Are Modern Gamers Missing the Forest for the Trees?

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

Do we hold games to a higher critique now than we used to? Are we missing out on special experiences because if a game isn't a 90 or above then it isn't worth playing?
When I think back to the 8 bit and 16 bit days, I had a whole lot of fun with games that these days I would scoff over and say I don't have time to play if they aren't perfect. It was Finch and maybe Mzo who were saying that good bad games are the best games, and that's been stuck in my head. I absolutely love Endless Ocean Blue World, but it is far from perfect in many areas. It's just that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." A lot of you hold Spec Ops The Line in high regards for its story, even if the gameplay is a bit generic. Joust decided to give Dead Space 3 a shot and is seemingly enjoying it even though most reviewers are giving it mediocre scores. The same goes for Resident Evil 6.
I'm sorry if this thread is going in three different directions. These things are interconnected, but I'm having trouble combining it into one neat package.
If flawed games can deliver some of the most engrossing experiences, what's the point in holding out for that "perfect" game or not buying a game because it only got a 7/10?
Feel free to talk about some other good bad games too.

[Frogacuda]

I think the issue comes down more to redundancy than "score." There's a lot of Call of Duty and Gears of War clones out there that simply aren't worth playing because we've already played them before.

But original stuff like Mirror's Edge is often some of the best, even though it's getting scores in the 7s and it might have its flaws. No one says those games aren't worth it. Likewise a game like Spec Ops: The Line with average gameplay but a very different story can be worth playing. But there has to be something to separate these games from the crowd. With a lot of games that get mixed reviews, that really isn't the case.

[GohanX]

All I care about is if a game is fun or not, but you are right. The "fun" can't be quantified and is different for everybody. Out of all the fps's I've played this generation I've probably had the most fun with F.E.A.R., which gets me strange looks. Looking at past games, I love messing with experimental early 32 bit games, which may or may not be "good" but are interesting anyway.

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

What's you definition of "lots?"
Speaking purely from the console side of things, because that's what I deal with, there really aren't that many. Name me 5 Gears clones that came out on either PS3 or 360 in the last year. By Gears clone, I am assuming you mean TPS, cover based, and with multiplayer. Go.
Also: Trust me, coming from the retail side of things, a whole lot of people say Mirror's Edge isn't worth it.

[Frogacuda]

Also: Trust me, coming from the retail side of things, a whole lot of people say Mirror's Edge isn't worth it.

Almost exclusively based on length. That's another problem. People expect this insane value from their games today that isn't sustainable in all genres.

A friend of mine has a friend who actually calculates the "price per hour" of games before making a purchase. It's a greater factor for him than the actual game quality.

[Yoshi]

For me personally, I'll give most 8/9s a shot but really need a 6/7 to fit within a specific genre, theme, or license to dedicate time to it. Your examples were interesting ones to me, because underwater and horror are definitely two of the themes that will get me to lower the bar. As you know, I have Blue World and am awaiting the PC version of RE6. Third person shooters are a genre I really like, so Spec Ops was an easy sell for me (especially at the ridiculous discount several of us got). Its great story, another key for me, made that purchase even better.

Basically, if you can give me at least one of these things, I may take a point or two off my bar to spend time with your game:

• Theme: dinosaurs, horror, space, underwater
• Genre: 3PS, Action/Adventure, WRPG (though there are enough 8/9 A/A and WRPGs to really not need to be more accommodating there)
• Bullet points: 3D support, great story, Steamworks

And then there are things that will do the opposite:

• Theme: high fantasy, period piece
• FPS, JARPG (Zelda), JRPG, platformer (the real, non-Frogian kind)
• Bullet points: No PC version, Origin-exclusive (this makes my threshold 11/10)

I'm probably forgetting some in each of those categories, but that is what came to mind immediately.

edit: Developers and publishers matter tremendously to me too. I'll give companies like Valve (though they'd never need it), Sega, Cave, and Irrational and people like Matsuno, Mikami, and Spector the benefit of the doubt. Activision, EA, Rare, and Molyneaux are examples of the opposite.

edit2: When you add all this up, a game like Deep Fear that hit several of my bonuses was one I really got excited about, despite it not being great.

[Diff-chan]

Mirror's Edge for $60 is a tough value proposition, unless you bet on the fact that you'll fall in love with the score attack mode. It's no surprise to me that game caught on when it hit sub-$20.

I think developers go out of their way to provide lots of potential value and mostly do a good job of it. I am playing Resident Evil 5 right now, excluding the versus mode, there's a lot to sift through if you really get into it. Of course, most will not, but it's in there.

[Frogacuda]

Name me 5 Gears clones that came out on either PS3 or 360 in the last year. By Gears clone, I am assuming you mean TPS, cover based, and with multiplayer. Go.

Off the top of my head? Spec Ops, Binary Domain, Max Payne 3, Space Marine, Men in Black, Inversion, Deep Black, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier...

I mean I enjoyed like 2 and a half of those. I'm just saying, there's a lot.

[ChaoofNee]

All I care about is if a game is fun or not, but you are right. The "fun" can't be quantified and is different for everybody.

That's a lie. Fun is easily quantifiable. See?

[Frogacuda]

Mirror's Edge for $60 is a tough value proposition, unless you bet on the fact that you'll fall in love with the score attack mode. It's no surprise to me that game caught on when it hit sub-$20.

Only if "value" is measured exclusively by how long I can use it to avoid my shitty life.

The fact is, we don't talk about the value of a movie in terms of length. We don't talk about the value of a book in terms of its page count. So why are gamers so obsessed with this notion, almost to the point of ignoring the actual quality of the experience in a discussion of value? It's really a kind of peculiar disease.