I'd give this poll a pi.

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1624864]

Comments

[hirez.livejournal.com]

[x] Backhander.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Fanboy or someone like me was paid to write the review.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

In my case, were I reviewing, I'd be trying to keep the marks on more-or-less a normal distribution, with the vast majority coming between about 4 and 7 and major dropoffs on both sides. Doing that would suggest that ten out of ten should go to something a couple of standard deviations better than average - not necessarily 'perfect', but significantly better than just top ten percent...

[andrewducker]

Edge magazine seems to do something similar - because they've given out 10/10 scores to a total of twelve games in the last seventeen years. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

But they've sped up. In the first 100 issues, three perfect scores. In the second 100, eight. Although I'm glad to see that Zelda: OoT is on the list.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

You are entirely right, let me quickly change my answer.

[dpolicar]

Yes, this.

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

mmmmm pi

[autopope.livejournal.com]

It indicates that the review scale runs from (1-5)+5, not from 1-10.

(This is quite common in magazine work.)

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

That the Genius Bar handjob was REALLY good.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

It really depends on how the review is categorised.

If it is software that is meant to perform a function, and it performs that function without problems or errors and without being unfriendly, then I'd happly mark it as 10/10.

If it is something like "value for money" ... then again I find it hard to say "this game is £20, that game is £45, but £20 game can be completed in three days, while the £45 game comes with 4 DVDs of cut scenes and pretty backgrounds and can be played for several weeks" about which, if either, is "10/10 value for money".

And if a batch of fabulous games came along one month, then I'd certainly be happy to see more than 10% get 10/10.

I think :-)

What Hi-Fi actually state that they do different star ratings for individual products and for category reviews. So a home cinema amp might get five stars as a separate product (because it's among the best reviewed at that price point), but in a category shoot off, it might get four (or even three stars) because another amplifier in that shoot-out has more features, or a lower price, or just sounds a bit better ...

[darkoshi]

That it did everything it was supposed to do very well, without any reason to remove any marks in the context of what it was supposed to do. There may still be room for improvement though.

For example, in figure skating someone may have performed a great routine, but theoretically they could always throw in another triple-quadruple-backspin-somersault or whatnot, and then it'd be even better.

But really, it depends on what is being reviewed, I suppose, and how those reviews have been handled previously.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

I voted "top 10%", but was waffling between that and "awesome to the max." I'll acknowledge that in casual conversation the latter is far more common... but I hope that (most, anyway) reviews are a bit more considered than that.

I don't think the "perfect in every way" criterion can ever be met, which would make a 10/10 impossible to attain and therefor actually become a 1-9 scale... a ten-point scale is far too coarse for that sort of pedantry.

-- Steve's not a fan of numerical scoring, himself, as it provides a false sense of precision and objectivity about what can be a very imprecise and subjective experience.

Suggested alternative

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Instead of going with an arbitrary or formula-driven 10 point scale, I think I'd rather see "starred" reviews using something like the following criteria:

***** Excellent in concept and execution, a must-see/buy for fans of the genre and worth viewing/trying even for those who are not.

**** Very good overall. Fans of the genre will enjoy this but minor flaws may spoil the enjoyment of others.

*** Good overall, but with notable flaws in concept and/or execution that may spoil enjoyment even for fans. Not recommended for non-fans.

** Fair. Die-hard genre fans will still enjoy this despite the flaws, but others would be advised to stay away.

* Poor. For completionists only. Fundamental flaws in concept or execution will spoil the enjoyment for all but a small portion of the audience.

0 Broken. So egregiously flawed that it cannot be enjoyed on its own merits, or is functionally unplayable/unviewable/unreadable and so cannot be completed. Suitable only for MST3K-ing, if that.

-- Steve's seen a few games that rated a 0. Oh, the pain, the pain...

[drplokta]

The publisher has a large advertising budget, so the magazine has to keep them sweet. It won't be anything as crass as a backhander or an ultimatum, simply a mutual understanding that it's better not to bite the hand that feeds you.

[andrewducker]

That is, by the way, an awesome hat.

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

9/10 an amazing example of the genre
10/10 genre defining

I'd say you should expect a handful of games per genre per year to get 9/10s and a game per year or every few years to get 10/10.

Alternatively I see it as a logarithmic scale.

Alternatively I see it as that definition of genius I like so much "9/10 hits the target no-one else can hit, 10/10 hits the target no-one else can see" ;)

[wychwood]

While 10/10 ought perhaps technically to mean "in the top 10%", in practice I tend to think of it more like rolling a 20; it's not "one notch better than 19", it's a critical.

That's less true with stuff that can be measured relatively objectively, though; if you're looking at, say, technical specifications for a particular purpose, then it means something different to when it's something like a book or a film.

[andrewducker]

Congratulations - you win "best usage of a gaming term in everyday conversation" of the day!