Instead of going with an arbitrary or formula-driven 10 point scale, I think I'd rather see "starred" reviews using something like the following criteria:
***** Excellent in concept and execution, a must-see/buy for fans of the genre and worth viewing/trying even for those who are not.
**** Very good overall. Fans of the genre will enjoy this but minor flaws may spoil the enjoyment of others.
*** Good overall, but with notable flaws in concept and/or execution that may spoil enjoyment even for fans. Not recommended for non-fans.
** Fair. Die-hard genre fans will still enjoy this despite the flaws, but others would be advised to stay away.
* Poor. For completionists only. Fundamental flaws in concept or execution will spoil the enjoyment for all but a small portion of the audience.
0 Broken. So egregiously flawed that it cannot be enjoyed on its own merits, or is functionally unplayable/unviewable/unreadable and so cannot be completed. Suitable only for MST3K-ing, if that.
-- Steve's seen a few games that rated a 0. Oh, the pain, the pain...
Suggested alternative
***** Excellent in concept and execution, a must-see/buy for fans of the genre and worth viewing/trying even for those who are not.
**** Very good overall. Fans of the genre will enjoy this but minor flaws may spoil the enjoyment of others.
*** Good overall, but with notable flaws in concept and/or execution that may spoil enjoyment even for fans. Not recommended for non-fans.
** Fair. Die-hard genre fans will still enjoy this despite the flaws, but others would be advised to stay away.
* Poor. For completionists only. Fundamental flaws in concept or execution will spoil the enjoyment for all but a small portion of the audience.
0 Broken. So egregiously flawed that it cannot be enjoyed on its own merits, or is functionally unplayable/unviewable/unreadable and so cannot be completed. Suitable only for MST3K-ing, if that.
-- Steve's seen a few games that rated a 0. Oh, the pain, the pain...