I think its pretty good, I can see what lightbulb says, but all the negative things are posative in my opinion (for one thing, I'm not a perfectionist by nature, I'm a total slob =p).
but I find the lack of a 'max available score' a good thing, and it makes the metaphor the play mechanics show resemble the development process much more closely. there is no 'Max quality' when making a game (or anything else for that matter). you can always add stuff, reshape stuff and play with the details. but you get to a point where you have made the biggest moves you are going to make and the ones you do to try and get the game closer to your idea of 'perfection' become ones that nobody barely notices.
a simple example would be that I may throw a game engine together in a day, this is the main thing people notice because its what they are playing with. then graphics take up two or three days. sure people notice this, but if its bad its not going to turn people off like a bad engine. after that I will throw in some better mechanics and balancing. and make the game presentable (main menu, finishing screen etc).
once that is all done, anything else I add takes more time relative to the amount of impact it will have on the game. like I may want to have a volume slider for any music in the game, in most cases to me this means recoding most of the audio functions I have and spending hours doing something less than 1% of players will do.
sure I could go for perfection. but like the mechanics of this game beg you to question: 'is it worth it?'
in the end, my answer to that is that as long as I'm happy chipping something closer to where I want it then its worth it. if I'm not enjoying doing it it isnt. usually I'm fortunate enough that by the point I stop enjoying something I have it half presentable, but its still going to lead to many half finished things
anyway, this is a great article and a great game mechanic. I look forward to more
also my score was 118 (^_^)