I've been bothered for years that so many review sites seem to focus only on the top half of the scale. This seems especially true of sites that use a 1-10 scale. Very few titles score below 5. Just today I read a particualrly irritating admission of this on IGN AU:

Instead, the vast majority of Wii exclusives fall in the lower end of the acceptable scoring bracket, between 7.5 and 8.0. Now, I know according to the text below IGN's ratings, that this is the 'Good' to 'Impressive' range, but really, you're not running to the store to buy those titles. They might flesh out your collection, but they're not reasons to own the system. 

I think any system where a 7-8.9 game is considered not a winner is pretty broken and inflated. And no this has nothing to do with the Wii, in fact it seems to be the only system reviews are actually comfortable using the lower end of the bracket on thanks in part to the shovelware.

Inflating review scores seems to sort of make the whole point useless in the end. If a 8.9 game is unremarkable and a 9.3 game is phenomenal what is the point of the rest of the scores? IGN seems to be the worst offender, but I'm old enough to remember when average games got 5/10 and really good ones got 7-8s. Is this just further evidence of the friends with benefits relationship review publication have with publishers, and their fear of not getting another handy if they don't give at least a 7+?

All review sites do this now. It's roughly 5 or below =Bad, 6 = Flawed, 7 = Acceptable, 8 = Good, 9 = Great, 10 = One or two per year quality.

I prefer a review with a single recommendation at the end, like Ars Technica does: Buy, Rent or Don't Buy. After all, whether it is worth playing is what the reviewer is assessing a game for.

The review score have been broken since 2005... been what? 10 games with perfect score since then? and before that they have only had 10 perfect scores since they started,that's like what 20+years?

Just for the purpose of discussion this is IGN's self professed scale:
10 (Masterful): "This is like winning the lottery on your birthday."
9.5 to 9.9 (Incredible): "Without a doubt, these are must-own titles that stand at the top of their field."
9.0 to 9.4 (Outstanding): "...it's a worthwhile experience with just a few imperfections."
8.5 to 8.9 (Great): "An excellent gaming experience that misses the boat in just a few key areas..."
8.0 to 8.4 (Impressive): "...they're still a heck of a lot of fun and should appeal to most gaming enthusiasts."
7.5 to 7.9 (Good): "...they're still entertaining enough to provide genuine entertainment while they last."
7.0 to 7.4 (Decent): "...they still boast enough credible ingredients to make them fun in smaller doses."
6.0 to 6.9 (Passable): "Rent these games or download the demo first before spending your hard-earned money on it."
5.1 to 5.9 (Mediocre): "...only diehard fans of the particular genre will get any enjoyment out of middling games like these."
5.0 (Meh): "...the epitome of "middle of the road."
4.0 to 4.9 (Poor): "...you'll probably find yourself returning to the store for a refund."
3.0 to 3.9 (Bad): "...you know you have some major suckage going on."
2.0 to 2.9 (Terrible): "Maybe the cat could find some use for them."
1.0 to 1.9 (Abysmal): "The absolute worst of the worst."
0.1 to 0.9 (Worthless): "Okay, so we lied....We think of them as sewage in a box."
0.0 (WTF?): "Run far, far away and never look back."

Lots of games occupy the 5.0 and under part of the scale. Review sites simply don't bother to review most of them because it's assumed that nobody cares.