$ is up 10% on the £ today

No. The review is what matters, not the scoe. Stop focusing on the score.

Nobody says they are half injured or half good. Those are binary, you either are or you aren't.

 A review and a score mean more to me than just a review or just a score, i like both combined.

Like I said: what you like does not determine what serves as the best system for critical analysis.

so text reviews only serve a purpose and cater for peoples needs?

No, I'm saying that they're what facilitate dialogue about games. That's important. If we killed off metacritic, gamerankings, and the 100-point scoring system (or scores in general), the dialogue about game quality would be much more complex and rewarding.

There are some very good reviewers out there and they give good or bad scores accordingly, as i said , a good review and a socre at the end is what i prefer.

You can't be precise with either score system because there is nothing objective to score on.... In a maths test you get a number of questions which if answered correctly (and with the correct working) get you more percentage points.... it's a simple get this right, get extra points system.

As I said with a review, it's not like that, yo don't add 2% because you enjoy a weapon selection.

This means that saying 86% and 81% for two games is no more accurate thn the reviewer saying "buy this instead of this"

Score out of 100% using each point.

That's what I picked. Not only do we get text, but there is also a number so people would debate less about which site liked what game more.

Debate is the point.