[Fop]

I think it depends on the scale. For a five-star scale, for example, not using the fifth star would be silly. For a 1-10 scale, ditto. For a 1-100 scale (or Gamespot's scale), 99 could be used for those games that are really, really awesome, while 100 would indeed mean perfection.

As to my previous post, even if Famitsu's highest score meant "the best that can be speculated to be achieved at this time", I still think those 38 and 39 scores are absurd. Unless XII somehow completely reinvents the franchise with an unprecedented number of gameplay innovations that work, I don't think 40 could be justified.

[SakSquash]

FF sucks.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Fop

I think it depends on the scale. For a five-star scale, for example, not using the fifth star would be silly.

Not necessarily. Most five-star scales are actually 1-10 scales as you can also give halves of stars. Adventure Gamers' scale is like that.

For a 1-10 scale, ditto.

Why? Isn't 9 comparative steps more than enough? If you give a game a 10/10 grade, that means it can't be improved upon - even theoretically.

For a 1-100 scale (or Gamespot's scale), 99 could be used for those games that are really, really awesome, while 100 would indeed mean perfection.

To me that scale doesn't make much sense. A hundered - hundered! - divisions is just too much. How does one differentiate between a 67 points game and a 66 points one? No, I'd draw the line at 20/20, and even that is too much.

Although, if I'm ever to start a gaming magazine, all my reviewers will have to use a 1-1000000 scale.

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by Fop

Unless XII somehow completely reinvents the franchise with an unprecedented number of gameplay innovations that work, I don't think 40 could be justified.

I don't think that's necessary if it happens to provide an amazing story and amazing characters. I would say for a perfect score it HAS to have those first, then some technical/gameplay innovations.

I'm of the opinion that a perfect score shouldn't be impossible in theory (as opposed to what insane_cobra said that it shouldn't ever be possible because perfection is of course impossible). Way I see it, the scoring system is an imperfect way to judge games (or anything), and that we as people are of course imperfect so giving a game a perfect score doesn't mean it's literally "perfect", but that we, who can't really judge perfection since there's no such thing in reality, feel that is at the time. It doesn't matter if we give it a perfect score because by simply even being able to be judged in such a way, it must be imperfect (and therefore, the best of imperfection, basically). I'd also say that it is most definitely time-relative for the same reason. But in any case the perfect score should be incredibly, incredibly rare if at all given, but not theoretically impossible.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

I don't think that's necessary if it happens to provide an amazing story and amazing characters. I would say for a perfect score it HAS to have those first, then some technical/gameplay innovations.

I suppose he wanted to say that gameplay mechanics of previous FF games were hardly worth the perfect score. And a game with an amazing story and characters and sucky gameplay is just a brilliant collection of cutscenes, if even that.

I'm of the opinion that a perfect score shouldn't be impossible in theory (as opposed to what insane_cobra said that it shouldn't ever be possible because perfection is of course impossible). Way I see it, the scoring system is an imperfect way to judge games (or anything), and that we as people are of course imperfect so giving a game a perfect score doesn't mean it's literally "perfect", but that we, who can't really judge perfection since there's no such thing in reality, feel that is at the time. It doesn't matter if we give it a perfect score because by simply even being able to be judged in such a way, it must be imperfect (and therefore, the best of imperfection, basically). I'd also say that it is most definitely time-relative for the same reason. But in any case the perfect score should be incredibly, incredibly rare if at all given, but not theoretically impossible.

[avatar_58]

Personally I don't care about these magazines and their reviews. Does the FF series deserve high acclaim? Yes, why the heck not? I think FF1-9 are amazing games and some of the most memorable games I've ever played. I still listen to some of the tunes in winamp occasionally.

I don't like FFX or the direction the series has gone recently. The series did its best during the snes era, but the PSX ones were quite good as well.

As for that remark about a "huge collection of cutscenes" well to me the FF games were basically a very large adventure game with rpg qualities. You can't really fault Final Fantasy for something that is praised in other games. FF isn't meant as an advanced serious RPG series in my eyes.

Remember, just because its popular doesn't mean its bad. Although I still love Chrono Trigger as the best game to come from Square Soft.

[CrimsonBlue]

insane_cobra: you say you want reviewers to use the whole scale, yet you deny that a perfect score should ever be achievable. Is that really using the whole scale? If the scale is from 1-10 it's not nearly as diverse as the 1-100 you're using. I agree that 100% should be near impossible to reach, because there's always something to dislike. But I find the 100% scale to be very different from a 1-10 scale, because there are a LOT more choices - you have a hundred of them. From a 1-10 it's usually just 10 options to pick from.

Anyway, the way you think, a 1-10 scale isn't a 1-10 scale, because the 10 will never be used, thus making it a 1-9 scale. And if 9/9 is THEN a perfect score, you would never use a 9, making it a 1-8 scale. Do you see where this is going?

For the record, the Famitsu scores are four 1-10 scales, which they add up. It's not a 1-40 score. The lowest score a game can get in Famitsu is 4/40, as you can't give a game a 0/10.

[Orange Brat]

Originally Posted by Fop

That high? Nah.

Yah.

[RLacey]

If you compare a ten point scale to a percentage figure then surely the tenth point is 96-100%? And the odd gem is going to be worth 96%, surely?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the use of the top mark in a ten point scale, though 100% would, in my mind, certainly imply perfection. Of course, the thing that I really disagree with as far as Famitsu is concerned is that every one of the Final Fantasy games is this good. But, then, I'm really not a fan of FF.

[Fop]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

For the record, the Famitsu scores are four 1-10 scales, which they add up. It's not a 1-40 score. The lowest score a game can get in Famitsu is 4/40, as you give a game a 0/10.

Hmm, thanks for clearing that up. It does make a difference, for me at least.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

insane_cobra: you say you want reviewers to use the whole scale, yet you deny that a perfect score should ever be achievable. Is that really using the whole scale?

Yes, that sounds a bit paradoxical so let me rephrase that: I'd like if reviewers wouldn't shy away from using the middle part of the scale and wouldn't use the lower part just to make fun of the games they think are total rubbish.

From a 1-10 it's usually just 10 options to pick from.

Well, 9, if a score of 10 is unachieveable, but I think that's more than enough. That's just my opinion, of course.

Anyway, the way you think, a 1-10 scale isn't a 1-10 scale, because the 10 will never be used, thus making it a 1-9 scale. And if 9/9 is THEN a perfect score, you would never use a 9, making it a 1-8 scale. Do you see where this is going?

Yes I do, but what we have here is a sophism. In other words, you're making the wrong conclusion; just because there are 9 grades to choose from, the scale is still from 1 to 10, meaning that 9 is by no means a perfect score.

For the record, the Famitsu scores are four 1-10 scales, which they add up. It's not a 1-40 score. The lowest score a game can get in Famitsu is 4/40, as you give a game a 0/10.

Now that makes a lot more sense. It doesn't, however, change my opinion that a 40/40 score is plain absurd.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by RLacey

If you compare a ten point scale to a percentage figure then surely the tenth point is 96-100%? And the odd gem is going to be worth 96%, surely?

Good point. It's even slightly different than that cause 1 is the starting point or 0%. But all math aside, a score of 10 out of 10 still sounds pretty much like perfection to me and I'd refrain from using it.

[CrimsonBlue]

Oh, and I just found out that the scores in Famitsu are from four different reviewers, and all of them gave the game 10/10. Which makes up 40/40.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Fop

I think it depends on the scale. For a five-star scale, for example, not using the fifth star would be silly. For a 1-10 scale, ditto.

Yupp. And what cobra said about high scores for really great games only. Oh, another discussion about scores.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

FFVII: 39/40
FFX: 39/40

Yeah, it's the first Final Fantasy game to get a perfect score in Famitsu, I'm baffled! Who would've expected that? If those scores are the sum of the reviews of 4 different people, the difference between 40/40 and 39/40 is more a matter of the mood of the reviewers at the day of writing than anything else. 3/4 people giving a perfect score or 4/4... the difference is negligible.

Final Fantasy is terribly overrated. The opinion of the Japanese people means nothing to me. For Christ's sake, they don't even play pc games over there. Everybody knows 90% of the best games of all time were pc games (a couple of exceptions noted, like Ocarina Of Time).

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Everybody knows 90% of the best games of all time were pc games (a couple of exceptions noted, like Ocarina Of Time).

I couldn't possibly agree with that statement. So I guess it's not everybody after all.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I couldn't possibly agree with that statement. So I guess it's not everybody after all.

Exceptions make the rule!

[Fop]

That doesn't make any sense.

[CrimsonBlue]

If I made a top 100 games of all time, I can assure you the list would contain about 50% console games and 30% amiga games and 20% PC games. Although most amiga games would exist on other platforms as well (be it PC or console).

[Fop]

Mine would contain mostly PC games, but only because I have so little experience with consoles. I'm certainly aware of many good console games.