8.4 > 8.2 Big Deal?

That's exactly why we love Giant Bomb.

Why not? Some people like the /100 scoring, as it does say more. I for one, might not buy a 7.5/10 game, but I will buy an 8.5/10 game. All GiantBomb tells me is the basic quality of the game, while for some games I'd want more in-depth information. I don't really care for scores, but I do care about the game itself.

At this point I can tell you virtually 8 out of ten times which games I am buying before they even come out and I am sure most of you are the same way.

Reviews are obsolete.

Yeah, scores suck but we all use them to some extent.  Quibbling over what the actual number scale should be is as futile as arguing over the differences of decimal points.  From grade school, the majority of us are used to a +/- letter system or a base 100 percent grade scale, so sticking to those is easy for the average consumer to quickly comprehend.  And if you think that changing the system so that only whole numbers are used will keep system whores from arguing over the score their beloved game received, then I think you're kidding yourself.  X-Play gave Killzone 2 a 5 out of 5 and still people bitched.  Right here on GB, some member complained that Killzone was the most vilified game ever even though it has been one of the best reviewed games of the year. 

Having said all that, in an excercise in futility myself, I think that the only scale that would eliminate using critical numbers as a rating is the old "thumbs up/thumbs down" scale.  Of course, I'm not sure how many of us would be comfortable with that simplistic guide.  When you are talking about a $60 game, when a critic says buy it or don't, you may be cautious if you just look at the "score".   I'd like to think that because of that people would read the reviews, but who are we kidding?  People don't read the reviews unless they are interested in the game already.  They may scan the review for key words like "awesome" or "sucks", but that's about it.  (Yeah that was a huge generalization, I did there)

My dream scale, just to tickle my fancy, would be "the baseball metaphor"

I like the decimal 10 point scale, mainly because of the precision it allows. Am I the only one who sees scores as a ranking system?

The number at the end of the review is not important. The content of the review is the important part.

These are some good points, there's always going to be some complaining.  I agree with StarFoxA too, the content is where it really matters and for the reader to try it out him/herself because we all have seperate opinions.

"The number at the end of the review is not important. The content of the review is the important part."

This is why people need to actually read reviews instead of putting so much into the score.  Seriously, these days video game enthusiasts only post scores to keep their readers from growing their hair over their faces and cutting themselves at the prospect of actually having to use the material they slept through in seventh grade English.

"Why not? Some people like the /100 scoring, as it does say more. I for one, might not buy a 7.5/10 game, but I will buy an 8.5/10 game. All GiantBomb tells me is the basic quality of the game, while for some games I'd want more in-depth information. I don't really care for scores, but I do care about the game itself."

"I like the decimal 10 point scale, mainly because of the precision it allows. Am I the only one who sees scores as a ranking system?"

Also, don't type in black font

I prefer the 10/100 point system myself for a number of reasons. Particularly, I'd rather the professional reviewers use it and have their stuff put on metacritic than to have their scores "translated" by the metacritic staff.

Also, numerical scoring for games is arbitrary no matter how formulaic the reviewer tries to make it. So review scores used in ranking is impossible. Part of the 100 point systems usefulness is in it's popularity. It's the standard in the gaming industry. Just of the big reviewers insist on using the five point system for some silly ideals or whatnot, but it only makes things harder for me personally. I don't generally have a high respect for professional reviewers, so I only read them for entertainment, generally for games I already have or have no intention of buying. I can scan metacritic and get a general idea of what both professional reviewers think and what players think. Then I can read a few intelligent sounding player reviews with ideas about what makes a good game that are similar to my own, and make a decision.

Some people here insist on the idea that the 100 point scale causes bad attitudes, but I think that's entirely the fault of professional review sites giving inflated scores to mainstream games from mediocre to shitty.

"At this point I can tell you virtually 8 out of ten times which games I am buying before they even come out and I am sure most of you are the same way. Reviews are obsolete. "

My problem with the ten point scale is that at the beginning, everyone says that 5 will be the average score.  Eventually that average creeps up to seven.  Pretty soon they're only using 5-10.  Then whenever a game gets below it five, it fells like the reviewer is just being unecessarily harsh.

I wish scores in reviews didn't exist. I don't think they're necessary but at this point in time there's no way everyone who uses a scoring system will stop using them. I understand that they can serve a purpose, but in my opinion the purpose it serves is limited and not nearly enough of an impact to justify it's use.

"I prefer the 10/100 point system myself for a number of reasons. Particularly, I'd rather the professional reviewers use it and have their stuff put on metacritic than to have their scores "translated" by the metacritic staff.

Also, numerical scoring for games is arbitrary no matter how formulaic the reviewer tries to make it. So review scores used in ranking is impossible. Part of the 100 point systems usefulness is in it's popularity. It's the standard in the gaming industry. Just of the big reviewers insist on using the five point system for some silly ideals or whatnot, but it only makes things harder for me personally. I don't generally have a high respect for professional reviewers, so I only read them for entertainment, generally for games I already have or have no intention of buying. I can scan metacritic and get a general idea of what both professional reviewers think and what players think. Then I can read a few intelligent sounding player reviews with ideas about what makes a good game that are similar to my own, and make a decision.

Some people here insist on the idea that the 100 point scale causes bad attitudes, but I think that's entirely the fault of professional review sites giving inflated scores to mainstream games from mediocre to shitty."

Still, it's clear that a 70 is better than a 40. While you're right that different reviewers use their arbitrary numerical system differently, intuitively making good decisions from recognizing patterns is one of the few things we stupid humans are good at.