First, thanks all for the comments - good, bad or indifferent. Leaving aside this particular review, I don't agree our system is unintuitive. 5-star systems have never mapped directly to a percentage, in my experience. We all know 5-star systems quite well from movie reviews, where it is the prevailing system.
Compare GameSpy's system to ours:
2 to 3 Stars: Fair. There are things to like about this game, and it's definitely playable, but it's lacking in key areas and/or has some near-fatal flaws that will ruin the experience for most gamers. Fans of the license or the series might still get some entertainment out of this, but there's not much to recommend.
So, fair - some things even likeable - but lacking. Fans might enjoy it.
Our system:
2 – A game that has significant flaws or stale gameplay but may still offer some enjoyment to fans of the genre or subject.
Significant flaws. Fans may still enjoy it.
Seems substantially similar to me. That someone might
disagree with the score is a different matter. I'm not sure I agree myself - but I didn't write it. I could have rejected the review or changed the score (I remember GameSpy coping a huge amount of flack over this) but I thought the text was great and don't substantially disagree with Mike that the game has significant flaws.
I argued for (and got) a simple scoring system - 1-5, no half scores. I think it makes our reviewers have to think if a game is really a 3 or a 4 - instead of just safely straddling the fence with 3.5 much of the time.
An option would be no score but I feel that would be intellectually dishonest for myself at least. I'm not a big fan of aggregate sites but I do occasionally check Gamerankings when considering a purchase and I
often say to my friends or family, "So, what would you give that movie? 7/10"? So, I
like scores. I often see someone arguing scores are useless but then recommending Gamerankings or Metacritic - and that's just absurd.