The Ramifications of a '10'

[Evil Avatar]

Next Generation has a great Letter from the Editor (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2718&Itemid=2) from the Official Xbox Magazine's editor-in-chief Francesca Reyes, talking about the backlash the magazine got after they gave Electronic Arts Xbox 360 title, Fight Night Round 3 a 10/10.

Pretty much all the responses we received could be dropped into one of three categories: (1) People who thought that us giving a 10 to a boxing game meant that we were either getting kickbacks from EA or that suddenly we couldn’t be trusted to score “real” games like Oblivion; (2) those who couldn’t believe we’d give Fight Night Round 3 a 10 because neither Splinter Cell nor Halo received a 10*; or (3) a combination of the former two categories, from folks under the impression that a 10 means that a game should bestow them with superpowers and contain no flaws.

[Evil Avatar]

Seriously, did anyone expect unbiased reviewing from the Official Xbox Magazine? Their scores have always been super inflated and their reviewers glossing over game flaws like they were wearing skates.

[Nite_Moogle]

No game has ever been a 10. There have been some high 9s, but a 10 is perfect for everyone, and no such game exists.

[BigJonno]

I firmly believe that if you're going to mark games out of 10, you should be prepared to use all the numbers available to you (I also belive that average games should score a 5, not a 7 or 8) but I find it very hard to believe that an EA boxing game is going to provide the kind of awe-inspiring, keep you engrossed for weeks experience that warrants a 10 out of 10.

I admit that there are games that I have loved despite the fact they're in genres I normally avoid (Project Gotham and Pro Evo spring to mind,) but I can't see this one happening.

[Murmillo]

I don't even see why people complain about a score from one place. Some people are going to over like, or hate a game and give it a score accordingly. I don't care if they gave it a 20/10. thats thier fucking busniess to do so. If you think they give out to many crap scores, then you stop buying thier magazine and they go out of busniess. Simple as that.

Thats why sites like GameTab.com or GameRankings.com are important. A few extra high scores are countered by a few too low scores and every game falls right where it belongs. One site a score does not make.

And I don't believe a 10 should mean that game is perfect above all others, it means that game is perfect for that game in that class. You can not compaire a 9 from a FPS to a 9 to a sports game.

[thecrazyd]

No game has ever been a 10. There have been some high 9s, but a 10 is perfect for everyone, and no such game exists.
Why does a ten have to be perfect for everyone? That is just your personal scale.

[devicelimit]

Although I don't agree that Fight Night Round 3 should get a 10, it is an amazing looking game (on the 360) and very fun to play with friends or by yourself.

[bapenguin]

Fight Night 3 was NOT a 10.

I don't think a 10 necessarily means perfect though, that's one of the reasons we do an out of 5 score. And on top of that do a good, bad and ugly thing.

[Mason]

A good article. I think the formalized hierarchy of game reviews (where only AAA titles have the scope to deserve a 9+ score) has really impeded innovation. If a game is fun and well-realized enough to have universal appeal, it should be scored accordingly.

Personally, I'd prefer to see less all-encompassing scores. Why not give separate scores for how well a game stacks up against its direct competitors, and another for how well the experience compared to all other games? The two ideas get mashed together in varying ratios depending on the reviewer, leading to confusion and mistrust.

[Evil Avatar]

I don't even see why people complain about a score from one place. Some people are going to over like, or hate a game and give it a score accordingly. I don't care if they gave it a 20/10. thats thier fucking busniess to do so. If you think they give out to many crap scores, then you stop buying thier magazine and they go out of busniess. Simple as that.

That might explain why I still get the Official Playstation magazine and I don't get the Official Xbox magazine. :)

[Abednigo]

It seems like magazines and websites that use the 1-10 scale have long since stopped using perfection to determine whether a game gets a 10 or not. A game like Resident Evil 4, while not perfect, is about as good as gaming gets (in the survival horror or action genre). I think it got some 10s and to me that just says, "if you like this genre, you must own this game, period". But I've seen sports games get a 10 but I wouldn't accept it if it was given to me. I hate sports games. So to me a sports game that scores a 10 is meaningless.

No game would get a 10 based on "This is the ultimate gaming experience. Whether you like the genre or not you must buy this game." I think it would be more like "this is the best in the genre".

[easi]

SMW & OOT were 10s, anyone who didn't like them is just a fanboi and not a true gamer.

[Borys]

"Official" magazines are pieces of trash, much like one-console only oriented fan/ review sites like TeamXbox, Nsider.com etc.

[jacktion]

I have a question. Is the final Fight Night like the demo? I played the demo and it was awful. The punches were super slow and unrealistic. Plus they felt like they had no umph behind them. It felt like two kittens pawing at each other. Plus the animations were stiff and the controls were unintuitive and difficult to get into. There were like 20 different things that each button did. I don't have time to read a novel and learn a control scheme that is more difficult than flying a cessna when I just want to get some boxing in. Plus when you take away the great textures and just get down to gameplay, isn't this the same game that was on the PS1 10 years ago? The control has not evolved at all. Pathetic if you call it next-gen.

The nature of criticism all depends on what you consider paid critics should be doing. Should they only give their own opinion of a title, complete with their own idiosyncracies and particular loves? Or should they give that game a score based on their knowledge of how society as a whole will view a game? What if a reviewer has a particular passion for boxing and they consider that Fight Night should be a 10 for them, but they realize that most people don't like boxing and wouldn't consider it a 10? They are writing for an audience. Should they review it based upon it's position in the sphere of gaming and how they know that people will like it? Is that why critics that get popular are those that have tastes most in line with the mainstream?

Damn, that editor that gave the score sounds like a stoopid chik.
"Geez, people, when did we get soooo incredibly serious about our games?"
When she says something like that it means that she knows she messed up the review but she is trying to downplay it by saying we all need to "chill out" and take things less seriously. That's what people always say when they are wrong. Remember in grade school when someone went over the line and did something really bad that made everybody gasp and at the moment they realize they are wrong they try to play it off by saying, "jeez, chill out, don't take it so seriously". That is this lady.

[Soap]

A score of "10" means to me that game is perfect.

And if a game is perfect, how do you raise the bar beyond that?

Meaning, will Fight Night 4 get a score of 11 when it's raved by OXM as better than Fight Night 3.

Somehow I think not.

[atariv8]

What's the big deal. Most of the people on this site do so much reading, demo playing and research into what they'll play next what good is a review. I get OXM as another way to get more information on what I love to do best-PLAY GAMES. And even though I get lots of info off the internet, I still like having something in my hands to read and look at. I spend all day looking into a computer, give me a book or magazine after work. Besides, I get alot of good stuff off the disc when I don't want to download it off of live.

[thecrazyd]

A score of "10" means to me that game is perfect.

And if a game is perfect, how do you raise the bar beyond that?

Meaning, will Fight Night 4 get a score of 11 when it's raved by OXM as better than Fight Night 3.

Somehow I think not.
It clearly does not mean that to the people who wrote the review.

[cppcrusader]

I don't even see why people complain about a score from one place. Some people are going to over like, or hate a game and give it a score accordingly. I don't care if they gave it a 20/10. thats thier fucking busniess to do so. If you think they give out to many crap scores, then you stop buying thier magazine and they go out of busniess. Simple as that.

Thats why sites like GameTab.com or GameRankings.com are important. A few extra high scores are countered by a few too low scores and every game falls right where it belongs. One site a score does not make.

And I don't believe a 10 should mean that game is perfect above all others, it means that game is perfect for that game in that class. You can not compaire a 9 from a FPS to a 9 to a sports game.

Wait, you mean there's a magazine with the demo disc?! ;)

I also agree that there is no such thing as a perfect game, and that's speaking both as a gamer and developer, though Guitar Hero is very close to the mark.

[F9Phoenix]

The game is good, but nowhere near a 10. I like OXM, but they should be ashamed of themselves for that.

Their new EIC even says at the end the game is nowhere near perfect. How can they still give it a 10 with a statement like that?

[see colon]

I have a question. Is the final Fight Night like the demo? I played the demo and it was awful. The punches were super slow and unrealistic. Plus they felt like they had no umph behind them. It felt like two kittens pawing at each other. Plus the animations were stiff and the controls were unintuitive and difficult to get into. There were like 20 different things that each button did. I don't have time to read a novel and learn a control scheme that is more difficult than flying a cessna when I just want to get some boxing in. Plus when you take away the great textures and just get down to gameplay, isn't this the same game that was on the PS1 10 years ago? The control has not evolved at all. Pathetic if you call it next-gen.
are you serious? you play Fight Night with buttons? the controls are easy and intuative. hooking motions give you hooks, straight motions give you a straight punch. the speed and follow through/wind up determine the power of your punch. and there was no Fight Night on PS1. There was Knockout Kings, but that was more of an arcade style boxer.

[thecrazyd]

The game is good, but nowhere near a 10. I like OXM, but they should be ashamed of themselves for that.

Their new EIC even says at the end the game is nowhere near perfect. How can they still give it a 10 with a statement like that?
BECAUSE 10 DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN PERFECT.

Man... you people and your lack of comprehension skills.

[Kamalot]

Fight is in no way shape or form a perfect 10.

The boxers move like stiff robots.

There are major clipping issues.

The game is fun, but 20 years from now will I want to pull it out of storage and play again? No way.

[Soap]

If you happen to read the article, you'll come to this little snippet at the end:

"Is the game perfect? Not by a mile. Would we change the score if we could do it again? No."

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

I'm sorry but if the editor admits that the game isn't perfect, why give it a perfect 10? This is where videogaming journalism makes me sick. This "editor" calls herself a journalist and she doesn't realize what credibility is? Wake up and smell the coffee Sweetie, you need a reality check.

[F9Phoenix]

BECAUSE 10 DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN PERFECT.

Man... you people and your lack of comprehension skills.



If 10 is the best score, wouldn't that mean perfect?!?!?


Give it a 9.8 or 9 for God's sake. 10s should be something special, for games that ARE perfect. If you start giving out 10s like crazy, noone will take your reviews seriously.

[captainspankypants]

Most reviewers have given up the 1-10 scoring system long ago. Instead, they use a 6-10 scale, or sometimes a 7-10 scale if they're OXM or the old-style IGN. Games very, very rarely fall below a six, and if they do, there is no appreciable difference between a game that scores, say, a two, and one that scores, say, a five. They're both giant turds.

[TheHulk]

"Why does a ten have to be perfect for everyone? That is just your personal scale."



"These go to 11."

[antoniogaud]

When I hear people complaining about nothing, I know I'm at Evil Avatar. Feels like my home!

Anyway, Fight Night 3 is a '10' on the scale of great boxing games. If FN4 is better, FN3 will still be a '10'. All that rating says is that the game is as entertaining as it can be expected to be. Improvements to the game in subsequent editions may, or may not, make it more-fun, but until a new edition is released, the current version is as fun as it gets - hence the '10'.

Saying a game should be a '9' because it could always be improved is ridiculous since you would never be able to give out a '10' by this definition.

For my money Fight Night 3 is a '10' or at least a very high 9 due to some interface issues (I hate that the training modes are mandatory in career mode). Otherwise, the gameplay and graphics are phenomenal.

[Kamalot]

The punches were super slow and unrealistic. Plus they felt like they had no umph behind them. It felt like two kittens pawing at each other. Plus the animations were stiff and the controls were unintuitive and difficult to get into.

I have to agree with the above. Perhaps Fight Night Round 3 is the best Fight Night that has ever been made. Not having played the others, I can't compare. The game wasn't fun though, and that's what I base my internal reviews on, first and foremost.

I would take Soul Calibur over this any day. When it comes to fighting games, any kind of fighting games, everything comes down to gameplay; and right now Soul Calibur reigns as champ due to it's deep gameplay and responsive, quick, fluid controls.

[thecrazyd]

If 10 is the best score, wouldn't that mean perfect?!?!?


Give it a 9.8 or 9 for God's sake. 10s should be something special, for games that ARE perfect. If you start giving out 10s like crazy, noone will take your reviews seriously.
How can you qualify that a game is .2 points from being perfect? Scores like this are very general, and not directly based on anything but the authors general impression. A 10 can just mean that the game is just very solid, and the author really likes it. Your mileage may very.

Please keep in mind that I am in no way defending the game in particullar. Just saying that an arbitrary number does not mean that the game is perfect.

[Dr.Finger]

I don't consider a 10 perfect because games are art and art cannot, in my opinion be perfect. What a 10/10, or 5/5, or 4 stars, or 100% means to me is "our highest reccomendation". Fight Night had no real technical flaws to my knowledge, it looked great and it played well. In my book that makes it eligible for a 10. Just because a game doesn't have 100+ hours of gameplay like Oblivion, or GTA, or Half Life shouldn't disqualify it from being a great game. Score inflation/deflation is a different story.

jacktion, the 360 version of Fight Night moves a little better than the demo, but the pacing is a deliberate attempt to make it more like real boking and less like a fighting game.

[Mortis]

Using a scale a 1-10 I would give FNR3 a 7.

[F9Phoenix]

How can you qualify that a game is .2 points from being perfect? Scores like this are very general, and not directly based on anything but the authors general impression. A 10 can just mean that the game is just very solid, and the author really likes it. Your mileage may very.

Please keep in mind that I am in no way defending the game in particullar. Just saying that an arbitrary number does not mean that the game is perfect.


My only reasoning is that 10s should be reserved for gaming perfect. That is all.

The editor herself admits the game isn't perfect, therefore the game should not have received such a high honor.

I personally love the game, and think it's the best boxing game to date, but again, it is not a 10.

[Mason]

How can you qualify that a game is .2 points from being perfect? Scores like this are very general, and not directly based on anything but the authors general impression. A 10 can just mean that the game is just very solid, and the author really likes it. Your mileage may very.

Please keep in mind that I am in no way defending the game in particullar. Just saying that an arbitrary number does not mean that the game is perfect.

Plus, if one reads the article, they now use a 20-point scale. So when the options are 9.5 and 10, a 9.8 would round up to 10 anyways.

Just imagine how much these people will yell when they realize that there are reviewers out there giving games 5/5s. The horror!

[eatme]

A good definition of 10 would be:

"This game will likely be a strong candidate for best game of the year."

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be one of the best of the year. That means you only give out a few 10s a year, so the number doesn't lose its meaning. Similarly, a 1 could be:

"This game is a strong candidate for worst game of the year."

Man, they could even start giving out 5s for games in between that. Instead of, say, 75% for a bad game, 83% for a medium game, and 96% for a great game.

[thecrazyd]

My only reasoning is that 10s should be reserved for gaming perfect. That is all.

The editor herself admits the game isn't perfect, therefore the game should not have received such a high honor.

I personally love the game, and think it's the best boxing game to date, but again, it is not a 10.
Well, unfortunately, the Official XBox Magazine does not subscribe to your 10 definition.

[Roc Ingersol]

"Official" magazines are pieces of trash, much like one-console only oriented fan/ review sites like TeamXbox, Nsider.com etc.
QfT

here's yer damned extra characters!

[gzsfrk]

A score of "10" means to me that game is perfect.

And if a game is perfect, how do you raise the bar beyond that?

Meaning, will Fight Night 4 get a score of 11 when it's raved by OXM as better than Fight Night 3.

Somehow I think not.

Right... if you were grading a game, you would define you scale of 1 - 10 with 10 being perfect. OXM has chosen not to do so. I just got my latest issue on Saturday, and they actually list their scale now as being from 1 - 11, with 11 being the unattainable level of perfection. Perhaps that was a satirical reference to this ridiculous imbroglio over giving a game a 10.

But the point is, they define and assign their own scale; 10 doesn't have to mean "Perfect" in their world if they don't want it to. If that bothers you, then simply disregard their content, or suck it up; your choice.

[Zanzibar]

Why can't a 10 mean 'It's a fucking great game, better than I expected, if you're at all interested in fighting games you HAVE to get this game'?

I bet when you got an A+ in 1st grade, you gave up going to school because you obviously didn't need to learn any more. No? How is this different?

A 'highest grade' means that you've done incredibly well, but it doesn't have to mean 'perfect.'

[Soap]

I think if we can all agree on one thing, it's this:

There is no standardized system for reviewing videogames and there never will be.

This is the only reason that various gaming magazines and websites can assign such obviously skewed scores. If IGN (85%), Gamespy(90%), and Gamespot (83%) scored closer to OXM's review, maybe I could accept it as truth. But to me, there is a HUGE difference between an 83% and 100%.

Debate on! I'm getting more popcorn.

[jeffool]

When I hear people complaining about nothing, I know I'm at Evil Avatar. Feels like my home!Indeed.Anyway, Fight Night 3 is a '10' on the scale of great boxing games. If FN4 is better, FN3 will still be a '10'. All that rating says is that the game is as entertaining as it can be expected to be. Improvements to the game in subsequent editions may, or may not, make it more-fun, but until a new edition is released, the current version is as fun as it gets - hence the '10'.How is a reader supposed to know when a ten is a 'boxing ten' and when a ten is a 'this is a magnificent game and everyone should buy it ten'?Saying a game should be a '9' because it could always be improved is ridiculous since you would never be able to give out a '10' by this definition.And that's the problem with games. We interchangeably grade them like products and art, with no indication on which scale we're referring. Art can easily be 'perfect' (in the sense of providing a feeling or emotion that it was intended to give, or get its point across) without being perfect on any technical scale. And technically perfect games can be respected without being art. But we need to delineate the differences between the two.

[gzsfrk]

My only reasoning is that 10s should be reserved for gaming perfect. That is all.

The editor herself admits the game isn't perfect, therefore the game should not have received such a high honor.

I personally love the game, and think it's the best boxing game to date, but again, it is not a 10.

So has there ever been a game that was "perfect"? A game that was so complete and without ANY flaws whatsoever that it would be impossible to have released it any better form, shape, or fashion? Ahh... then now we have to argue what "perfect" means; much like how we have to subjectively decide what "10" means.

Idiots...

[Frank the Tank]

What is a 10? That needs to be descibed better by most publications, especially OXM. EGM went so far as to change their whole system a few years back since they saw that no game would ever receive a 10, and that their current system was getting too particular. They did, however, describe this change, and the motivations behind it.

The problem is, when a game receives a perfect score, we expect perfection. And what's wrong with that? If the game is the best thing that's out there, playing like nothing before, or taking gameplay to a new level, score it a 10!

I think games have just been on a gameplay decline for a while now, and journalists feel the need to rebase their standards so as not to seem overly critical, or just giving everthing an 7.

But, what should a score be based on? In OXM's case, should they only compare to games on the 360? On the previous xbox? Who are you writing your reviews to? New gamers, or seasoned veterans that still hold each new game up to the classics of yesteryear? I think that's the difficulty, and why this is a bigger issue than most take it as.

Or, you can actually read the review and ignore the score. Roger Ebert prefers to rate movies differently based on his current impressions, and not based on the score of other movies. He trusts in the actual review, and not in the star rating.

I'm of the opinion, however, that if you put a lot of stock into the scoring (be it a journalist or reader), than the scale better be as intricate as the written review. If neither can accurately express whether you should be playing this game, then the system of reviewing games to inform readers has failed.

So, my advice to OXM: if your scoring has gotten simpler, than you damn well better convince me in the written review why this game should score a 10. And from the looks of the reader feedback (assuming that they just don't look at the numbers), the written review wasn't very convincing.

[ruprect]

I agree with her that it is silly for some people to take games so seriously, but for people in the industry it might help for them to do so a little bit.

As far as her comments are concerned its silly that she can say:
"Is the game perfect? Not by a mile."
and still stand firm behind the score. For a '10' it should be "not by a few yards" or something.

Just becuase games are a hobby doesn't mean your job as a critic shouldn't be done professionally. . . maybe you could even help the industry grow by providing valuable input.

She is firing back at people to cut her some slack because the profession she's chosen is based on a hobby. Why would anyone promote someone who has that attitude to Editor in Chief?

[gzsfrk]

What is a 10? That needs to be descibed better by most publications, especially OXM. EGM went so far as to change their whole system a few years back since they saw that no game would ever receive a 10, and that their current system was getting too particular. They did, however, describe this change, and the motivations behind it.

Read the latest issue of OXM. They describe their rating system quite clearly.

[gzsfrk]

We interchangeably grade them like products and art, with no indication on which scale we're referring. Art can easily be 'perfect' (in the sense of providing a feeling or emotion that it was intended to give, or get its point across) without being perfect on any technical scale. And technically perfect games can be respected without being art. But we need to delineate the differences between the two.

Game reviews themselves are more closely an art form than objective science and should be regarded as such. The perceived veracity of a review of anything from games to movies to dishwasher detergent should be based on our past experiences with the source of the review, be it a formal article or a recommendation from a friend. In short, it's ludicrous to fret that someone might read one review from a source and not be able to use that review to make a qualified decision as to whether or not to proceed with purchasing the affected product. The effectiveness of the reviewing mechanism requires one to draw from the established repertoire of the reviewer, not just the points made in the review itself. Anything less than that, and you might as well trust a random anonymous forum post for your decision support.

[Frank the Tank]

Read the latest issue of OXM. They describe their rating system quite clearly.

Can anyone post what they actually define as a 10?

[Kamalot]

A 10 is a game that, regardless of genre preferences, is one that shouldn't be missed by ANYONE!

Everyone should run out and buy the game right away if it is a 10 because it signifies an experience shouldn't be missed.

Does Fight Night Round 3 meet that criteria?

In my humble opinion, if this is the best boxing game ever, then I don't need to play boxing games, ever.

[Metal Jesus]

No game has ever been a 10. There have been some high 9s, but a 10 is perfect for everyone, and no such game exists.

I completely disagree.

True, a perfect game is very rare and SHOULD be rare, but there have been a few perfect games like the original Civilization, StarCraft, Half-Life, etc...

If you really believe that nothing can ever be a 10, then I would think you would apply this to all things people create like movies, albums, art, etc...

[Dakar]

I'd just like to say that the Official Dreamcast Magazine was one of the best gaming magazines EVER

[gzsfrk]

Can anyone post what they actually define as a 10?
I'm at work right now and don't have access to my magazine, but here's a post from their forums that describes more or less their philosophy with regard to a game scoring a 10:

In every single OXM magazine, they explain that a 10 does not mean perfect. If you ask why don't they have a score for perfect games the answer is because perfect games don't exist. You will never find a game that is 100% void of glitches or could use zero improvement.

Source:http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=427475

[atariv8]

I rub Nintendo Power on my nether regions every night. I would rate the experience a 10.

[Kamalot]

I'd just like to say that the Official Dreamcast Magazine was one of the best gaming magazines EVER
Of course! The Official Dreamcast Magazine was a perfect 10!

[Genital Eclipse]

Woah someone gave a game a rating of 10. That's fucking mind blowing so i'm going to post on this forum about how I think that's fucking mind blowing. Biggest event of my life right here knowing that a game got a 10. That's fucking mind blowing.

[gzsfrk]

Does Fight Night Round 3 meet that criteria?

In my humble opinion, if this is the best boxing game ever, then I don't need to play boxing games, ever.

Don't worry--Mike Tyson's Punchout set the standard almost 20 years ago, and still remains the king of the genre. I highly recommend getting a GBA, a flash cart flashed with PocketNES and MTPO, and spending some quality time with the greatest boxing game ever made.

Simulations be damned....

[TheEpicOfTyler]

That might explain why I still get the Official Playstation magazine and I don't get the Official Xbox magazine. :)

In my experience OPM was always fair and they stuck to their review system very well.

[gzsfrk]

I completely disagree.

True, a perfect game is very rare and SHOULD be rare, but there have been a few perfect games like the original Civilization, StarCraft, Half-Life, etc...


Seeing as how each of those games had multiple patches and bug-fixes (except maybe the original Civ?), we ARE assuming you mean that the final patched version of each was the "perfect" game to which you're referring? Or was the numbering system after the patches "perfect.13f"? :)

Subjective perfection 4tw!

[see colon]

FN3 was the reason i picked up a 360. i've picked up a couple of games for it so far, but FN3 is the only one i play on a regular basis. it's fun, it's worth owning, and i feel like i got my money's worth out of the game. there are few games i can say are worth $60, and this is one of them. sure some things need improving, and sure it's not for everyone. but i like it. it's at least a 9 in my book, if not a 10. and to the people who only played the demo, the full game has a hell of a lot more to offer. the boxers in the demo do feel slower, do feel weaker (especialy jones jr.), and you don't see through the boxers durring the replays. the carreer mode is great, the create a boxer is pretty good, and the online play is passable.

[Zanzibar]

Here's the exact quote from the 'Review Roundup':

:D OMG, OXM's first 10! So Fight Night Round 3 on Xbox 360 must be perfect, right? A shining beacon of ideal gameplay? Not even close - pothing's nerfect, after all - but it does mean that everyone who owns a 360 needs to own a copy of this game and play it. A lot. And that's an order!

[F9Phoenix]

If 10 does not mean perfect, in their eyes, then perhaps a grading system should be implemented. By saying "10" you are suggesting the game is perfect, whether you mean to or not.

Say the game is an A+, not a 10.

[AversionFX]

Wow. Just wow.

This is incontrovertible proof that people will complain about the most insignificant shit possible.

Humanity fails.

[gzsfrk]

If 10 does not mean perfect, in their eyes, then perhaps a grading system should be implemented. By saying "10" you are suggesting the game is perfect, whether you mean to or not.

Say the game is an A+, not a 10.

Seriously man, 10 doesn't have to mean "absolutely perfect".

I mean, you just KNOW that Bo Derrick has SOMETHING wrong with her; more hairs in one eyebrow than the other, or some such.

[Zanzibar]

Seriously man, 10 doesn't have to mean "absolutely perfect".

I mean, you just KNOW that Bo Derrick has SOMETHING wrong with her; more hairs in one eyebrow than the other, or some such.

In that case, Krista Allen is an 11:
http://days.webz.cz/KristaAllen/krista003.jpg

[Steele Johnson]

Game scores should be 5 out of 5. It's easier to justify a game that scores a perfect 5 than a game that scores a perfect 10.

Here's my run-down (let's use stars)
5 stars = "Buy the game now!"
4 stars = "Definitely worth playing, especially if you love the genre."
3 stars = "Despite its flaws, if you love the genre (or the previous game(s) in the series), pick this one up."
2 stars = "Not so bad, but there are several game design flaws and not very easy on the eyes."
1 star = "Don't even bother until it's in the bargain bin."

[Royal Fool]

A 10 does not mean fucking perfect. Okay?

A 10 simply means that the game is something special, something that the reviewer feels should not be missed (Although they usually feel the same about the games they give a 9). It's what they feel is at the top of it's given genre, a defining game for the era it's released.

Or at least that's my own interpretation of a straight 10.

Game scores should be 5 out of 5. It's easier to justify a game that scores a perfect 5 than a game that scores a perfect 10.

There isn't any difference between a 5 point, 10 point or a 100 point system. A 3/5 just means 6/10 or 60/100. Sure, reviewers would apply them differently, but it doesn't really change much. If a magazine like OXM used a 5 point system they'd just be rating all games 3, 4 or 5 points I reckon.

[BabyJesus]

In that case, Krista Allen is an 11:
http://days.webz.cz/KristaAllen/krista003.jpg


Fake boobs does not equal 11.

[ilian]

a 10 is not a perfect game, and it never should be, otherwise what the hell is the point of the scale goign up to 10 if no game can achieve it.


a 5 star resteraunt is not a perfect resteraunt. a 5 star movie is not a perfect movie.

A 10/10 is an awesome must-play game. Not the best game ever made forever a-men.

What kind of retarded rating system has the top rating as the perfect quality? Ive never seen a mainstream one like that, so why is this even coming up over and over in this thread?

[ilian]

And having played Fight Night 3, I cant for the life of me understand why it got anywhere NEAR a 10. a big "WTF" indeed.

[Genital Eclipse]

Wow. Just wow.

This is incontrovertible proof that people will complain about the most insignificant shit possible.

Humanity fails.

I'm with you buddy. You can hold out in my salted-beef shelter until America 2 is created where this travesty of a 10 rating on a GAME will be forgotten.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

One review does not a game make. It got a 10 from OXM? Cool, now factor that in with all of the other reviews the game got. I don't see why there is such an uprising over the fact OXM gave the game a 10.

[Wedge]

Wow. Just wow.

This is incontrovertible proof that people will complain about the most insignificant shit possible.

Humanity fails.

Yeah. Gamers, gotta love 'em/us.

Remember back when Halo 2 "only" got 9.4 from gamespot (Game Reviewers With the Power of Decimals! (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=164) )? People were in an uproar. Today it is quite common to think Halo 1 was better than 2, and that Halo 2 wasn't really all that.

[Strand]

Did anyone else notice that in the full version of FNR3 on the 360 that the swelling doesn't work? In the demo on the 360 the guys swelled up so bad they looked like the elephant man - it was awesome!

It appears to be disabled in the full version. No swelling at all that I can tell. Maybe they got rid of it for an improved frame rate? Because the full version seems to have a higher FPS.

As far as this game getting a 10, it didn't deserve that. It is a very fun game with high replayability. The core gameplay is a blast. However the career mode is empty and crappy. It could of been SO much more and for that reason alone it doesn't deserve over an 8.

I'd personally drop that to a 7/10 because of the damn load times. 30 second load just to train, I started doing auto-training just avoid the several minutes of loading to complete the process.

[Watership]

Wow. Just wow.

This is incontrovertible proof that people will complain about the most insignificant shit possible.

Humanity fails.

Look at the complaints being leveled at Oblivion lately.

"MY HORSES HOOF IS SUSPENDED IN MID AIR ON A HILL!"

[Watership]

Did anyone else notice that in the full version of FNR3 on the 360 that the swelling doesn't work? In the demo on the 360 the guys swelled up so bad they looked like the elephant man - it was awesome!

It appears to be disabled in the full version. No swelling at all that I can tell. Maybe they got rid of it for an improved frame rate? Because the full version seems to have a higher FPS.

As far as this game getting a 10, it didn't deserve that. It is a very fun game with high replayability. The core gameplay is a blast. However the career mode is empty and crappy. It could of been SO much more and for that reason alone it doesn't deserve over an 8.

I'd personally drop that to a 7/10 because of the damn load times. 30 second load just to train, I started doing auto-training just avoid the several minutes of loading to complete the process.

Can anyone confirm this? This is the first I've heard of it. That was a great feature of the demo.

[Kamalot]

...to the people who only played the demo, the full game has a hell of a lot more to offer. the boxers in the demo do feel slower, do feel weaker (especialy jones jr.), and you don't see through the boxers durring the replays.
Why would they put out such a demo if it isn't a good representation of the final product, the product they are asking you to pay $60 for?

My big beef this generation is with clipping. What good are super-realistic graphics, lighting and sweat when the camera passes through the boxers, the boxers feet pass through the floor and their clothes move into their legs? It totally destroys any illusion the graphics create. Don't even get me started on the 'hair' for Dead or Alive characters. Argh!

[KamaItachi]

9... 10...

A big fat hen.


The Name's Bender

[see colon]

@Kamalot
the demo came out months before the final game shipped. it had some pretty big issues durring the replays where the camera would be partialy inside a boxer of pass outward through a wall so you wouldn't actualy see a replay, just the backside of a wall. i'm guessing the timing was right for the demo to be released even though it wasn't really up to snuff. as far as clipping goes in the full version, i haven't really seen any shorts dropping through the legs but sometimes when a boxer is knocked down you can see up his shorts and see that his leg doesn't attach to anything. occasionaly a boxer's arm will go through the other boxers head or sholders durring a punch, but i've only really ever noticed that durring the replays.

@Watership
there is swelling in the final version of FN3 for 360, but it isn't quite as pronounced as it was in the demo. it's a bit more realistic, actualy, and sometimes the swelling in the demo would get all retarder and turn into goiters.

[Watership]

@Kamalot
the demo came out months before the final game shipped. it had some pretty big issues durring the replays where the camera would be partialy inside a boxer of pass outward through a wall so you wouldn't actualy see a replay, just the backside of a wall. i'm guessing the timing was right for the demo to be released even though it wasn't really up to snuff. as far as clipping goes in the full version, i haven't really seen any shorts dropping through the legs but sometimes when a boxer is knocked down you can see up his shorts and see that his leg doesn't attach to anything. occasionaly a boxer's arm will go through the other boxers head or sholders durring a punch, but i've only really ever noticed that durring the replays.

@Watership
there is swelling in the final version of FN3 for 360, but it isn't quite as pronounced as it was in the demo. it's a bit more realistic, actualy, and sometimes the swelling in the demo would get all retarder and turn into goiters.

Thanks, That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

I didn't think much of the demo, until I had a party with friends over. Then everything changed. It's great fun multiplayer.

[Nightstorm]

Next Gen needs to get back into magazines with their 5 star system. I trusted that mag more than anything. Pretty much every review of games I played lined up with what I thought. Ah the glory days. Really miss Next Gen.

[Shifteh]

If you're going to give a game a 10 out of 10, it had better change an entire genre, or do something absolutely amazing - something no other game has done. I have a feeling Fight Night Three does neither of those things.

[sol740]

Actually sitting here arguing about " WHAT A 10 MEANS TO ME !! " is just retarded. Guess what, the reviewer doesn't give a shit if you think 10 should mean perfect. He even stated in the review it wasn't perfect. If thats not enough for you, you're a moron. Ya, I said it, MORON. Get the fuck over it. If a 10 means perfect to you than by all means start a zine, get a major publisher to back you, and than spend the rest of your life never giving a game a 10. If a game is perfect than everyone in the world would love it. That ain't gonna happen. OOT was a damn fantastic game but not perfect by any means. Fight Night is great, I wouldn't have given it a 10, maybe a 9, but it was the best, most immersive boxing game I have ever played and that counts for something. As a matter of fact its still the system show off game that goes in when a friend asks me if the graphics on the 360 are better. There hasn't been a jaw off the floor yet. Fine, nitpickers, there are some MINOR clipping issues, not a big deal. The only REAL problem I have is that online you can't set up "no button punches" matches. They shouldn't have given the option to use another set up other than true punch.

[Kamalot]

Actually sitting here arguing about " WHAT A 10 MEANS TO ME !! " is just retarded.
You know, you are right! Sitting around arguing about what a 10 means to you is totally retarted.

Everyone should just agree on what a 10 means to me and be done with it. ;-)

[fitbabits]

That might explain why I still get the Official Playstation magazine and I don't get the Official Xbox magazine. :)
Don't get me started on the poor excuse for journalism that happens to be called Official PlayStation Magazine... I subscribe to it and I simply can't bear to read any of it these days. I take my new issue to the Children's Hospital and give it to the kids the day it arrives (plus, it's ALWAYS LATE)!

[sol740]

You know, you are right! Sitting around arguing about what a 10 means to you is totally retarted.

Everyone should just agree on what a 10 means to me and be done with it. ;-)


HA ! Alright kamalot you win. We are in agreement. Your 10 is t3h win.

[GunnyMo]

I love what she says at the end:

Is the game perfect? Not by a mile.

And they gave it a 10. Interesting.

Oh, and as far as gaming journalism goes I don't trust any of them for reviews anymore. They are all over the place. I enjoy Game Informer for anything but reviews. In the past year they've redesigned the entire magazine and have put forth some great articles. No, I'm not pimpin' it because I sell it. As I said, the reviews just don't cut it for me. Their review of HL2 on the XB was absolutely horrendous. Both reviewers did nothing but complain how it wasn't the PC version. One even said the sound was horrible. I'm sorry, but I've got a Dolby DTS setup and the sound was absolutely amazing.

Yes, I understand reviews won't always mesh with my opinion. Let's get a big DUH on that one. Maybe it's because old age has made me hate everyone else's opinions. :D

[trip1eX]

I'd probably just go with no ratings. Just talk about the game and what was good and bad about it.

[mightbe]

I'd give FNR3 a 10 if it weren't for the online play problems. 9.75 at least though. An amazing game. Perhaps the best sports game I've ever played.

[UnderHero5]

I don't really take a reviews rating into much consideration.
I read the reviews of a game... look at the pros and cons the reviewers point out, and go from there.

I'll usually try a demo or (if no demo is available) aquire the game before I decide whether to buy it.

I can usually judge whether I'll like a game just by reading a few reviews though.
I read reader reviews as well. Gamefaqs actually does come in handy because there's always some reader who scores the game a 10 and one who scores it a 2. I read both of them to get the extreme (if exadurated) good and bad of the game.

So far it's worked, because I haven't bought many games that I've disliked... other than the ocasional cheap impulse buy (P.N.03, I'm looking at you! Luckily it was less than 10 bucks when I bought it).

I really don't see why people are getting so worked up over FN3 getting a ten. Maybe the reviewer simply thought it was the best boxing game out there... it's a single opinion people. 10's don't necesarilly mean perfect. Just means they think it's deserving of their highest score.

I'd have given Road Rash 64 a ten simply based on the fact that it was the best Road Rash game ever made, and one of the greatest multiplayer racing games ever... but you see, I doubt many people would agree with me. It's all just personal opinion.
(Anyone else love RR64? I still break it out and play it to this day)

[Feltoar]

No game has ever been a 10. There have been some high 9s, but a 10 is perfect for everyone, and no such game exists.

I hate that kind of mentality. If the scoring system is between 1 and 10 then all those numbers should be utilisted; not 7 through 9.

When a game gets 5 stars do you expect it to be perfect? It scored 100% didnt it? Its a dumbass double standard which makes no sence. You should read the bloody review anyway, such focus on a plain number is rediculous.

[bjornbarspingvinen]

This is easily solved; think of games like movies; a great horror movie is not for all, it´s for horrorfans or semi-fans of the genre, the best Martial arts movie may be a legend among those circles (M.A) but to others it´s just a crap movie. A boxing game receiving a ten should be considered the best game ever in that genre, not the best game ever. I mean I would be pissed if they game the best hockeygame ever a 7 just because "this game is not for everyone".

Rate is by genre , not as "all games released" . JUst because you like games , you don´t have to LIKE ALL GAMES, just as movies, you make like movies but do you have to love dramas then? Of course not, some genres may cross over to cater you flavour, but in the end you can´t like every "good" movie out there.

[AniAko]

Fight Night 3 was NOT a 10.

I don't think a 10 necessarily means perfect though, that's one of the reasons we do an out of 5 score. And on top of that do a good, bad and ugly thing.

I give it a 10 out of 10 for saving me money, because I DEMOLISHED FN: Round 2 in a fit of rage. This time it was DOA4 that claimed the life of one 360 controller (or so I thought! Still works perfectly, just looks funny)

[HardScores]

The career mode, the meat and potatoes of this game, was very boring. Just fight after fight, with no ladder. Oh, and heavy advertisements.

[Karmakaze]

I'd give FNR3 a 10 if it weren't for the online play problems. 9.75 at least though. An amazing game. Perhaps the best sports game I've ever played.

Did you play FNR2 for the xbox1? THAT was a great boxing game. R3 gained snazzy gfx, but lost alot of other features:

-a more fleshed out ladder
-decent announcer voices
-a much cooler looking knockout recovery mini-game (no annoying joystick overlays, so you had to judge the center just by seeing how blurry the ref was)
-no awkward pauses loading voice clips or bikini models

.. shall I go on? Did THAT get a 10?

Personally, I'm glad I just rented R3, because I was pretty disappointed, especially considering how much I enjoyed R2.

[mightbe]

I give it a 10 out of 10 for saving me money, because I DEMOLISHED FN: Round 2 in a fit of rage. This time it was DOA4 that claimed the life of one 360 controller (or so I thought! Still works perfectly, just looks funny)

Before you smash your console peripherals, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!

Or something.

[Shifteh]

Well, I cancelled my subscription to PC Gamer when I saw Half-Life 2 with a 98%. That said, I think once you get into a rather small system (1 to 10), you have to expect 10's.

However... I don't think this game is deserving of a 10. A year from now, will you remember Fight Night 3, and all those fantastic matches? I doubt it.

[Kamalot]

I enjoy Game Informer for anything but reviews. In the past year they've redesigned the entire magazine and have put forth some great articles. [sic] the reviews just don't cut it for me.

I have to agree. The reviews in Game Informer seem to be slanted to the games that are edgy, mature or bloody above games that are fun. I think they are pandering to their target audience, trying to get them to come into Game Stop and buy the game.

[divinechaos]

I'd probably just go with no ratings. Just talk about the game and what was good and bad about it.

That would probably be the best thing to do. But theres always gonna be a crowd that will need numbers. Some ppl just see the numbers, and without readin the content they make an opinion out of it. So, away with the numbers!!

[Kamalot]

i think the biggest problem with putting out a '10' is how it skews rating averages. Check out a site like GameTab or MetaCritic to see how review scores are averaged together. Average review scores don't take into consideration the douchebag editor's claims that games 'miles from perfect' can still get a 'perfect 10'.

The more I think of it, the more I'd like to see reviews done by a panel of reviewers like Famitsu or Olympic figure skating. Getting a perfect score by a panel of reviewers is much more impressive than some new twit fangirl reviewing what is far from a prefect game and spooging out a 'perfect 10'.

[see colon]

i'd rather have them move to a dollar value. like "this game is worth $20". there's quite a few games i enjoyed that came from the budget bin because i bought them with little expectation. by the same token there's quite a few titles i've picked up at full price that were a complete disapointment.

[Kamalot]

i'd rather have them move to a dollar value. like "this game is worth $20". there's quite a few games i enjoyed that came from the budget bin because i bought them with little expectation. by the same token there's quite a few titles i've picked up at full price that were a complete disapointment.
Good point! Most 'bad' games are totally worth $10 while an average game can even be worthwhile at $20. How many games are actually worth $50-$60?

I like the way you think.

[mightbe]

However... I don't think this game is deserving of a 10. A year from now, will you remember Fight Night 3, and all those fantastic matches? I doubt it.

I think about Ali vs. Jones Jr. when I'm on the toilet. Does that help?