I've seen Conan O' Brien use a cool rating system when he does his video game review segments. It's amazing check it out.

For those who like the 100-point scale and the ten-point scale, would you like to see that applied to other media and other establishments? Movies, music, television, restaurants, hotels, etc.

Just curious if you like the scale in general, or if you think it's especially appropriate for video games. And if so, why?

This is silly. If there's a problem, it has nothing to do with the scale and everything to do with how it's used. Everyone who rates on a scale from 7 to 10 right now would instead do 3 to 4 on yours.
And then there are the people who say that you shouldn't have scores at all, instead forcing people to read through the review. This is really funny; the reason people don't read reviews right now is because they find reading unpleasant and just want a straight answer. I really, really don't see the point of trying to force people to read things when they just don't want to.

I think that most things concerning media should have a rating scale of 10 or 100, I think it fits more. However, when regarding restaurants and hotels it should stay at 5, the only reason I think this is because we have already had in the scale of 5 a long time and it sounds and fits better, it may just be me though.

But a lot of 70s might become 67s, a lot of 80s might become 75s, and a lot of 90s might become 87s.

I think it DOES have something to do with the scale. Yes, reviewers misuse the 10-point scale, but that scale allows them to do so. It might sound counter-intuitive, but by limiting the possible scores you might actually effect a more accurate rating.

I like Nintendo's way of rating games on their eshop (5 stars like Netflix ratings with no half ratings). 5 = loved it, 4 = really liked it, 3 = liked it, 2 = didn't like it, 1 = hated it

I like the 4 or 5 star system more, but its not like all video game outlets are going to agree on which system to use. Truth is, I don't think a 4 star system will solve the problem though....reviewers will just hand out more 4/4s.

I say ratings should be based in three basic groups: Recommended, Not Recommended, and Maybe. Based on most modern ratings, the "Recommended" group would equate to games rated today in the 80-100 range. The "Not Recommended" group would equate to games rated today in the 0-59 range. And the "Maybe" group would equate to games rated today in the 60-79 range.

The Recommended and Not Recommended groups are self-explanatory. Games placed in the Maybe group (equal to 60-79 group of games rated today) are games that may or may not be enjoyable to certain people. These games require further investigation by the reader to decide whether they're worth the purchase. It's one of those games where it's perfectly reasonable to like or dislike the game.

The reason I prefer this method is because it gets rid of unnecessary increments. For example, what's really the difference between an 80 and a 90? Both were obviously enjoyed by the writer and I'm sure he recommends both. The difference in quality is this tiny that it should be explained intricately through text imo.

Also, a lot of times, a person's opinion can change slightly as times go by. For example, at one point, a person may rate Game A at 90 and Game B at 80. Then a few months later, the scores switch. These slight changes in scores happen to games I rate too. I don't think scores should draw differences between games when they're so subtle that they can change so freely.

Contrast that to my system and it's unlikely that any game would ever cross into different categories. If a person recommends a game, it's unlikely that he's not going to recommend it in a few months.

No offense but the scale used for rating movies is probably the most useless and biased possible. You do realize that movies are rated on a curve? My personal experience would have great movies like Return of the King and a Fistful of Dollars getting 3/5 stars and perfectly watchable films such as Shaun of the Dead and Rear Window being rated a 2/5. It's not the movie's fault that I refuse to watch garbage.

Now, if you're suggesting a four point rating system that has nothing to do with the sliding scale used by movie critics then that too is an awful idea. All this accomplishes is overreaching generalizations as many games are lumped together under banners such as rent and buy. What if I have a different opinion on what is worth renting or buying? The score at the end of the review is much less meaningful compared to the review's content but it does contribute to metascores which I do find to be somewhat helpful. I just wish that critics would do a better job as a whole and I don't think that changing the scoring system is going to help.

Movies rated on a curve? I've never really experienced this. Sure, critics will submit scores dfferent from our own, but I've seen no evidence of a sliding scale.

All I'm suggesting is that a four-star scale accomplishes everything a ten-point scale accomplishes. When you see *** out of **** you know what that means. When you see **** out of **** you know what that means. Why do reviewers have to split hairs to get a 8.5 over a 8.0 or, even worse, a 7.9 over a 7.8?

If anything, such scores provide fodder for console wars.

I just think the medium has evolved to a point where we don't need to labor over decimal points. Maybe the four-star scale isn't the answer, but the 100-point scale and ten-point scale just seem inelegant, clumsy, and open to manipulation.