Please read before opening the link at the bottom of this post

I'll keep it short. I don't agree with the "scale" of review scores used out there, both by professionals and users. I have a different idea of what is a proper scale, where 5 would theoretically be the actual average. I've been mentally rating games like that for a while. Some time ago i was bored and decided to write down some of these ratings. It's a very incomplete list, on the PS3 i only rated games i played recently, while on the PC i just went through part of my Steam library and left out some games as well as non-Steam games. For curiosity's sake, after inputing the scores (and i did not do this on purpose or try to manipulate it) i calculated the average for that platform and it happened to be 4,95, which sounds right to me.

Now, what is this exercise? First of all, when you read my list... Let's not discuss the games themselves, or the scores I gave them, okay? We're not we're to start flame wars or become upset because someone gave a loved game a low score. Focus on just the numbers, how they're spread and try to imagine yourself using the same scale. Now pick some games, and rate them using that same scale. I'd be curious to see how people work it how and also how they value the games differently and how much so.

P.S.: some games have no score because i haven't rated them yet, i'll keep completing this list in the future, though I won't necessarily share it here.

Looking forward to some of your lists, don't let me down. You can keep it short if you want, like the last 5 or 10 games you finished or so.

here is the list http://www.docdroid.net/e5ms/scores.pdf.html

I don't understand the rules. What does "5 theoretically be the actual average" means?

It means that the current 7s and 8s would be 5s. A 5 would be the definition of an average game. No more, no less.

Eh...I don't get it either. 5 is the definition of an average yet functional game.

Then it should be easy, no?

You score similar to me then.  I see high fours or fives as decent games that have issues but are playable.  It's not until you get to less than four where the games have some major issues.  I still score higher than you and also don't agree with some of your scores.  You think Demon's Souls is just "okay?"  Come on :(.

...I'm still lost. I'll wait until I see more people posting list, to actually understand how to do this xD

Good idea, though still flawed. I think what would be better is to have at the end of a review, which is just a statement of what the game does and does not do, is to have two summaries. One from the perspective of someone new to gaming, and another by someone who is a "veteran" of gaming. This way the new person could easily give the latest CoD a 6, or 7, whereas the veteran would chuck it a 2, maybe a 3. That way it deals with expectations from all fronts and highlights the growing stagnation in gaming, or where a veteran gamer could think a game was a good challenge (dark Souls) whereas a new gamer would most likely fail to see the appeal of being whoop-assed every 10 minutes. 

DS is more of a case of plenty of awesome mixed with plenty of fail (imo). So it balances the good with the bad neatly into the middle point.

Wright (I don't know how to double quote), try rating your last 5 games and I'll see if maybe you already do it naturally anyway, in which case the exercise wouldn't be necessary

I think the concept is that, generally speaking, a 7 is considered an "average" game by both the gaming media and the majority of the fanbases.  So if we moved that average 7 to an average 5, what would we get?

I could also be completely off base.