Scores need to be dropped. They've become nothing but ammunition for fanboy wars.

Kratos killed his family, including his kids. How the hell can you be his son when he killed them all?

OK, there are a few things that need to be pointed out.

1. Score inflation: you can blame this on reviewers praising everything too much. When lots of games get high scores, those scores mean less because getting those scores no longer means that a game is better than most other games. Technically, 5/10 is supposed to be average, but it ceased to actually mean average a long time ago and only a few games get that score; no-one complains about 5/10 being considered bad. Maybe the same thing is happening with 7/10, which has been "average" for as long as I've been reading video game reviews? Maybe score inflation has reached such a level that 8/10 is now average?

2. For games that are hyped, average is bad, so 7/10 is bad even if it is still average. Hyped games are supposed to be very good, so when they're not, it's a disappointment. For any new numbered FF game, for example, 7/10 is awful. It's like an A student getting a C. For some students, a C would be fine, but when a student who usually gets As gets a C, something has clearly gone wrong.

3. Average isn't really worth spending money or time on, unless you have lots of both. I can't afford to spend all of my time and money buying and playing huge numbers of video games, so I have to pick out the ones that look like they'll be the best. If there are several games with 8, 9 or 10/10 in the genre, a game that gets rated as 7/10 by most critics will be at a severe disadvantage.

4. Well, average is just, bad, y'know? As someone said earlier, people want to play good games. People want to play great games. Few people want to play average games, unless they are huge fans of the genre and the genre doesn't have many good games that they haven't played yet. If "bad" means worse than most games, then average is not bad, but if "bad" means "do not want", then anything that is not good is bad, therefore average is bad. Actually, this relates to Sturgeon's law.If we accept that 90% of everything is crap (and I believe this to be the case), then average things are crap.

7 just indicates that a game is average and not worthy for mass popularity. 8 is good. 9 is worthy for mass popularity.

There's nothing wrong with a 7/10 score. The problem are things like hype, exclusivity and price.
1-If a game that has been very hyped gets a 7, people will look at it and think it's bad. If a game that comes from nowhere gets a 7, people will think that it may be worth a try.
2-If a game has been used for the "my console has more exclusivities that you can't even dream in getting in your machine" war but only gets a good score it's then abandoned by those who sang the praises of said game, and that makes it look like a bad game.
3-No one wants to spend 65-70€ on a "only" good game. For that price, you want the best game.
That is what makes a 7's game look bad when it's not.

C+ vs A+

Hmmm which one would you want on your report card?

I don't understand how they could consider a 50 "average" when the average score they give is probably 63. That's a massive problem.

Sometimes it's not the 7 in particular that makes people upset but rather the reasons and the reviewer. Again, Gaming reviews are not perfect. Sometimes a game comes out and it gets good score (8-10), but than maybe one or two reviewer give the game a 7 because apparently the game wasn't halo or because he could not figure out that you had to unplug the controller and plug it in slot 2 he gave up and gave the game a 5. Or with Heavy Rain for example with Destructiod it was, "errr it's not a game nor movie what is it?"

A lot of times the score doesn't match what is written in the review as well. "Great game, Great graphics, gameplay is awesome, sound is amazing, Multiplayer is best there is, arguably one of the best game this generation, we give it a 3/5". Which brings up a lot of question marks as to what you are actually reading.

In the end reviewers are just like us, they are biased at times, get frustrated, let the hype get to them, that they let all that affect the score when it doesn't have to. A game that is overhyped and when it comes out is not as good as everyone thought but is still a good game doesn't mean the game deserve 6 when its still a playable and good game. Bioshock 2 is a good example. It was hyped, not overhyped, people thought it was going to be better than the first. Turns out it wasn't but yet it was still a good game and got an 8. But other games would get slaughter.

Personally if the game deserves a 7 or if the reviewers writtes a good review as to why the game got a 7, than it's believeable. Not that I ccare because personally I do not care for reviewers anymore.

The problem is that the review rating system has become broken.
Instead of a 4-star or 5-star system, the 100-point (or 10-point) system has started to resemble school grades.
So while 7 out of 10 seems fine, it is barely passing in many cases (in my high school, 68 was failing).

Essentially, I want to know from a review if the game is playable and if the controls work. Beyond that I can make my own judgement (I can see graphics and hear sounds from trailers with gameplay).

Mike from Morgantown

70 is a C-, 100+ is A+