The Way This Works

I recently read a few articles about the pointlessness of the score system some review site use especially review sites that give marks out of 10 but say a game with 5 isn't worth the time. I don't really believe a game can be given marks out of 10 for 3 reasons:-

Firstly a game can never be awarded, realistically full points because if a game does they should cease to evolve.

Secondly Time to understand, and prove, my logic is not flawed lets take a look at meta critic their current highest score is 96 held by Half life 2, while i am not denying this is a superb game i do not believe that it will be better than half life 3, if it ever comes out. As time moves on reviewers standards change. While Half life 3 may well score in the high 90s you cannot hope to compare it with half life 2 purely and simply for the fact we expect more and we expect better for a game to score 96 these days its going to have to do a lot better and be a lot better than hl2 was at the time. Lets take Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 both visually stunning games. Crysis 2 is technically the better looking game but reviewers gave it a lower score because wait for it it didn't push the boundaries like the original is it really worth a lower score because of that?

My third and final Reason is plain and simple i just dont like rating systems that well a better system would be a simple question of is it worth buying now later or never?

This is the system i will use.

I do not just take into account the games i also look at the developers in the indie world a bad game can become brilliant if the developers listen to the fans i think this is an important factor when buying an indie game.