A lot of games over the years have been referred to as the ‘Perfect Game’ and most of us can more than likely name a few of them. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Half-Life 2, Final Fantasy VII to name just some of them. Each of these games has been called perfect in some way shape or form, but is this true? Should we call these games perfect? Heck, should we call any game perfect?

Let us take a look at some of the most highly regarded games of all time, starting with the aforementioned Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time. There is no denying that Ocarina did a lot right in bringing the Legend of Zelda franchise into the third dimension. However, it does contain some areas that are a tad weak. A point raised by Youtuber ‘Egoraptor’ in his Sequelitis series is that a lot of Ocarina of Time’s battles require an aspect of waiting as a mechanic. He also talks about the cons of Ocarina’s famous Z-targeting system and how it creates a disconnect to the world around you. I found myself agreeing with these points, in fact, it’s what lead me to think about this subject.

These are valid criticisms for the game; I loved Ocarina but oh boy, some fights are just time wasters. On the Z-targeting issue, yes focusing a players attention does limit their connection to the world around them. It got me to looking at the other games I mentioned above as well with a more critical eye. Final Fantasy VII does take way too long to actually get you out of Midgar and that turns players away. Half-Life 2’s Gordon Freeman is a terrible character in a game that has several great characters. Super Mario 64, despite its massive achievement, does have some camera problems.

"I bet you’re still upset though right? Don’t worry; it’s quite normal"

Before you close this article in anger due to the fact I have dared to go against these titles, it’s time we dissect these games. They have been around long enough to be able to suffer some constructive criticism. It is an important step in the design and production process to be able to look back at titles that did things right and realise how to dodge any pitfalls they had.

I bet you’re still upset though right? Don’t worry; it’s quite normal. The normal human reaction is to assume that when something is referred to as ‘the best’, every alternative is bad. Every gamer has that one game that they can attest to being the ‘best’. The one that when it comes to discussion, they tell people to play. The one which they can play over and over without getting bored. You most likely have one yourself; for me it’s Sonic CD. I love that game with all my heart, I still play it from time to time to cheer myself up and erase more of Sonic Boom from my mind. But when I talk about it with other Sonic fans (yes they exist) the first question I always get is, “Why not Sonic 3!? It’s much better!”.

"..for me it’s Sonic CD. I love that game with all my heart."

And now we have hit the real issue; games as a whole are a subjective medium. This a great thing, it makes them akin to art as a real art form should be. This also means that it makes them difficult to talk about because everyone will have their own opinion about a game. So then how, and why, did I think I could get away with those criticisms before?

Take my comment on Half-Life 2; Gordon Freeman’s lack of character. Allow me to elaborate for a moment. Gordon Freeman is supposed to be a Seattle native gaining his Ph.D in Theoretical Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who then gets involved in bringing alien invaders from a different dimension to the planet and the subsequently stops them. But the avatar is set in the first person, a feature that promotes the idea of self-insertion. This is strengthened by Gordon also being a silent protagonist. It’s a confusing character setting; are we Gordon? Or are we supposed to be ourselves? It would of be cool to become him if there was anything really for us to become or even relate to!

This right here is something that can be debated and, shockingly, can be concluded. What is also good about this is that by being a part of the game, even if the subjects or topic is lacking, it does not weigh down the sum of its parts. Look at my love of Sonic CD; I adore the game but I can state that it has some of the shoddiest and underwhelming boss design. It’s productive to critique like that because it does not skew perception as a whole.

"Half-Life 2’s Gordon Freeman is a terrible character in a game that has several great characters..."

Does this mean the opinion and points of view that you hold are wrong? No, not at all. But there really can’t be a ‘Perfect’ game. In fact, if one were to exist it would stop the mediums growth due to the limitless subjective discussions and opinions that would surround it. However, there can be ‘Perfect’ mechanics and features that can be scrutinised to make sure that they are appropriate and beneficial enough to be utilised again in future products. For us gamers however, perhaps in the future we can talk about the games we love a bit more, rather than the more argumentative alternative. Because deep down we all want games to get better and better. Even if we won’t admit it on the internet.

If you want to discuss this more please let us know your thoughts below; I would love to read them. It’s the only way we can grow as consumers and journalists alike!