

Anyone who says "a 10/10 is impossible" should quickly get a lobotomy or staple their mouth shut as well as gorilla glue their fingers together so they can't share their stupidity with anyone else.

 

[SirNinja]

10/10 is not possible IMO.

Click to shrink...

My favorite game of all time doesn't even have a 10/10 from me. It means perfect (to me), which nothing is.

Click to shrink...

It means impossible. No game is or will ever be perfect.

Click to shrink...

*sigh*

How many times must it be said that a 10/10 does not mean literally, actually perfect?

Just think about it for a second. It's like saying "no movie can ever be rated four stars, because no movie's perfect!"...That's not what a four-star rating means.

 

[Deleted member 12833]

Anyone that thinks 10/10 is perfect is silly.

 

[Caspar]

It means highest possible recommendation in the eyes of the reviewer

 

[Elandyll]

While I do not believe in perfection, to me, it means a game achieves incredible results on 4 points:

Gameplay (incl UI/ controls)
Story/ Atmosphere
Graphics
Score/ Sound Design

For me, a game cannot be a 10/10 and utterly fumble one of these.

 

[leng jai]

That's because what qualifies as flaws are as subjective and as based on the tastes of the individual as anything else. That's no different for an medium.

You say "it's like the flaws don't actually exist" and for some, they very well might not. It's the same reason why a movie like The Thing was absolutely hated for the same aspects that are praised today. Or why someone like Ebert might have given the highest score for movies that aren't generally disliked or heavily criticized. Perspective and opinion of those elements differed and changed.

Click to shrink...

I find it hard to believe that anyone can play RDR 2 and fail to identify aspects of the game that could be major issues to some players. I mean even if they themselves have no problem with anything in the game surely they can identify "potential" flaws. If the review is just catered 100% to their own taste and makes zero effort to see things from another perspective then it's pointless to me because I don't personally know every reviewer. What I'm saying is that there was a lack of discussion at all of the flaws, surely it's their job to flesh some of this stuff out?

I don't think this argument holds much weight because we've seen time and time again reviews failing to inform us of technical faults that are objectively bad.

 

[Deleted member 18347]

A genre masterclass.

Basically a game that creates new defining mechanics or improves upon established formulas to the point where it can be considered the new standard.

Then again I hate review scores because they don't add anything to discussions.

 

[Deleted member 12833]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can play RDR 2 and fail to identify aspects of the game that could be major issues to some players. I mean even if they themselves have no problem with anything in the game surely they can identify "potential" flaws. If the review is just catered 100% to their own taste and makes zero effort to see things from another perspective then it's pointless to me because I don't personally know every reviewer. What I'm saying is that there was a lack of discussion at all of the flaws, surely it's their job to flesh some of this stuff out?

I don't think this argument holds much weight because we've seen time and time again reviews failing to inform us of technical faults that are objectively bad.

Click to shrink...

Oh, this another RDR2 thread?

Get over it....Jesus Christ

 

[wafflebrain]

Overinflated usually...when it's used by most enthusiast press that is.

When assigned correctly...it should be for a title that is absolute aces in either gameplay or story dept and is polished to an exceptional sheen, meaning little to no bugs, and ideally it does something that moves gaming forward as a whole, whether that be through a specific gameplay mechanic or the overall package related to the total experience. A real mover and shaker of the industry.

Also something that feels like a complete package by the time you're done with it. This doesn't mean it needs to be a certain length either, just that it has properly served its story or journey based on the momentum set throughout. Excellent pacing is key.

Examples in my eyes would be things like Mario 64, Halo CE, Doom, Half-Life, The Sims, WoW, Dune 2...the list goes on obviously but you get the idea.

 

[PucePikmin]

To me a 10/10 is a new landmark for quality -- it doesn't have to be perfect, but its impact is greater than past games that got a 10/10. It's the new measuring stick.

So, like, I would've considered Zelda Ocarina of Time a 10, because it was legitimately the best, most immersive 3D game ever made at that point. But, again, it's not a literally flawless game, because, outside of really simple arcade stuff, that doesn't exist.

So, is RDR2 a 10? I think you could make the argument it breaks new ground in the open world genre, but I don't think it's quite new measuring stick level.

 

[DarkFlame92]

It means that it excels in almost every aspect and the game's faults(becauses there's no perfect game) are so minor compared to its strengths that it's a 10/10 must play game

 

[Tibarn]

While I do not believe in perfection, to me, it means a game achieves incredible results on 4 points:

Gameplay (incl UI/ controls)
Story/ Atmosphere
Graphics
Score/ Sound Design

For me, a game cannot be a 10/10 and utterly fumble one of these.

Click to shrink...

That's the main problem with RDR2.

Most of the games that are scored with the perfect mark out there usually have good or innovative gameplay, good atmosphere, graphic style and music/sound. If we take a look at 2017, both Odyssey and BotW had all of these (obviously we are not expecting a good plot from a Mario game) even if the games were flawed. BotW could benefit from more story content, and Odyssey from more platforming challenges instead of repetitive content.

But with RDR2 the gameplay flaws are really obvious and really work against the experience that I wonder what made all the reviewers decide to score the game so high. It's far beyond me tbh.

 

[cgatto]

My 10/10's are games that meant a significant deal to me, brought something new to the table and/or perfected something, as well as being immensely fun and something I couldn't put down.

A few examples of my personal 10's from their respective eras are Super Metroid, Super Mario Bros 3, Ocarina of Time, Bloodborne, Witcher 3, Resident Evil 4... there's quite a few more, but you get the point.

I will die on the "10/10 does not mean perfect" hill.

10/10. Yet another overhyped game from mainstream gaming media.

Click to shrink...

Woke AF

 

[Vee]

On my personal scale a 10/10 is something that i absolutely love that touched or inspired me in a personal way. Like even outside of gaming things that are a 10/10 to me are just that for me and i usually cant easily reccomend to anyone because the thing that makes it a 10 to me is something just catered to me personally that i probably cant put into words for other people. To me 9/10 is the best of something that is much easier to reccomend to someone but missing some detail personal to me to make it a 10. Wow this was really hard to write because im really bad at putting my feelings into words

 

[Net_Wrecker]

I don't care about perfection, or consensus, or impact. 10/10s are purely personal ratings. These are my classics. The games that i know will go down as mental touchstones when I'm looking for references and comparison points. Something that grips me all the way through (or continuously) and succeeds at what it's trying to do in a way its contemporaries don't. Something that resonates with me on a level beyond "Yeah that was a great game", transcending its separate parts to present an experience that can entrance. Conversely, it can also be a game laser focused on perfecting a single concept, and doing so with so much verve and precision that its greatness is undeniable.

Ultimately it's an emotional response. For campaign based games it's something that leaves me fully satisfied and conscious about specific design decisions, pacing decisions, narrative decisions, and aesthetic decisions. Something where i know the next comparable title will be a step down because this one is operating at such a high level for MY NITPICKY SPECIFIC TASTES. For multiplayer games, it has to be disruptive. Disruptive enough that i start to fall behind on my singleplayer games because it's so addicting. Disruptive enough that it pulls time away from other games, and entertainment in general, without me feeling bad about it. If i need a fix like a fiend needs their hit, that's a multiplayer game firing on all cylinders.

 

[Ryo]

I have to love the game and for it to have no major faults for it to be a 10.

To me something like TLOU would be a 10, sure it has some small problems but nothing huge and I thoroughly enjoyed the story.
Something like RDR2 on the other hand would be a 9 because despite it being my favourite game of 2018 I can't overlook the sluggish nature of everything.

 

[Sanctuary]

Anyone that thinks 10/10 is perfect is silly.

Click to shrink...

Only if you're using that number given by someone else as an empirical metric for quality. You can list any number of your personal favorite games, and claim that they are perfect in your eyes, and in a way that would be hard to argue against if you're being reasonable. Reviews are just guidelines anyway, and there are a hell of a lot more non "10/10" games worth playing than there are those listed as 10/10.

 

[chobel]

A game that I can't stop thinking about it, a game so good that's I'm devastated when I finish it because I don't want it to end.

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

Even the idea of "I don't think that 10/10 is possible because 10/10 is objective perfection" trips over itself, because the statement starts with "I think" which is in itself a subjective evaluation of the scale.

10/10 literally just means that a game either matched some very high expectations of the reviewer or exceeded them greatly and ultimately produced a gaming experience that was about as positively high as the reviewer could subjectively fathom receiving from playing the game.

No review or scale is meant to ever, ever represent the idea of objective perfection, so stop applying the impossible to a tangible subjective scale... No 10/10 score that's been given was ever, ever meant to represent the whole of the gaming audience. Your "9/10 because no game is perfect but this is still my favorite game ever" isn't even close to objective perfection, you shying away from going up to a 10/10 on the scale is just you faking being rational and smart because of the mathematical "whole" that 10/10 represents.

Just give the game a 10/10 if it's your favorite game ever, use some text to back up your subjectively positive experience, and put it out there for everyone else to see.

Stop being afraid of seeing people have an emotional response to something, that's all these things are intended for anyway. 10/10 just means you had the maximum perceivable emotional response to the experience of playing the damn game and that's great and you should be absolutely fine with telling people that. It's okay for some people to only get an 8/10 emotional response (in most cases, fun factor) out of something when a lot of other people got a 10/10 response. There's no truth to be revealed by shoving your subjective experience down their throat, and you sure as hell don't represent an objective truth with your agreement or disagreement, so just accept 10/10 is fine when we're just talking about "I got my maximum subjective satisfaction from playing this game."

Anyone that's trying to tell people about objective perfection and shit has a stick so far up their ass that it's causing their brain not to function correctly, because they can't see how their avoidance of granting a 10/10 for the sake of perfection falls right back in line with subjective thought anyway -- subjectively trying to grade against perfection is a fallacy in itself, because who the fuck made you the keeper of the idea of what is perfect and what isn't? Get over yourself.

 

[Wumbo64]

I agree with this, in fact I would prefer it if everyone took the time to read a critic's thoughts in full and come to their own conclusions, I think that would be ideal in fact. That having been said, in today's world shorthand is a necessity and numeric scores are an effective means of accomplishing that. Given that a 10 scale is by far the most ubiquitous that's what I'm framing the discussion around.

Click to shrink...

I don't disagree logistically. The 10 scale is the one everyone is used to. I just wish people were a bit more flexible in understanding each point is intended to be a kind of broad macro, not a micro.

 

[Strangelove_77]

A 10 is a game that does almost every facet of what makes a videogame extremely well. It's the whole package. Obviously there will be flaws, but they'll be minor.
A game with shitty combat or a game that tries to tell a really well realized story but fails will never be a 10 despite its other good qualities.

But a game with an average quality story and great combat or a game with a great story but average combat can be a 10. That's why to me something like Witcher 3 and Bloodborne are 10s - Witcher 3 has average combat(at least to me) but great everything else, and Bloodborne has great combat but an average story. It's not bad, it's barely there but it's average. It doesn't offend.

 

[GamerDude]

Even the idea of "I don't think that 10/10 is possible because 10/10 is objective perfection" trips over itself, because the statement starts with "I think" which is in itself a subjective evaluation of the scale.

10/10 literally just means that a game either matched some very high expectations of the reviewer or exceeded them greatly and ultimately produced a gaming experience that was about as positively high as the reviewer could subjectively fathom receiving from playing the game.

No review or scale is meant to ever, ever represent the idea of objective perfection, so stop applying the impossible to a tangible subjective scale... No 10/10 score that's been given was ever, ever meant to represent the whole of the gaming audience. Your "9/10 because no game is perfect but this is still my favorite game ever" isn't even close to objective perfection, you shying away from going up to a 10/10 on the scale is just you faking being rational and smart because of the mathematical "whole" that 10/10 represents.

Just give the game a 10/10 if it's your favorite game ever, use some text to back up your subjectively positive experience, and put it out there for everyone else to see.

Stop being afraid of seeing people have an emotional response to something, that's all these things are intended for anyway. 10/10 just means you had the maximum perceivable emotional response to the experience of playing the damn game and that's great and you should be absolutely fine with telling people that. It's okay for some people to only get an 8/10 emotional response (in most cases, fun factor) out of something when a lot of other people got a 10/10 response. There's no truth to be revealed by shoving your subjective experience down their throat, and you sure as hell don't represent an objective truth with your agreement or disagreement, so just accept 10/10 is fine when we're just talking about "I got my maximum subjective satisfaction from playing this game."

Anyone that's trying to tell people about objective perfection and shit has a stick so far up their ass that it's causing their brain not to function correctly, because they can't see how their avoidance of granting a 10/10 for the sake of perfection falls right back in line with subjective thought anyway -- subjectively trying to grade against perfection is a fallacy in itself, because who the fuck made you the keeper of the idea of what is perfect and what isn't? Get over yourself.

Click to shrink...

Maybe you need to get over yourself. No one is saying objective perfection. Some are saying that no game reaches subjective perfection to them.

 

[Alienous]

My idea of a 'true' 10/10 game has always been one where the only flaws you have are nitpicks. It isn't a perfect game, but (near) flawless execution. For instance Portal 2, to me, is a 10/10 game - I can't think of a flaw in that game that would be worth expressing.

 

[SlayerSaint]

Game of the generation candidate. My only two 10/10s this gen would be God of War and The Witcher 3. RDR2 is too recent for me to put a final score on, need to let it sit for a few months.

 

[DarkTom]

A masterpiece that have a huge impact on me and that I can replay several times with pleasure.

 

[More_Badass]

Maybe you need to get over yourself. No one is saying objective perfection. Some are saying that no game reaches subjective perfection to them.

Click to shrink...

I mean, they're saying stuff like none because nothing is perfect. They are arguing a perfect score equals objective perfection

 

[Liam Allen-Miller]

You see, I almost included your idea of "intent" in my definition but ultimately decided the creators' intent should have no bearing on enjoyment, as player created fun through unintended gameplay/exploitation of systems has been historically seen throughout gaming.

Click to shrink...

Generally speaking I think that exploits in games serve to increase a player's ability to see through the creative intents of a game. Admittedly, I was vague about it, but I don't really mean low or mechanica-level intent, but more like high level overall game intent. Either way, I feel you!

 

[Deleted member 28815]

Now, I doubt many people are going to seriously argue that only "perfect" or literally flawless games should be scored 10/10 or #1, so to be clear I'm not asking or looking for a discussion about that.

Click to shrink...

How wrong you were lol.

I'm asking about what you think it means when a person or a group says "This is what I/we think is the best."

Click to shrink...

That it's pretty good and I might enjoy it if our tastes line up.

 

[GamerDude]

I mean, they're saying stuff like none because nothing is perfect. They are arguing a perfect score equals objective perfection

Click to shrink...

But even that is them making a subjective statement. To them, no game is perfect. So no 10/10. Nothing wrong with that. All of this stuff is opinion anyway.

Also, are you sure they are saying 10/10 equals objective perfection and not 10/10 equals personal perfection?

 

[Oghuz]

It is difficult to explain. It is a game that makes me feel a special way and I will remember for the rest of my life. A game that I will definitely go back to sooner or later (replaying a game is very unusual for me).

I can't say that a game that is near flawless is automatically a 10/10 for me, because enjoyment can't be measured like that. Tetris is a game that is practically flawless, but it is definitely not a 10/10 type of game to me.

 

[Kurogane]

I tend to analize what i play more on a personal level than a technical one (without completely disregarding a technical vision tho) so 10/10 is a kind of score that i give to almost life-changing games, again, on a personal standpoint.

 

[Gilver]

This actually brings up a pet peeve of mine:

If your favorite games are "80-89" that just means they're your 100s. That's all the 100 actually means, that you give it the highest possible marks because it's your favorite.

It's the same thing as "Oh I love those 1/10 so bad it's good movies, I hate mediocre 5/10 or 6/10 movies because they aren't as interesting or memorable." If you love them then you don't think they're 1/10, and if you hate a movie because it's mediocre and unmemorable then it's not a 5 /10 or 6/10. Either judge a work based on your personal feelings towards it or based on its technical execution, don't say one when you mean the other. Otherwise you end up with a confusing system where 1s are somehow greater than 5s but not as good as 10s and the purpose of using a numerical scale as communicative shorthand is completely lost.

Click to shrink...

I disagree because the point I am trying to make is that media outlet reviewers consume and appreciate games differently than most people do by the nature of the job they have. I think this point needs to be mentioned more because media outlets only play games from the year or month they are in and dont have time to do things like replay games to find the depth or nuances because they need to play a little of everything, alot of times they cant even take their time to enjoy the game. I appreciate the opinion more of people who only play games they want to play or from a genre they are very familiar with. There are definitely games I love that if I had to review would give the same score as most outlets but I cant help but notice the things that resonate most with media outlets. RDR2 is a recent example of something I could never enjoy no matter how high the meta score is, that is why I disagree with the notion that a 10 is enough for you to try it no matter what the genre is. 10/10 from a website is different than a favorite game of all time for you personally because you have to rate it for consistency which would be a problem for my favorite games of all time because my favorite games are inconsistent but the high points are higher than the high points of any other 10/10 game from a website.

Meta score is useful for games I dont know anything about and that seem interesting to me but if I have knowledge of the developer, director, publisher, genre, development time, previous works than meta score means almost nothing. Sometimes games are misunderstood and can be secretly made especially for you,

 

[Sanctuary]

A 10 is a game that does almost every facet of what makes a videogame extremely well. It's the whole package. Obviously there will be flaws, but they'll be minor.
A game with shitty combat or a game that tries to tell a really well realized story but fails will never be a 10 despite its other good qualities.

But a game with an average quality story and great combat or a game with a great story but average combat can be a 10. That's why to me something like Witcher 3 and Bloodborne are 10s - Witcher 3 has average combat(at least to me) but great everything else, and Bloodborne has great combat but an average story. It's not bad, it's barely there but it's average. It doesn't offend.

Click to shrink...

But then what is "good" and what is "shitty" combat? For your reasons on why a game cannot be a 10/10 game, TW3 would never be one, since the only way the combat is average, is when comparing it to the average combat in a typical open-world styled game: which is almost universally awful. I agree that it did most everything else well, but it was dragged down by more than a few things. The combat being the primary culprit. But then it didn't bother you as much as it did me.

I'd also argue that the way Bloodborne tells its "story" is a moot point, because people were already aware of how FROM liked to dole out narrative and didn't expect it to be laid out like a typical story in every other game. I'd also say that the performance with that game really hampered the overall experience, despite it being a generally good game otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 4037]

a personal favorite

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

Maybe you need to get over yourself. No one is saying objective perfection. Some are saying that no game reaches subjective perfection to them.

Click to shrink...

Here's the thing: I agree that having the idea of subjective perfection is fine.

I think it's bullshit to say that 10/10 represents subjective perfection and that 10/10 is completely unachievable, and it literally just exists on a scale to never ever be used.

10/10 should just basically say "well that's basically the best it could have been given what I expected or knew about it ahead of experiencing it." It should still be possible to grant a 10/10 to a subjectively imperfect piece of media, and really just signpost that you had a really good and optimal time with it given your expectation for it.

I also think, for the record, that it's bullshit to use a 10/10 as a block for criticism. If you a love a thing, you shouldn't be afraid to voice where it might be better or expanded on. I don't think a 10/10 dismisses a thing from criticism.

I think a score system should reflect subjective response to the thing given all consideration of the subjective context, and the entire scale should be accessible without the need to weigh against the notion of perfection, subjective or not. 10/10 should not be out of bounds based on notion of perfection.

 

[Miaus]

I view a 10/10 game as Essential Gaming, the very best of the their respective genre and that its overall quality is so high that leaves an indelible mark on the medium. Should be among the best/most important/innovative games ever made.

There is a lot of over hype and GOAT, the best ever and whatnot given left and right, for me at least, a 10 represents a game that, if you care about the medium, you should definitely try it. Will you love it? Depends on the person, but even if you don't, you should clearly see why this game gets the praise it gets.

For instance the original Shadow of the Colossus, StarCraft : Brood War, Dead Space, Portal and Portal 2, DOOM, Diablo, Dark Souls, Halo : CE and a couple more would get 10s from me. (Haven't played a lot of past generations console exclusives since been a PC guy all my life)

 

[eXistor]

A game that's a good as it can be.

No game can be actually perfect, but it can be as close to it as possible with no major flaws. I consider 1 game to be just that and that's Super Metroid. No game since or before has managed to take its throne for me; I consider it as close to gaming perfection as it gets and it's literally the only 10/10 I have ever given a game.

Then there's the other way of looking at things:

No one would say a game like Deadly Premonition is perfect in a literal sense, but the game is a perfect example of something being more than the sum of its parts. I wouldn't rate it a 10/10 necessarily (I'd give it a 9), but it is a good example of a game that isn't even decent on first glance, but can be something of a dream-game for the right person.

 

[Jobbs]

It means Bloodborne. I can't think of any others off hand.

What 10/10 means to most professional game reviewers is sort of shocking to me

 

[More_Badass]

But even that is them making a subjective statement. To them, no game is perfect. So no 10/10. Nothing wrong with that. All of this stuff is opinion anyway.

Also, are you sure they are saying 10/10 equals objective perfection and not 10/10 equals personal perfection?

Click to shrink...

But 10/10 doesn't mean perfection or a perfect game. They're arguing that 10/10 equals perfect but 10/10, 5/5, etc never actually represent that on sites. A 10/10 on IGN stands for "masterpiece", a 10 on Gamespot equates to "essential", and so on

 

[Prolepro]

Generally speaking I think that exploits in games serve to increase a player's ability to see through the creative intents of a game. Admittedly, I was vague about it, but I don't really mean low or mechanica-level intent, but more like high level overall game intent.

Click to shrink...

That's a good way of putting it, but yeah that essential "intent" or whatever word you wanna use for a game's holistic experience being imparted fully is what constitutes a 10/10 for me.

 

[Coxy]

It means the game is incredible and one of the best of all time.

It's impossible for a game to be perfect, there is always something that can be improved or changed. So to not award games 10/10 is ridiculous for me - it doesn't mean perfect, and why not use the full 10 point scale?

 

[ReyVGM]

Not Phantom Hourglass, that's for sure.

 

[Ninjimbo]

To be honest, it doesn't mean shit to me anymore. The press and twitter mobs are all too eager to hype shit up so they're handing out 10's and hyperbolic praise like its water.

 

[GamerDude]

But 10/10 doesn't mean perfection or a perfect game. They're arguing that 10/10 equals perfect but 10/10, 5/5, etc never actually represent that on sites. A 10/10 on IGN stands for "masterpiece", a 10 on Gamespot equates to "essential", and so on

Click to shrink...

Yeah if those are the scales that the sites use then that is how they must be evaluated when looking at their reviews. I guess the issue is just that others use a scale where 10/10 is what they would consider a perfect game. They need to keep their own scoring separate from what reviewers use. It's why I have no problem if sites give something a 10/10. It just means that 10/10 isn't some amazing accomplishment to me. Which is fine. I rate media to a bit of a different standard. I do feel websites are too generous with their 10s, even by their own scales.