Explain how you rate games and your reasoning behind the scoring.

[Veknoid_Outcast]

Zkuq said:

5 stars with half-stars is probably the most meaningful scale to me. A 88, 91, and 93 could probably all be roughly equal to me, depending on the games, so such a fine-grained scale doesn't really provide much extra value over a coarser scale. On the other hand, a scale from 0 to 10 is heavily biased towards the upper end, which I don't feel like is the case with a 5-star scale, with or without half-stars: 3 stars is roughly in the middle, just as 50 points is, but whereas I would call a 3-star game pretty average, I'd certainly call a 50-point game thrash. The equal of a 3-star game is actually something like a 70-point game, or maybe even more, because I would expect most 3-star games to be pretty passable, but most 70-point games are probably getting into the risky territory already. Also, I feel like using stars instead of precise points puts more focus on the review itself, which better acknowledges the complexities of rating a game.

Of course I don't really rate games a lot, so who cares, but if I did, I'd probably use a 5-star scale with half-stars.

I'm confused by this. Why is a scale from 0-10 more biased toward the upper end than a five-star system with half stars? They use the same increments. 

And why would a three-star game (which converts to a 6/10) be average, but a 5/10 be trash? They're only one point apart.