My problem with review scores

[Alby_da_Wolf]

Agree about the review scale of "professional" reviewers, it's currently totally f***ed up.
About personal scales, it depends, if one carefully chooses games, a higher average score is quite normal, I do it and my scores are usually high, except when, in a way or another, I've been ripped off, in those case my score becomes merciless. But if one buys a lot of games, even those barely interesting, then the average score should be lower.
My fav scale was the one used by PC Zone, they clearly explained that a game with score between 70 and the low 80s could be either a great game with some forgivable flaws, or a flawless game, and good or very good in its genre, but not good in an universal way, not able to attract fans out of its niche.
Only excellent games under every aspect got more than 90, and amongst them, only the small minority of masterpieces went to 95 or beyond.
And for games that had a low score due to technical flaws, they sometimes made months or years later a new review with a modified score if patches had solved the worst problems.
They also made bargain edition games reviews, where lower price could turn into good value and higher score games not really bad, but that at full price were a lot less attractive, and scores could also drop, if games very hyped at launch, so hyped to hype harsh reviewers too (sorry for this calembour), hadn't lived up to their hype and hadn't become classics.