i agree with mr. erik aston. saying one game is a 8.9 and another is a 8.7 doesn't really matter cuz when anyone tries to bring their review of a game down to such a detailed and miniscule level the score is gonna be very subjective. i think something a bit broader like 1 through 5, but maybe with 4.5 added in to differentiate from great games and games that are like genre defining. so like 1 sucks, 2 is bad but some people might like it okay, 3 is a pretty solid game but with some pretty big flaws, 4 is good to very good, 4.5 is amazing, and 5 is like zelda OoT, mario 64, ff3/7 type of score. anything more detailed than that really lets in a lot of bias and subjective scoring that doesn't mean anything to the very varied gaming crowd. and also its pretty easy to say game A is slightly better than game B scored 8.1 so i'll score game A 8.3. but then on a different day you have a particularly fun time playing game B and you realize maybe it is a little better than game A. basically it doesn't matter, on the scoring system above they'd both be a 4 and you'd know its a good game and if it sounds interesting or you like similar games then its worth buying.
with a less detailed scoring system there are less personal preferences of the reviewer that finds its way into the score cuz theres a very limited number of scores to give and so the score will more likely match up with the majority of gamers out there.
end of '08 predictions: wii - 43 million, 360 - 25 million, ps3 - 20 million
Games I've beat recently: Super Mario Galaxy, Knights of the Old Republic, Shadow of the Collossus
Proud owner of wii, gamecube, xbox, ps2, dreamcast, n64, snes, genesis, 3DO, nes, atari, intellivision, unisonic tournament 2000, and gameboy
