I play through all the Marios every few months or so. When it comes to 3D platformers, the 64-bit iteration fits the loosest definition of the word perfection. The controls nearly fit even the strictest definition. Ocarina begs an additional playthough every so often as well, but it’s the play mechanics that draw me into the world. In that respect I agree with the 10/10 ratings. I agree with most of the other examples brought up as well. Be it genre-defining/refining or just a hell of a lot of fun, “perfection” can still be achieved. You just have to define your subjective take on the word. With true perfection being unattainable, I feel we should make use of the entire scale when reviewing. I prefer to concentrate on the merits of a particular game (or movie, etc) and discuss flaws should they detract from the experience. It is this experience that is the most important.
The game this thread is centered upon is an example of this. Issues with controls and camera movement are valid, though I simply chalk it up to the fact that they are intentional setbacks to completing your monumental task. Cop-out, you say? Maybe. But it didn’t feel like it to me. The development team had time to address any issues from their last game, which had similar controls (used quite differently), but didn’t change TOO much. The horse is a major addition, to be sure. It took a little while for me to master the act of mounting the horse, but it was never frustrating. I think both games had the intent of conveying the difficulty your hero faced by making menial tasks take a bit of extra effort (but I don’t think I had NEARLY as tough a time as Jacob did when it comes to falling from colossi/retracing steps). It added to the realism of the world and the gravity of the situation. GTA, for another take on controls, isn’t a shooter. Thus, shooting folks is pretty much always going to be a damn chore. Driving isn’t as tight as a racing game, fighting is far sloppier than a fighter, etc. But it’s still a great time playing it, frustrations aside. As has been mentioned, the sum of a game’s parts is what makes or breaks it.
Again, I think most of the issues folks have about SotC were intentional for the game’s overall experience, which was magnificent. Hardware limitations and the length of the initial adventure are valid criticisms, but don’t in the least disturb my supreme satisfaction with this game. Perfect? In my book: Yes, if I were a reviewer, I’d rate it a perfect score and stand by it (with a handy definition of the rating scale to assist in deflecting attacks against it). But I’m not, and don’t (currently) feel comfortable doing so. Is Doom (the movie) better than Batman Begins (also the movie; what an awful game)? Who cares?! Is Mario (the game) better than Tomb Raider (note to self: choose fewer franchise titles with ties to both movies and games for future examples)? Doesn’t matter. Did you have a good time with these entertainment products? Did you have a GREAT time? What you identify as your “favorite” film, game, album, whatever, should be more important than a numerical rating. But only slightly. And don’t let them identify YOU. And save it for the “lists and drafts” thread category.
This is not a call to action as this thread has done quite well in regard to what I am about to summarize, but it is a plea to avoid a preoccupation with rating and ranking (as well as ranting and raving, which I see I’ve been doing): What it comes down to is that whatever method you choose to relate your experience with an entertainment product is going to be subjective anyway, so I recommend, unless you are a paid reviewer, simply RELATING YOUR EXPERIENCE. But don’t tell us what you had for breakfast before playing the game/seeing the movie or anything like that. And for God’s sake, don’t spend as much time thinking about this as I have (but if you do, consider adopting a more concrete thesis should you wish to discuss it on an interweb message board).