All mods go to heaven.
I've been thinking about this issue for a LOOOONG time, and I still can't figure out what's best in terms of review scores.
How "good" is a 9/10 game? Common sense says it's pretty damn good, but in reality there are dozens of games with such a score for each systems out there. Clearly they can't all be that great. How bad is a 6/10? A guess would be that a 6/10 is just an average game, in the true sense of the word. The industry, however, practically reserves the 6/10 score for absolutely mediocre titles, and anything lower than that for joke reviews. Let's not even get into the argument of whether there is such a thing as a "perfect 10".
On the other hand, you have sites like Edge.com using a "true" 10-point scale, where they give a 5/10 to a game they really find average, and a 8/10 to a game they consider pretty great. This system might seem ideal, except the rest of the industry is already accustomed to thinking a game is just ok when they see an 8/10. Similarly, scores like these can mess up with Metacritic's or GameRanking's systems, which obviously have a big influence on how many sales a game can get.
Then another issue: how can sites like IGN (and I, too) say that both Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Skyward Sword are both 10/10 titles? One of them is a just a really good level-based platformer while the other is a massive adventure with a persistent world, characters worth caring about, an epic origin tale and a tremendously complex mish-mash of genres. What guidelines do we use to grade them?
There's just a lot of doo-doo to think about when deciding what score system is best for game reviews. What do you guys think, is it better to have a 5, 20, or 100 point scale? Should games be reviewed on a true scale (5 is average) or the scale mostly used right now (7.5 is average)? Should a game be scored based on how polished it is, or on how ambitious it is?