To answer this question, I'm going to have to delve into philosophy. What is perfection really? It's the notion that a certain one thing is unchangeable in every way because in a sense, it doesn't need to be changed as it is already perfect. But how can something be truly perfect? If in terms related to gaming, it means that it is the best game in it's field and that everyone should own it and it could never be improved. But that is simply not true. Nothing is perfect or can ever be perfect as it is impossible to achieve.

Therefore no game is ever deserving of a perfect 10/10 score. The scale in which games are measured upon, (usually a scale of 10) is only there to compare the game's wealth relative to perfection, but it should never reach it. If you are familiar with trigonometry, you'll know that on a graph displaying the tan function, the line of tan rises vertically on the y-axis and curves closer vertically to it's point on the x-axis but never actually reaches it and so carries on vertically up the graph into infinity. My point and comparison being is that, no matter how good a game is, it can never reach 10, but can rather meet 9.9 or if you really want to annoy people, 9.9867564. The point being, you can have it as close to 10 as you want, but you will never be able to reach it.

So when a game site, like Gamespot, advertises a game with a score of 10/10, I think first; how is that reasonable and second what is the motive behind deciding to make it 10/10 rather than 9.9. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV scored a 10/10 from Gamespot, it listed all of it's praises, but it also included things that weren't so great. So to begin with, they have already contradicted themselve, because firstly, they've already admitted to it not being worthy of a perfect 10 to begin with as the game has faults, and a perfect 10 can't have faults because then it is not perfect.

Secondly I see this kind of reviewing as biased, corrupted and misleading. Biased, because it is their opinion that it is perfect to them and they do not take into account what other people may take from the review, which already gives a trusting consumer a view that it would be perfect to them but upon purchasing it for themselves they realise they don't enjoy it and have spent money on something they heard was great but to them is appalling. Corrupted because, the reviewers have the chance (not saying they are) of being payed by publishers/developers to bump that score from say a 9.8 to a 10, which leads on to being misleading and gives a reader a false impression on the game which then reconnects back to being biased.

So moral of this, if I've learned anything, it's that impressions from a game should be taken from a variety of sources. One, look at more than one review from more than one site. Two research what games the reviewer has previously reviewed on games that you've played and compare opinions. And three, engage with fellow players views on the game who you know like the same sort of games as you do through online play, forums or player reviews.

From experience (and a very tight budget), I've learned what games to buy and so far have enjoyed everyone I own and play them each regularly. Sometimes it's my own biased opinion on other games that I don't look into them but that comes down to personal choice as you don't know what's out there. But when I come to review a game I focus on what's bad and good and weigh them on a set of scales and see which side is the more prominent. What I sometimes see in reviews is that critics get so wrapped up about what they feel is good or bad and completely forget the opposite which in turn becomes a one sided, biased review. But as it goes, my views will always remain the same in that I believe the notion of a game that gets a score of 100%, in any scale, from any source, is a load of bovine excrement.