Don't know re NikeFerrari.

Prefer the conversations on games more rather than the scores.

I love both. This way i'm preoccupied even more.

Conversations are awesome while rating are an extra that propably compliments the conversations.

It's not compulsory. I just like the idea of going back in 2010 to look my 2009 game ratings. Just like the gameplaying logbook that we already have, this will be a ratings logbook.

I like the idea of a ratings system, I'm all for some kind of standardisation. Although rule 1 seems a tad harsh, I mean if a game tanks after 20 minutes then I'll give it a one without completing it and hopefully spare likeminded others the expense.  The other issue is experience, I mean I would have rated Call of Juarez Bound in Blood at a 7 but probably only because it was my first Western.  Others may have been more damning of its problems and gone for less.  An ideal rating system might need a complex algorythm to handicap the reviewer's bias / experience and knowledge of the particular genre...  But seeing as I'm starting to confuse myself with this, I guess ultimately I'm not really sure. 

I'm with Zolos in that games are more than just numbers but there has to be a more helpful way to choose new purchases than subjective individual preferences played out in conversation. 

Perhaps there needs to be some outside of the box stuff factored in, e.g. You can't give it a ten if it's a game you think you could forget about whilst doing the nasty with Beyonce on stage at a convent garden party.

I agree but i think you over-consider the whole rating system. We can change whatever rule whenever we like. It's not like thousands of readers depend on our ratings and we are going to affect any sales. When i came up with the idea of the rating, i just visualised it as a data bank of our own opinion through time and another source of reasons for future topics and discussions. When you rate COJ, the score, pros and cons will formulate around your bias, experience and knowledge - why wouldn't they? You can give it a 10 if you feel that's right. Nobody will mind.

The fun will start when 2 or more people post a rating for the same game which will most importantly produce material for more discussion and elaboration. I expect to see some surprises but nobody's intelligence will be questioned. I can't see this harming anything. It's not necessary to exist but it would be good for killing non-gaming time.

I agree with MontyGeoffrey on this. Maybe you can leave a rating but with the disclaimer of how many hours you played the game, whether or not you finished it and also if you played the multiplayer. Thought ODST and Uncharted 2 were excellent but never touched the multiplayer part.

The problem i have with ratings and just having a number is because it's so limited.

For example take the Kane & Lynch game. Probably one of the best co-op experiences i've had in my life. Should i give it an 8 or a 9 or even a 10 though? The characters and the story were excellent but technically the game was average. Average graphics and enemy AI, poor control mechanics and so on. Do you rate your experience or the actual product?

This is exactly what i was considering.

Why not both separately? We can even give 5 ratings:

SP

Co-op

MP

product

experience

We could even omit completely the score and just write Pros and Cons but then we would have a somewhat indistinct scoreboard to look back and elaborate but i really don't mind if it doesn't happen at all.

Already all this elaboration we are currently having, pleases and entertains me.

Well... when you decide on the details, talk to me regarding implementation!

I doubt we'd be as bad as some of those magazine reviews; some of the 9.8s I've seen in the past have been awful.  I stumbled across an old article last night that gave Halo 3 a 9.7!!! I just couldn't go that high I'm afraid.

Just to test the water (or to see if my numbers get a violent reaction): I'd have given Conflict Desert Storm (original Xbox title) a 9.   I thought it was ahead of its time and immense fun to play. 

A more recent example would be a 6 for Trials HD (XBLA).  It would only get 6 for me because I felt the hard and extreme courses were, for the large part, completely inaccessable.  I enjoyed the skills games and early tracks however, and love the fact that your friends appear as time / split-time or distance markers on each track, which just forces you to keep revving away until you get your nose in front of the opposition. 

I haven't played Conflict Desert Storm and only played the demo of Trials XD.

How much would you rate Halo 3 and why?

I'm sorry guys but Halo 3 would only get a 5 from me. I loved Halo but the franchise seems to have become tired.  I couldn't get into the multiplayer and just felt I'd seen it all before with the campaign.  I stopped playing after getting lost in some cave and never felt the urge to go back to it.  It's odd because I still see people in my friends list playing it but it just didn't grip me I'm afraid.  I'm wondering if the original was just too good and that's what puts me off the sequels, but that hasn't happened to me with the Call of Duty series. 

A 5 is OK since 5=Average.

For me it's 8 = in rough lines: The MatchMaking infrastructure, Forge, 1 gold account + 3 guests = all playing together simultaneously on the same screen in official matches, MetaGame with the Skulls, Community, photos and videos editing is close to exceptional = 8 to 9. The Campaign that includes among others Co-op, decent AI, variety of guns, enemies and vehicles is 7 to 8.

Back then i was playing this instead of COD4 because of the people i had on my Friends List and because of the 4pax split screen online capability.

Overall it's and was an 8 for me.