Do "Perfect" Games Exist For You?

[Zero Kirby]

Just to be clear, I don't disregard the rest of the posts or discredit entire posts (unless their foundation is based on one thing).  I only quoted the portions of a post I disagreed with and gave reasons why.  I've already said that I agree that the scores alone are meaningless, lol.

But the question I raise is...even if they don't view 10/10 as saying the game is perfect, if they acknowledge that it indeed has problems that couldn't just be overlooked, because they're aware it could be an issue for other types of players interested in the genre, then why IS it still 10/10?  Using your same reasoning from before, if they got 10/10, telling them they still had certain problems under that rating won't do much of anything either, because they already received the maximum score from that person despite the fact the problems exist.  What's the point of improving if they're maximizing scores already?  Which is probably the mentality many games adopt anyway, lol.  "Why fix what isn't broken, but slightly scratched."

One of the things that bugs me is when people reference the big gaming site ratings as to how good or bad a game is.  Like how someone who wants to tell you how good a game is, they're like "Oh it got a 10/10 on IGN!" or "It's got a 99 on Metacritic!", and it's like so what, that doesn't tell me anything about what the game does right or wrong.

I sort of prefer the ProJared style approach to this conundrum.  He gives all the details on something, good and bad, and after all is said and done, he gives a score, then recaps the highlights of the good and bad.

I would argue that a 10/10 means the few problems that exist are so minor they can be overlooked simply because the rest of the game is just that good. Why care about improving on a 10/10, well, since a 9/10 means the problems are a problem - 10/10 means I don't care about the few, minor problems the game has.

For some example of games I would give a 10/10, Batman: Arkham City. Does it have flaws, sure - it's a little unfocused and kind of short. But the game as a whole is just outstanding, one of the best I've ever played, so good that it should be recognized for it. Metroid Prime Trilogy. Each individual game has some little problem with it and Corruption especially isn't as good as the first two, but just having all three together with a fantastic control scheme is simply too worth it. Uncharted 2. The final boss isn't that great and some of the treasures are mean, but holy crap, it's just a blast from start to finish. Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, there simply wasn't enough of it, but everything else was just about perfect from start to finish.

It just means the improvements to be made are so minor that the game wouldn't really be that much better for it. What better improvement to make than simply give us more, after all?

As for review content similar to ProJared - a lot of reviewers do the same thing? Most modern reviewers have an article, with all the details, and then a score and a recap with bullet points. But I mean, that isn't going to stop people from simply quoting the scores.