1-10, or even 1-5. Anyone who pretends to be more specific is full of crap. The reason is this: there's a margin of error in any scoring system, and a rather large one in game reviewing. To claim that "Grand Theft Auto is 3 percent better than Zelda," as a 100 point system does (I'm making these numbers up) is completely ludicrous. You can't measure the worth of a game that precisely, and you certainly can't use those scores to compare between genres. The best you can do is say something is "bad," "average," "good," or "exceptional," to within a margin of error of maybe 10%.

If a site like Gamerankings or Metacritic uses a 100 point system, they're the ones who should change, not the reviewers who use a realistic system.

0-10 and 0-100 is the samething, scores that end with 1-3 and 6-9 are really stupid, whats the point having that kind of score??? each range of score is set on a range like in college anything avg out 95+ will be an A or A+ depends what is the max scoring system in that college. I actually think the 0-10 with each increment of 0.5 system is alot less confusion to gamer, if a game is good enough I'm sure reviewer will round it out to that 0.5 extra score range, if you think a game is cheat from its scoring because it can have 96,97,98,99 that is really pointless. as I say if anything score an avg of 95+ is an AAA game.

I think that 0 - 10, with .5 incriments (like gamespot) is the best. 0-100 is pointless, because as was said at the start, what is the difference between a 66 and 67, nearly nothing.

Well, I use to prefer 0-100 or 0-10 (as long as they use decimals).

And I prefer sites that don't give out 10s (or 9's for that matter). I see 5 or 6 as average, so I don't see how there are so many games getting 8s, 9s, & 10s. Ratings don't seem to mean much anymore. I refuse to believe that every game is "awesome."

If a game doesn't get a 9 or 10, fans go ape$hit it seems.

So now I just care about what the actual reviewer has to say. Scores mean nothing to me anymore.