I really like the system over at Rotten Tomatoes where a reviewer either gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down. That way if you like a game, you just have to check whether it's good or bad/unplayable - The decimal point differences between games are meaningless

How about:

4. ZOMG JIZZTASTIC!!!

3. Pretty damn sweet...!

2. Decent

1. Not so good...

0. Skip

-1. FF13

Sounding pretty good, no?

i like the way gameinformer does it. .25 increments.

i dont like scores going up by .5 because it punishes good games and can reward worse games by just rounf by .5.

and going up by .25 avoids the pointless argument of is Game a that has a 9.2 better or worse than 9.3 game B

Four point scale

5 point system is the best. Each grade has enough distinction, but it allows for flexibility. 100 is just load of badness, as is anything above 6. People cannot make distinction between 7.25 and 7.5, or 3 and 2 for that matter.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=116068
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=124035
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=123056
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=122298

Of course...

agreed, I wish out system was exactly like theirs.

There is nothing wrong with the review system, its been like this forever, if the mindless masses think anything below a 7 is bad then that is on them. Its the people who have to change. a five point scale is cool but then they'll use point 5 increments and it will be the same thing and then people will be calling it broken, matter of fact screw numbers. THey should do letter grade like school, it doesn get more Black and white than that

I like it best with ratings of 1-10 in increments of 0.5

I think they just need to change HOW they review games, as opposed to changing the scale. People call a game a flop if its highly hyped and gets under a 9, and that's not really fair. 

Actually its both the reviewer and masses fault that its got to this point of such stupidity that it has the power to make THQ's stock drop 15% because homefront got an 7!!!!!!!. Its the Reviewers fault for failing to use the system proberly (5= average not 7!). An the masses for believing the numbers and not buying stuff thats below an 8 most the time. An with 20 unique readers every month on sites like IGN no wonder its an make or break on the hands of the reviewer 

That really doesn't work.

You can have an excellent shooter, like Call of Duty 4. But it's short. You can have a so-so WRPG, like Dragon Age 2. But it's long.

So which do you rent, and which do you buy?

More to the point, look at something like Uncharted and Uncharted 2. Uncharted was definitely a buy. So what is Uncharted 2? There's no room for improvement.

And finally, you can't possibly buy everything that is ever going to get a "buy" rating, which will be quite a few games - let's say everything that currently gets above 8/10. You're not improving the scale by removing the number of options, you're making it worse. A person sees a review that says "8/10", they might perhaps read a bit of it. If they see a review saying "Buy it", why do they need to read any more? The review just told them to go and buy it, in two words!