NOTHING IS PERFECT

If no game is 5/5, there shouldn't be a 5/5 score.

If there is a 5/5 score, it should be awarded to the best gameS. Not the best game (singular) while all the others are less. Like many people say, 5/5 does not equal perfection. It just means "oh, this is so good I can forgive all of its flaws". I've given 5/5 more than once here.

i get the feeling this quote is out of context and or very very very old. in any case maybe give the link as to where it's from? idk just kind of seems weird for him to say that since ths system is built to allow 5/5.

on the subject: if you think the game is fantastic and the flaws don't bother you at all then it's fine to give it a 5. Most people see that as giving a 4.5 just to save their perceived reviewer rep. HOWEVER, it's statistically impossible to get 5/5 average from 10 different reviews, because people in general aren't like that (high expectations, idea that the lower you rate the game compared to others makes you have higher standards, etc.). I think that might be WIP's idea behind that quote.

I can say that no game I've played deserves a 5/5. But that's neither here nor there. I haven't played many of the "really good" RM games, and the few times I did try one, I got bored and quit anyway.

It depends how much you think 5 points is worth. I mean, in general, I think a lot of people use more or less the same scale for amateur games as they do for professional games - so if a game gets a 5/5, that doesn't mean it's in the top 5% of RM games, it means that it would get a 5/5 from real gaming magazines/sites/whatever.

Now, personally, I think I probably subconsciously adjust my review scores to "relative" scores, scoring them as RM games rather than as games. Because otherwise I kind of imagine that most of our games would be 0 stars. We have lots and lots of games that are worse than Superman 64. But I can totally see where they're coming from too. It's a bit pointless and fairly confusing to invent a new scale when the game industry already has a working one, right?

I can see both sides. They're just arbitrary numbers, after all. They can mean whatever you want. The only real problem is that people can't agree on what they mean.

For me, a five-star review means that the reviewer thought the game was, as a whole, excellent. And I think therein lies the crux of the problem. People have different definitions of what a five-star review means. Some people are like me, and think that a five-star review means "excellent". Others think that a five-star review means "perfect" perhaps not quite understanding the concept of "opinion". If things were standardized, I don't think there would be this problem. Then again, isn't this an issue this thread tried to raise, but fail?

I think it is definitely possible for a game to be worthy of a 5/5. I've played a few games that came close.

5/5 games should be paid for. Heck even $1.

"No game on this site should have a 5/5." = He may think currently there are no 5/5 games on this site. Not worth his 5/5 stars, anyway.

"Never give a game 5 stars." = Likely has a stick up his ass a disdainful view of RPG Maker games in general.

tl;dr version: no, I don't agree. Then again I haven't been here for very long, so I may slowly descend into cynicism in the coming months, and never reward a game with a 5/5.

I say yes, because people work on the games as hard as they can, and though they never are perfect, they still deserve something for the effort, if you know they didn't work on it at all though, then they shouldn't for at least that game. It's the reason of chance I call it. Why? Because there should be a reason for the chance you get the grade, you worked hard. : D