Hrm, I think he has a point, though maybe "balancing" is not the best description.
I'd go with the example of Torment: Tides of Numera. You could argue that it is perfectly balanced. Because no matter what you do, every choice, everything you do is equal to what you don't do.
The outcome of tying to pick a herb and succeeding and trying to pick a herb and failing is "perfectly balanced". Both gives you an advantage.
The game mechanics in that game absolutely do not matter, as no matter what you do, it might matter in the story a bit, but not in the actual gameplay.
And because all of the game mechanics were meaningless, there were no good or bad decisions it felt boring to me.
But that's also not "perfect balancing" but also hiding badly that your choice and your success doesn't matter.
A quest reward of:
Helm: STR+1
OR
Helm: ToHit+1 and Crit+1
might be more interesting than:
Mirror: Worth 100 Gold
Neclace: Worth 100 Gold
You can hand them in and for the 100 Gold receive a Helm with STR+1, the other Helm doesnt exist.
The second option is "balanced" better, as it's basically not balancing anything at all.
I think what JDR13 means with perfect balancing is that you actually have the choice between two things, and they are perfectly balanced, but only if you have some kind of plan or idea. Or it changes the way you can play. Chose a bow to kill your enemy from afar, or a dagger to backstab it.
In both cases you should be able to beat your opponent. But your choice will decide on how you have to play. And if you have learnt a skill to shoot arrows but not one to use a dagger well, than yeah, it doesn't need to be "perfectly balanced" and you are allowed to have a hard time if you chose the dagger nevertheless.