I think that merely seeing a rating without any reasoning behind it is, in itself, just about one of the most useless things ever.
Oh sure, it looks useful on the surface. But let's say that all the people actually rate a game as they felt like it deserved (i.e. a mythical world without any fanboyism and hatred garbage... Man, I'd love this world. But I digress). That still tells me zit and squat about a game, other than that other people like it (or not). It really doesn't say anything beyond that, and that isn't a whole lot to be said.
For one thing, people tend to have a skewed views of ratings, though this is partially thanks to so many gaming magazines being completely unable to rate an average game 5 out of ten instead of 7.5 out of ten. And then some people actually understand that 5 out of ten means average, and two people who liked the game equally much will end up giving it two different ratings.
And the most important question isn't "Do you like this game?" anyway. As any reporter worth his salt should tell you, that's a crappy kind of question. The question should be "What about this game do/don't you like?"
And you don't have to give longwinded answers (like I do) to make an amateur review in any case. Just try to remember that grammar is there for a reason, and you can jot things down to one paragraph if you want to. Because guess what, you're not paid for doing it, so you don't have to be as deep in your analysis as they do. As long as you're putting it up here, it's safe to assume that people have read the official GR review anyway, which always includes an overview of what the game is about. So you can simply say which of those parts you liked or didn't like. That should only take a few minutes to write and proofread.
So, just answer the correct question, and leave the long-winded stuff to the ones getting paid, and silly fools like me who's simply got a writing itch.
