Sorry, Brother None, I just don't agree with you. Separate the point that the media has arguably inflated scores* and whether or not Bioshock deserves the current scores (can't tell - haven't played it) but on the specific point that these scores are "conceptual impossibility" just doesn't fly for me.
I think you missed it by a half-inch. I'm not talking about "right" or "wrong." See what I explained here:
I think the issue is that a lot of gaming journalists have moved to a conceptual level where 10/10 represents "game of the year," not "this game is flawless."
The problem is this concept has not taken hold, and I doubt it will. We're raised and schooled to understand an A+ or 100% or 5/5 (for Russians) means "you made no mistakes, this was flawless." Most of us know when toiling away at the university that this is an impossible grade to get (except if the uni grades on the curve, obviously).
The problem is not that Bioshock or even Jade Empire would not deserve a 10/10 score from the conceptual basis of "10/10 represents game of the year material." From the standpoint "best game this year," I could excuse Oblivion or Gears of War getting a 10/10, because they were hyped, but well-made games, and arguably the best of their years (arguably, not solidly).
But like I said above, the problem is that readers aren't used to the concept of 10/10 representing a statement about GotY status, and that's what I meant with "conceptual impossibility." For the average reader, and especially the kind of reader that's not immersed into the media like you, I or the average active poster here, 10/10 will click with the only source of reference he has, which is high school to university grading system. In that conceptual system, a 10/10 either represents the highest single score of the year (when grading on a curve) or a flawless game (when grading without a curve).
Either one is a conceptual impossibility, because:
a) grading on the curve doesn't apply, because on the one hand multiple games get 100% even within a year, and the majority of readers doesn't think on a curve
b) flawless products don't exist. A 10/10, 5/5 or A+ (or whatever system your country uses) is only a possibility on basic tests and becomes impossible on any mature non-curved system (university level)
I'm not saying it's conceptually impossible from the viewpoint of either an experience reader who has got used to the media system or from the viewpoint of journalists themselves, I'm saying that for the average consumer this rating system is inherently flawed in representing the actual quality level of the game (which might well be 90%+, but that's not the point)
You are looking at it from your angle, in which the de facto rating system goes from 5/10 to 10/10, instead of 0/10 to 10/10. This is only acceptable to experienced readers, it is downright deceitful to others. It's also limited because it doesn't leave any rating room beyond games that are going to average 98%+ unless you reset the ratings each year (which is a ridiculous concept)
If I have to define why 100% is conceptually impossible in shorthand, it would be that 100% for a normal reader represents that the game has no flaws (which is an obvious impossibility, because not all elements can please everyone) or a game that could not possibly be topped by following games (you've got to be kidding me).
