When was the last time you answered the question "How did you like that game?" with "Oh, you know ... 4.3" in a non-ironic fashion? It's long been a game media standard to use a numerical classification to communicate value, and from a purely mechanical standpoint, the system has merit. If value can be translated into mathematical constructs -- with integers directly relating to such subjective concerns as Story and Graphics (which is really Aesthetics in disguise) -- then a number rating system should be all that we need to determine whether or not a game is worth playing (or buying, which is a separate concern).

But there is something missing from the number review method, and that is direct communication. Humans don't typically speak in numbers to each other when emotion needs to be transmitted, and playing a video game is an entirely emotional experience. The question a review should answer isn't "What score did this game receive?", but "Is this game enjoyable?" Put that way, any number-as-answer is going to be confusing and somewhat deceptive. We'd like to think that there is another human being behind the review, with his own set of likes and dislikes, and who is willing to communicate their true feelings to us about the game in question. But to arbitrarily assign point values to subjective concerns just pushes the personality away from the reader, replaced by something that feels more corporate.

This is not to say that the numerical score is the entirety of the review; in fact, it's the smallest portion of the entire piece. But readers often see it either at the beginning of the article, or at the end -- either the thesis or the summation. Either way, it's influential. Now, take Giant Bomb.com: they've standardized on a 5-star system, which should be easy enough to understand. One star is an abysmal failure, five stars is a must-play, and three stars is middle-of-the-road. If that weren't simple enough to grasp, each rating displays a caricature of the reviewer making the appropriate face/gesture for the particular rating, so it's immediately apparent how the reviewer feels about the game. Giant Bomb's staff has been involved in the games industry collectively for over a decade, and the implementation of this 5-star system shows that they well understand how to de-mystify the ratings process.

However, even with this laudable system in place, the review means nothing if you don't trust the opinion of the reviewer. Those of you who followed Jeff Gerstmann from his days at Gamespot.com to his current position at Giant Bomb probably did so out of a sense of loyalty, based upon your opinion of him as a trustworthy source. But those of you who had never heard of him before would be entirely justified in asking "Why should I listen to this guy?" This is the problem at the heart of any review.