I think it's silly that people have one all-encompassing rating for a game that takes into consideration both its value as a work of art, and how well it is (or isn't) technically realized. So many games have come and gone where they have great stories/music/atmosphere/setting/etc and even great gameplay in theory, but are lambasted for having glitches or a poorly optimized port. I understand that those issues are relevant and stop the player from immersing themselves into what the game is supposed to be, but technical issues are a completely separate problem.
What I'm saying is: You so often see people rating a very interesting game a 0 or 1 out of 10 because it came out with many glitches that are likely to be patched in the future, and then rate the blandest and most boring stuff a 6 out of 10 because even if it's uninteresting, it's functional. The scale is not being used well. "Functional" should not guarantee you a decent score.
I always thought games should have two scores. One for what they are as a creative work, and one for the technical aspects of it. That way it's also easier to rate games across several platforms: each platform gets its own technical rating for the quality of the port, but there's only one creative rating throughout. And while the technical rating could change over time with patches, the creative rating really shouldn't - with an exception for games with big DLCs that change the experience fundamentally.
Essay Pro