There should be no score, people would have to actually read the review.

I think reviewing needs a complete reboot or at least a new deal. The scale is not the problem imo, the SCORE is. Here's my proposal : NO SCORES. It will have the tremendous effect of having people READ the reviews and make their own opinion about the game rather letting the reviewer decide for them if it's good or bad. By precisely knowing the pros and cons depending on their own preferences, they can judge if it could be a good buy or not. I do review games on my blog and I've never put a single mark, even to games I think deserve a 9.

But of course Ubisoift, EA, Activision and the likes won't let this happen since they need their stellar reviews to sell wagons of their games. Journalist can't say no either, because they live off the revenues of the advertising of the aforementioned publishers. Thus you have a very vicious cycle that only reflects the industry cycle of the FIFAs, CoDs, AC, Marios etc. All that won't have a lick of credibility unless there are extremely radical changes.

It already works like that

10 = ****
9.5 = *** 1/2
9 = ***
8.5 = ** 1/2
8 = **
7 = * 1/2
6 = *
4-5 = 1/2
0-3 = ZERO

I agree with not having scores in reviews, as some games will appeal to some groups of people more than others. For example what if the next COD has a fantastic multiplayer but a rubbish single player. A huge portion of COD fans wouldn't care since they only play the multiplayer. However a lot of others would care, so how would you represent that with a single score?

Also I don't like the theory that a review score should be based as a sum of all parts. To keep with the single/multi player example, when the next God of War comes out, it would be likely that some reviewers would knock points off their score if the multiplayer isn't good. Even if the single player campaign is the best in the series. Yet if they released the same game without the multiplayer, those same reviewers would probably score it higher because there's no multiplayer to criticise. Which would be ridiculous since the version with multiplayer is the same game with more content, and even if that content isn't great, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the good content then it's still better value for money. (Assuming both versions are the same price)

I totally disagree the zero to 100 scale is a lot more accurate. Also when it comes to a star rating a five star scale is a lot better then a four star scale.

Theoretically yes, but when only 30% of the scales is used (70%-100%) and only the last 10% of the scale are seen upon as successful games the accuracy goes down HARD

You care too much. In reality there's no reason to complain.

The current system is fine but is ruined by the people that use it, having 7 as your base number for any game worth playing is not the right way to use the system.

Only the creme of the crop should get 8+ yet so many games consistently get such ratings.

I hear this said a lot, but I still think it's beneficial to have a score given, just so that at a glance you can get a general impression of how good a game is.

You shouldn't, say, pick a 9.0 over an 8.9, but you can generally dismiss anything below a 6, and generally look at anything above a 9 with interest even if you don't like the genre.

Ironically, Metacritic has a 0-100 scale when it comes down to "legit" reviews.