A recent exchange on our very own website got me to thinking: how fair are game scores? They seem to be the most divisive element in gaming after the "console wars", as a disagreement over what score a game should get can cause angry shouts to fire forth from all corners.

Firstly, for the record, I actually hate the idea of a score. It forces a reviewer to pigeonhole a game in a strict framework, and can detract people from actually reading a review. And how do you come to a score anyway? What defines a game getting 9 instead of 8? And how is this represented in the wider market?

For me, and this website as a whole, we score a game out of ten. To me, this means a relatively poor game scores 5. 6 or 7 is for fair titles that do what they intend, but suffer some degree of flaw which prevents them standing out from the pack. 8 is for a very good game that doesn't rock the boat too much, and maybe just lacks a little polish. 9 is for those rare times that a game adds something new to an established genre, and 10 is the holy grail, which comprises a game that will either pull in gamers who would normally overlook that type of title, or redefines the way we play games overall. In my opinion, only a small handful of games in the last 10 years have attained a 10.

The reality is, that in today's markets, anything less than a 9 is seen as "epic fail". But think about that for a second: we are suggesting that anything less than perfection is not acceptable. And my big problem with this is that it leaves us open to two things: firstly, biasing our scores to placate fans and developers, and secondly preventing any room for movement on grading one game against another.

Let us say we have two great games, almost identical, but the second has better sound, and a slightly longer campaign. How do we score that? As a reviewer, I cannot realistically grade both the same, as there is a noticeable difference between the two. I can point to this in the meat of my article, but am unable to show this with the points score, as I am condemning one game to be bad purely because of a few small issues. How do you differentiate between, say, Modern Warfare, and Modern Warfare 2? For me, the sequel would get an 8, and the original 9, but others would call me mad!

This also sidesteps a much more important factor: we all look for and enjoy entirely different things. I know someone who would give Modern Warfare 2 a score of 3, for example, as she hates guns, she hates the pace, and feels the game has no depth. Most recommendations I give to friends are tailored to them individually, as the truth is that just because I love something, others may not appreciate it for the same reasons.

And this is the core reality of the situation: A score, and a review, is an opinion. It is a reflection of that individual´s response to a game, and the inherent elements within. A good journalist does their best to judge each game on its own merits in comparison to what is on the market. Whether we succeed or not is ultimately in the hands of those who read our reviews, and we will never please everyone. And although the score system is heavily flawed, we have no real alternative to it, and therefore have to make it work for us as best we can.

I really want to know what people think about this, so please post responses, and I will join in the debate. Have you got an idea for a fairer system? Do you agree that scores are unfair, or should a clearer standard be set for the media as a whole? Let us know!