I remember reading a quote somewhere that you can tell a creative/artistic medium has matured when the majority of its audience can no longer perceive the difference between the best and the worst it has to offer. I don't remember who said it, but the point they were making was that at the beginning of a medium's life cycle all of its followers are connoisseurs. Eventually it breaks through to a larger audience, many of who don't have the time or desire to really analyze what they're consuming. They simply like what they like.

Real simple. Abolish scores, and break it down like this:

Buy It
Rent It
Don't Bother

The content of the review can say whatever, but scores don't cut it.

Totally agree about the mindset of game reviewers needing to change.

george your review breakdown is very similar to the one GameTunnel changed to about 3 years ago. My personal experience with that change, and the number of emails and conversations I've had to people about the change, is that it hurts more than it helps.

On the bigger review issue, I think there are two distinct areas where reviews are having trouble aligning with their audience. Casual Games is one area, and social games are another.

On the Wii, most of the lower review scores revolve around games that weren't meant to be played alone. Reviewing those games is tricky. Having one player play most of the time and multiple people play a part of the time will always give a perception that is contrary to the game's intended market.

This is a really strange discussion.

Do people sit around and wonder why movie critics don't seem to "get" movies that make a lot of money, like Norbit or Alvin and the Chipmunks? Why does the quantity of players, or the money made by a game, denote its quality? After all, someone paid money to see Norbit. A lot of people paid money to see "One Missed Call" this past weekend, and it got a "0%" at Rotten Tomatoes. Are critics missing out on their appeal to mainstream audiences? Should Roger Ebert turn off his reviewing faculties to put them in the proper context for people who are unlikely to read his reviews anyway?

"One of the things that I deeply appreciated in game criticism in the past was that the majority of game players agreed with the majority of game reviewers."

I'm of the opposite view. I wish more critics would take strong stands and maybe inject some real criticism. There's this idea that there should be some consensus about "great" games, but somehow movies survive with people championing weird movies. But if you go against the grain, against this supposed gamer consensus, good lord... the backlash. You will have your credibility destroyed; look at how a lot of people responded to the Gertsmann thing: "He's the guy that gave Zelda an 8.9!"

Let's also consider the audience for game sites: Gamers, not my mom. She's not going to check Gamespot to see what they thought of WiiPlay or Mario Party 8 or the latest game released by PlayFirst. She might read something about these games in USA Today or People or on Good Morning America; those are the outlets that should be reviewing games with this extremely casual market in mind, not specific sites that have their own credibility to think of.

Is there an opportunity here for someone to swoop in and review casual games for casual gamers? Sure. But good luck getting casual people who aren't all that interested in games to read a site that's exclusively about... games.

Are there flaws in the current system? Sure. Social games need to be reviewed in a social context, though there is some value to knowing that they don't work at all solo. The production values of casual games should be considered (though it's all relative; you can ding one $20 game for shitty graphics if other $20 games look terrific). But the idea that game sites should project themselves into some non-gamer persona is disingenuous; they are effectively lying to the reader if they give anything but their own, personal, informed opinion.