Ever since I became a writer, wherever I worked, my inbox was always filled with feedback. Which was good, considering that feedback is a good way to know if you’re being read or ignored. From time to time however, besides the usual hate-mail, there were lots of people complaining that I was too harsh with a certain game and demanding justification for the low grade I gave it. It’s easy to offend people when you bash a game that they love or even worship. For many years I have ignored most of those e-mails, fans or haters alike, because I took the French approach of literary stardom, that is, “piss on them, to make them love you”, rather than the American “okay. I’m your bitch. What do you want me to write?” or the British “I respect your opinion, but I’m a professional. Sorry.”, or even the Canadian “You got some feedback, eh? Let’s hear it!”

But after long years of meeting deadlines and ruining keyboards, in my final year, I decided to write a hefty article, in an anniversary number, explaining why I write the way I do, and why no game what-so-friggin'-ever can get a perfect score in my eyes. If you have a 10 out of 10 rating, maybe I can go for a 9.5 out of 10. In a 5 out of 5 system, it’s easier to give that perfect 5, because that 5 is not really that perfect. It’s just a great value, representing a great game. It represents something  worthy to spend your money on, wholeheartedly, no matter what your favourite genres are. But perfect? Never.

I don’t want to make this little article vague, so before I jump to the moral of the 'perfect video game', I’m going to smother you with examples.

When Half-Life 2 came out, besides the usual nitpicking that I do, and compare the game to its predecessor, I gave it a whopping  94%, and I considered it a good idea. But, if I had to review the game again, today (or even in, let’s say, 2007-2008), it would barely make it above 80%, maybe 85% if I’m in a good mood.  Then, let’s consider that today, I’m going to review the first Half-Life, one of my favourite games of all time, in comparison to a review I did back when it came out, and I gave it a score of around 94% or 95%. Well, I’m sure I’d rate it a perfect 10. Would I do this just because I’m a biased son of a bitch, or, is there something more to it?

Well, staying at the first Half-Life example, let’s view the game's strong points, points that can be validated by any unbiased person, points that are way above Half-Life 2. Of course, excluding the graphics. It would be unfair to judge a game solely for its engine, saying “Ha! The technology in your days, was shittier!” First of all, the AI. Half-Life 1’s AI is still considered to be the best AI in history. While playing, you could almost swear that your PC has a life of its own or that your Windows directory has a special gateway to Skynet. Second of all, no Alyx. Her presence is tolerable but her omnipresence is not.  You don’t need a female character to make a great game. You just fall in the bottomless cliché-hole of game-design. I’m not misogynistic or anything, but Alyx’s place is in the lab, not karate-kicking Combine troopers and making puppy eyes to Gordon. He’s Gordon Freeman for fuck’s sake. Thirdly, we have the script. This is a chapter where many disagree, but in my humble opinion, the first game was way more clever than the second installment. And last, but not least, the mystery. Yes, the mystery. The great weapon in a game's arsenal that can make a decent atmosphere feel divine. Half-Life didn’t have Breen screens in train-stations, hinting (“hinting” is a euphemism for “blatantly telling us like we’re retarded”) who the main villain is. It also didn’t need to build a dystopian/Orwellian universe to make us forget we’re in a video-game. It had no tricks up its sleeves. It was just an ball-breaking good game, making you feel like the only decent person on the planet. The nerd that needs to save humanity. The only guy with a working neuron, and so on. It had action, it had mystery (G-Man at his best), and all that, packaged in one of the most engaging gameplays ever.

In hindsight, there are a few games that I’d consider giving a perfect score, even though they don’t and they can’t, ever, represent perfection. I’ll go on a limb here and mention Baldur’s Gate 2, Heroes Of Might and Magic 3, Starcraft, Clive Barker’s Undying, Silent Hill 2, Planescape: Torment,  Prince Of Persia (1989), Deus Ex, Command and Conquer, Duke Nukem 3D and System Shock 2.

Looking at these examples, I see the main reason why comparisons can ruin a game. They represent 'the precedent', something that existed, that exists now, and something that’s awesome, no matter how you put it. So, I ask myself, and I ask you, why… why should we be gentle to games (even to good ones), when the past teaches us that awesome shit can be born with a low budget, but with commitment, brains, and hard work. Why should I praise, for example,  last year's Borderlands? It’s a good game. A fun game. But why should it take a score more than 80%? What does it bring to the table? The answer is: nothing. It has elements from different genres, and they’re  just glued together. But, the truth is, that Gearbox glued them with a lot of talent. And no matter how much fun this new game offers, there isn’t a single moment in the game, where you go “Oh… My… Self… This is genius”. And why shouldn’t we tell ourselves this sentence? It’s a legitimate sentence! It’s true that there isn’t the possibility for every game, in any given year to reach near-perfection, but goddamnit, they could try. I’d appreciate the effort. Anyone would. It’s ridiculous not to judge a game harshly, to give great scores just because they’re “simple” fun. They should be fun! It’s a video game for fuck’s sake. But we shouldn’t pat any game or any game company on the back going “Awww. Don’t worry. It’s decent, so we’ll buy it anyway”. No way.

Was I filled with joy when Eurogamer.net bashed the PC version of Assassin’s Creed (1) with a 6/10? Yes! I was happy and euphoric, thanking heavens that there’s some integrity left in this day and age. There are still some people (legions actually) that still hold their head up high and use constructive criticism to make developers think twice before they make a sequel by just adding a '2' in the name. Searching for negative aspects in a product (no matter what the product is) should be in the resume of a critic. A review should be exactly what the name says. It’s a review, not a 'description', or a 'description with some personal opinions'. It should be harsh. It should be ruthless. It should offend some people. Especially the producers/developers if the game is shit. I hope the lead designers of crappy games burst into tears when their product gets raped. They should learn not to fuck up. They should also invest emotionally in their games, they shouldn’t approach any endeavour with the least bit of shallowness. They should invest their soul into every aspect of their game, as much as I invest in every paragraph that I write. They shouldn’t copy elements in a 'copy/paste' manner from other games, just as we shouldn’t, under any circumstance plagiarise someone else’s work. Does anyone cut a video game journalist a slack? No. And we shouldn’t do the same with developers and publishers. They should be accountable for everything they do. As critics, if we lower the bar, the quality of our games shall diminish. Developers won’t try hard enough, and that’s an idea I’m not comfortable with.

The perfect game doesn’t exist. It will never exist. But the games industry should never fall on its side and snooze their time through their years. They should try to make that product in every game. That way, the industry will lose many idiots, many fanboys and a whole lot of hassles. And of course, me. People like me would stop barking, and choose other careers in their life, leaving gaming as an awesome hobby and nothing more, without needing to be emotionally invested in most of a year's releases, lurking, watching, analysing, shouting  and plotting different ways to murder Bobby Kotick, all while trying to hang on to my last bits of sanity I have left.

I’m still waiting for a time when my voice will harm no one. When we’ll game on Xbox Live without hearing “nigger faggot” every minute. When Activision won’t charge a fortune for a crappy map-pack, when indie developers will receive contracts after they get an awesome product out on Steam. Also, a time, when motion-sensing and 3D will be considered by the masses only a gimmicky bullshit to spend money on, when the 'Console Wars' shall be renamed “The honest Console Race”. A time when fanboys will shut the fuck up and when people shall be kind to other people in the comments section of a site, or the forums.  But until then, fuck you all.