One reason it's broken, any high profile game with obvious flaws are given strong scores based on hype. Reversely, any low profile game with few noteworthy flaws are panned harder. Also, audience differences. Any hardcore gamer reviewing a piece of casual software is going to give it something fairly low right off the bat. The opposite is true too. In short, we need casual game players reviewing casual software and hardcore game players reviewing core/hardcore software.
Also, numbers matter far too much. Also the stratification of scores is ridiculous. It seems to me that the view of scores can be generalized into:
10 = Either the developer/publisher paid for the review or the site is biased and worth noting
9-9.9 = Generally worth looking at. The "must buys" if you will
8-8.9 = Get it after a price cut, rent if possible
7-7.9 = Buy if you like the genre or at a bargain price, rent otherwise
6-6.9 = Avoid, don't take seriously
0-5.9 = Don't play this game
Pixel Art can be fun.
