But reviewers already take off points for how functional a game is. Frame rate issues, etc. If they didn't take off for glitches, or that, sure that rating system would work. At this point, it's already a part of the system so you have to include a section of the score that is completely unplayable in large chunks (probably 0-2.5 or 3 makes the most sense on a 10 scale), and then 4, 5, 6 being average ish and then 8, 9, 10 being varying degrees of great. Keep in mind that even this scale doesn't work for large chunks of time since it would only be average relative to the games out now and would be irrelevant in 10 years or whatever, but that problem seems like an impossible hurdle to overcome.
Anyways, my point is that he (and other reviewers) decide to take off points for miniscule things and then decide to still rate games really bad if they just don't like it, regardless of functionality which just makes no sense. Now, again, if he didn't take points off at all for camera, fps, etc issues, then he is consistent at least with himself, but I'm not a fan of that at all.