10

Since we are having so much fun in the 7/10 thread, lets have another.

Which games, if any, do you feel are worthy of a 10/10 score?

At the risk of sounding like a miserable old man… none?

There are moment in games that are perfect, but they all have at least some part of them that, on reflection, I'd rather not have to deal with if I replayed them.

Hitman comes close, mind.

How far back are we going on this one? To save on rehashing stuff shall we just stick to this gen?

God Of War.

If we are only talking about games this gen then all I can contribute is my opinion on No Man's Sky and a couple of Switch games!

At the risk of sounding like a miserable old man… none?

A perfectly valid opinion for a miserable old man like yourself.

Well, I'm going to suggest the original Link's Awakening as a game which could net be improved. 10/10 for sure.

Link's Awakening was the first, and for a long time only, Zelda game I'd completed, and I was so deflated by the ending – feeling like the whole thing was a colossal waste of time – that I resented all of it in retrospect.

I realise this was probably an over-reaction, but in my defence I was only like 14 at the time and I'm still honestly not over it.

Metroid Prime on GameCube. Gave it a 10 for gamesTM and I stand by it to this day.

I was so excited to play Metroid Prime after reading that review (and possibly a similar one in Edge). The game itself did not live up to the hype though.

I was so excited to play Metroid Prime after reading that review (and possibly a similar one in Edge). The game itself did not live up to the hype though.

Oof, disagree with that.

From this generation, I'd say Breath of the Wild is the closest thing to perfect we've had.

I was so excited to play Metroid Prime after reading that review (and possibly a similar one in Edge). The game itself did not live up to the hype though.

It was written in a magazine, Bri. That means it was definitely true.

The Witcher 3.

Genuine 10s are almost impossible in gaming, the nature of technology means that everything eventually gets superseded in terms of both scope and visual ambition.

Sometimes it's easier to point at a series and say it's a 10. I'd argue Civilization as a series is a 10, it's a genius concept that's spawned six full games plus multiple spin-offs all of which are excellent in their own way. You might have a personal favourite, but they're all riffs on the same basic idea.

Metroid Prime's a great shout, though I'd argue it didn't achieve full 10-ness until the Wii remake and it's amazing pointer controls.

Journey.

7/10.

Flower was better than Journey anyway.

Does a 10/10 have to be continually brilliant, or just fabulous at what it does only once? Journey is a 10/10 the very first time you play through it. After that, solid 7/10. You can only discover the joy of it blind.

I love Journey enough that I white-robed it twice. I listen to the soundtrack regularly, and sometimes load it up again just for the atmosphere.

I'll accept that it works better first time through, but I genuinely think it's as close to perfect as any media of any kind has ever come. I'm a little bit in awe of it.

Flower was better than Journey anyway.

I like Flower, but found the clumsiness of the controls occasionally irritating, especially when trying to navigate the dark/electricity level.

You can only discover the joy of [Journey] blind.

I one hundred percent disagree with this. The most profound experience I had with Journey – with games as a medium ever – was maybe my fifth or sixth time through it.

It was the first and only time I had the same companion the entire way through. It was magic in a way I cannot describe, capped off with the double punch of despair when I lost track of them during the final level, fearing our connection lost, and the pure joy when I arrived at the summit to find them waiting for me, chirping and drawing hearts in the snow with their footprints.

Part of the problem is that games are so disparate and diverse and different. People can't even agree what counts as a game.

The Beginner's Guide is one of the most impressive pieces of art I've experienced, but by any technical metrics it's not a great game.

Which is something games are really starting to struggle with, critically – they're still, largely, appraised on technical and mechanical criteria. Sure, movie reviews talk about cinematography and music reviews can get into production values, but a movie shot on outdated equipment on zero budget or an album recorded in a bedroom can stand next to big-budget releases if they manage to provoke a sufficient emotional response.

Games reviews are still largely obsessed with polygon counts, framerates and other minutiae, rather than the sum total of the experience.

leans back in chair

ppffttt

7/10 the lot of 'em

leans further back

collapses

But seriously, the whole '10' is a subjective idea. My 10 list would be something like Deus Ex, Wolfenstein The New Order, Hexcells, Geordi Racer on the BBC Micro, one of the Metal Gear games and I could give you a laundry list of reasons why for all of those games (except Geordi Racer which I have like… one reason why and it has nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the value that I ascribe to the game).

Arguing about what counts as a game is pretty pointless too. It's almost as pointless as the 'are games art?' discourse and the only thing worse than that is the discourse about the discourse.

Basically:

I do note that most of the games others have listed - Metroid Prime, The Witcher III, various Zeldas, God of War - are the sort of games that people who like games like. They're very gamey games, the refined pinnacle of a long legacy of other games. And mostly sequels.

I was actually talking to my mum about this thread this evening, as it happens, and I realised that most of those games are the kind of game that don't like you, as a player. They challenge you, fight back, try and get in your way and make you fail.

Journey doesn't. Journey wants you to get to the end - getting to the end is the point, and even if you mess up and fall off a ledge or get caught by the monsters, you don't ever lose. There's no GAME OVER screen in Journey.

Journey is on your side, and I somehow love it even more for realising that.

Addendum: I played a bit of Journey again this evening, thanks to this thread, so cheers, Bri.

I might play Journey again myself tomorrow.

I do note that most of the games others have listed - Metroid Prime, The Witcher III, various Zeldas, God of War - are the sort of games that people who like games like. They're very gamey games, the refined pinnacle of a long legacy of other games. And mostly sequels.

I was actually talking to my mum about this thread this evening, as it happens, and I realised that most of those games are the kind of game that don't like you, as a player. They challenge you, fight back, try and get in your way and make you fail.

We're perilously close to a "Can Games Be Art?" discussion here, but I don't think challenge itself necessarily has to be part of a game, as much as interactivity. A lot of these smaller games (the much-derided "walking simulators") forget that, and when all you're doing is pushing forward on a stick and following the instructions you're given, there's not much actual game there, no matter how beautiful the presentation. Stuff like Edith Finch, Gone Home and - yes - Journey are all a bit guilty of this.

Interactivity takes many forms, of course. A movie or a novel is interactive - you might not be doing anything physically, but it engages the brain and - assuming it's good - you're thinking about the characters and are invested in the plot. (An area where a lot of games still struggle). And a "walking simulator" can do this too - I always come back to Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, which requires exploration and careful thought and pieces its story together from interesting fragments. And aniki's example of The Beginner's Guide is a good one.

Still, it's no surprise that we renowned elderly sages of gaming prefer things that offer a little bit more to hold the attention. I'm playing Dragon Quest XI at the moment which is the gaming equivalent of a warm bath - the story's simplistic, the challenge is virtually non-existent, but even with that it's bolstered by a few simple mechanics like combat and forging which mean your brain's ticking over at some level behind the storyline, thinking about what you want to do next.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say one or another kind of game is the right kind of game, or more or less valid as "art" - just pointing out that there's often a focus on mechanics/challenge when talking about "the best games".

Again, not a value judgement - I just thought it was interesting.

I'm playing Dragon Quest XI at the moment which is the gaming equivalent of a warm bath

That's exactly the reason I haven't yet bought Link's Awakening. That game, to me, is a massive comfort blanket - I've played it so many times, I know it back to front. It'll be warm and snuggly when I do finally go for it. But right now, I want new experiences so I'm avoiding it…

Those "can games be art?" discussions don't need to be torture when you realise that the answer is simply, "yes, of course."

Gar, I don't think Gone Home, Firewatch, or Journey are "guilty" of anything apart from being part of a genre you yourself aren't keen on. I personally really like those sort of games. They tell a story, much of the interaction relies on exploring, possibly figuring out a few puzzles or mysteries, and making choices - choices about where to go next, what corners to investigate. There's not much action generally, and you sometimes don't even have much input into how the story pans out, but I don't see that as a problem.

10s - Half Life and Half Life 2 for certain. Baldur's Gate 2. Deus Ex. Probably World of Warcraft for it's scope, although that is going to be controversial as much of it's own player base seem to hate it. I think Uncharted 4 is a contender as well.

Ooh, Half-Life 2 is a good shout - more so than the first, I'd say, which has some truly stellar sections, but also some absolutely terrible ones. HL2 was the first game I ever played that I immediately wished I could forget and experience fresh again.

The original Doom. How else do you describe a game I'm still playing 25+ years later with no signs of stopping, ever?

I'll show myself back out.

Yeah. Definitely DOOM. As much fun now as it ever was.

Doom for sure. Doom 2 too.

I'd agree with DOOM too. I was going to buy it again on PS4 when it was re-released, until it came out that the new versions were a bit wonky with DRM/forcing you to login. I think that's been "fixed" now though.

As far as others, Super Mario World, maybe? Tetris? (The original almost certainly, and possibly even Effect.) Super Mario Kart? I also think Spelunky is pretty much perfect, in many ways, and worthy of at least a mention. (I do like a roguelike though, so I'd be at least a little tempted to say Slay the Spire, and maybe Dead Cells too.)

I really want to say an RPG, but I can't think of one that I'm convinced fits (at least that I've actually played myself). My personal favourite might still be Fallout 3, and some people probably don't even think that's a 7.

I'd also say Bloodborne, but maybe that raises the question of whether accessibility should be factored in, as I know a lot of people bounce off it. It is at least a bit more "complex" than the others I mentioned, which I like because the more a game tries to do the less likely it seems it can/will do enough of them well enough to merit a 10…

DOOM [is] as much fun now as it ever was.

I agree with this statement, but not necessarily the sentiment.

I got super into Doom WADs for a while there. There are some pretty good ones.

I'd take a couple of points off Doom for not letting you talk to the monsters.

Solid 7.

Can we also agree that Wolfenstein: New Order isn't a 10/10.

Solid 7.

Can we also agree that Wolfenstein: New Order isn't a 10/10.

Probably, but it's real freakin' close.

Does a true 10 have to have some new original or groundbreaking element? Or can it just be the perfection of an established genre?

I think perfection is what’s needed. Games with groundbreaking elements don’t tend to stand the test of time (they’re usually just “amazing at the time”). Doom’s probably the exception here, being both a technical marvel at time of release and a truly timeless game.

I think perfection is what’s needed

On what scale? The first and fifth levels of Rez are perfect experiences in themselves, but some of the middle levels are a bit weak. Is it a 10/10 game because it has two perfect sections, or do the weaker parts drag it down?