I'm getting increasingly tired of seeing the summary of an opinion on a game reduced to the same fucking sentence whenever a game is above being horrible. If the game is good it is always counter balanced by the simple, nondescript variation on "it has flaws". What is a flaw? Whenever I hear someone say they liked a game but it did have some flaws I am always curious about what exactly they define as a flaw. Because I was under the impression that a flaw implied specific things that actually hinder your enjoyment of the game, not something lacking that could make the game better.

To be more specific, I would define a flaw as a mechanic or otherwise that is literally broken. But perhaps that's too harsh of a standpoint on that usage of the word. But even so, I find the use lazy and never really defined by whoever is saying it. And it's such a lazy thing to throw out there, and perhaps some do it as a means not to sound like total fanboys of whatever game they might appreciate.

I recognize that there obviously can be games with flaws. However, if I were to say to someone that I enjoyed the hell out of [GAME A] and that the game did not have any flaws, most might argue with me and say it did. But my definition of flaw means there was something in the game disrupting my enjoyment and if there were no such things in that game to me, I can't honestly say the game had flaws.

Perhaps it's nitpicking people's way of expressing themselves but are games really flawed or are you just afraid to say you really like something? Because unless a game is perfect, obviously there is room for improvements, but room for improvements doesn't necessarily mean flaws.