> Some of the most appreciated games of generations are deeply flawed. An example is Deus Ex, which is a very mediocre shooter
Deus Ex, deeply flawed? I think a lot of people would disagree with you. I suppose you could come to that view if you considered it to be a shooter, but it's really RPG first, FPS second. You can complete the entire game without firing once. I don't think Warren Spector set out to create a FPS, so I wouldn't judge the game on that basis.
If anything, I think Deus Ex has got more appreciated from a critical perspective as time has gone on.
Even as an RPG it was much worse than many competitors at that time. It is (basically) linear, your choices don't influence the ultimate ending (you get a final pick), which, at that time, some pure RPGs already provided.
But you basically reiterate my point: Deus Ex did enough great things to cover the bad things. So it's perfectly fine to give it > 90%, while you can still find strong critique in almost any part of it, without even nitpicking.
Deus Ex, deeply flawed? I think a lot of people would disagree with you. I suppose you could come to that view if you considered it to be a shooter, but it's really RPG first, FPS second. You can complete the entire game without firing once. I don't think Warren Spector set out to create a FPS, so I wouldn't judge the game on that basis.
If anything, I think Deus Ex has got more appreciated from a critical perspective as time has gone on.