Honestly, I find the idea that people think a 10/10 or 100% means "perfect" to be ludicrous. Especially when it's widely accepted that nothing can be perfect. Clearly, someone is being way too inflexible with their thought-processes and taking things far too literally when they shouldn't.
What does 10/10 mean then? That the game's a masterpiece, any flaws are relatively minor and overshadowed by everything else the game does great.
Everything can be improved, at least once more advanced techology allows for it.
Ergo, nothing can be perfect; because everything everything could be better.
So why the hell do people ever think that any scoring system, which must always be arbitrary rather than absolute because it's someone opinion, should have the maximum score possible indicate that the thing being scored is perfect?
That, my good fellows, is a complete lack of commonsense.
Opinions are never subject to the mathematician's answer.
---
If you want a good example of this in the real world, perhaps even one in the context of academia?
Design courses/projects and theses.
The best demonstration that a person has knowledge in their field is not for them to regurgitate it, but to apply it. This is why many post-secondary programs (i.e.: university degrees) have some sort of thesis or design project as the "capstone" (final course and thing to complete) of the program.
The wheels are off, and you're asked to create something of your choosing (if subject to a set of criteria, though it's a reasonably loose set of conditions). What do you do? Whatever the hell you want, provided it works for what it has to be.
The knowledge & experience you've already acquired through your education should never be all you need, there's always something else to learn. However, you're expected to know quite a bit already; the point of a design project or thesis is for you to demonstrate that you know at least that much. Getting a perfect score in one of these means you've shown that you know all you're supposed to know; not all you can know. A few years down the road, it's more than likely you could do it better than when you did simply because you know more.
That's no reason for why you shouldn't get a perfect mark in the course.
---
How does this apply in the context of game reviews?
A 10/10 game isn't perfect, that's already established.
What it does mean is that the game is an innovator and spectacularly executed.
Can it have flaws, even those which aren't technological limitations? Yes.
Can it be improved on, be it now or later? Definitely.
So yes, applying the mathematician's answer to review scores can only be described as "stupid". It's the a special kind of stupidity which only those who know much but understand little come up with, usually by trying to do something intelligent while ignoring one of the basics and/or making things unnecessarily complex; in these cases, the simple answer is almost always the correct one.
Specifically, the case here is that people are accusing that a basic condition is being ignored.
However, the truth is.... it should be ignored.
